Editor, Politics/Features, EMEKA ALEX DURU, writes that recommendation by confab committee for scrapping of local governments will exert further pressure on the already endangered council system
It is doubtful if the framers of 1979 Constitution, which provided the legal plank for the current system of local government administration in the country, had envisaged the likely abuse and manipulative tendencies that would creep into the system in the course of time.
The eggheads, who gave the system form, had rather fashioned the council to be the third leg in the decentralisation of the process of governance. The others were the federal and state governments. With the federal government remotely distant from the electorate, and the state almost overwhelmed by a multitude of functions, the local government was envisioned to relate to and cater for the people at the grassroots.
This, incidentally, is not the case. Reports from the councils rather indicate gross abuse of the system by both the federal and state governments at various times. These abuses manifest in loss of autonomy by the councils as well as the tendency of denying them of funds.
But, perhaps, more than these, some uncertain developments in the last couple of days point to a bleak future for this arm of government. For example, if the recommendation of the Committee on Political Restructuring and Forms of Government at the on-going national conference is anything to go by, the days of the local government administration in the country are numbered.
The committee had, last week, recommended the scrapping of the 774 local councils from the constitution and transfer of their administration to the states.
It specifically recommended that the list of local councils as contained in the First Schedule, Part 1, of the 1999 Constitution be removed and transferred to the states to be covered by a law of the Houses of Assembly. It further gave express authority to the states’ executive to determine the number of councils to operate in their states.
The move, according to the panel, was to strengthen grassroots administration in the country. Part of the grouse those in support of the move have against council administrations is that they have derailed from their original mandate of bringing governance to the people. They are alleged to have failed in such responsibilities as provision of primary health centres, construction of parks and culverts. Some are even known to have defaulted in payment of their staff salaries.
State governors have consequently maintained that since the burden of shouldering the responsibilities of the local governments has practically fallen on them, it does not make sense for the councils to be allowed to exist as separate tier of government.
They argue, also, that it is the states that actually know the needs of the people, including the suitability of creating and managing a local government, especially in terms of cost and potentials. To them, creation and management of local government areas, as it currently stands, amounts to arbitrariness on the part of the federal government.
Pat Nwabunnia, political scientist and public opinion analyst, agrees with the argument that the councils may not have been living up to expectation, suggesting that town unions should, instead, be encouraged to act as avenues for grassroots development.
“I totally agree with the proposal. Town unions or Community Development Associations (CDAs) should be the proper channel for grassroots development,” he stated.
TheNiche, however, learnt that beyond the impression being created by the governors that their aim of appropriating the powers of creating and running the councils is to harness resources and save cost, they are merely seeking wider spheres of influence.
Investigations by TheNiche indicated that apart from governors seeing the councils as platforms for political patronage to their cronies, they find the funds allocated to local governments too attractive to leave.
The governors, TheNiche also was informed, are hardly at ease with the councils enjoying any form of autonomy, a development they consider huge threat to their existence.
This particular consideration is seen as, perhaps, informing why governors have stood against genuine democracy in the local government areas. In Anambra State, for instance, the immediate past Peter Obi administration was known to have carried on without council elections till the last two months of its eight-year tenure, preferring to run the councils with local government transition committees. Anambra was not alone in the charade.
In some states where elections appeared to have been held, there were allegations of manipulation of the exercise to suit the whims of the government. In the December 10, 2011 Enugu State council poll, for example, critics swore that what happened could pass for anything but an election.
The exercise, it was gathered, was marked by apathy on the part of the electorate, while there was also no semblance of real contest.
Similar act of indifference was exhibited by Lagos electorate in the council poll in the state, earlier in October. In fact, reports had then indicated that voter turnout was less than 20 per cent. They were said to have shunned the exercise because the councils had failed in meeting their aspirations.
Even at that, some had argued that the perceived failure by the local government areas might have been orchestrated by the state governments by starving them of funds and autonomy.
National vice president of Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE), Lucky Gospel Ewa, who has been kicking against the confab committee’s recommendation on the councils, particularly sees the clamour of the state governments to have control over local councils as being driven by illusionary rivalry of executive powers being alleged on the part of council chairmen. He, thus, described the recommendation as unnecessary.
Ewa’s position finds support in Dr. Jamiu Oluwatoki, Senior Lecturer in History and International Studies, Lagos State University (LASU), Ojo, who argues that rather than scrapping the councils, they could be enhanced and made more accountable.
“I don’t agree. How close to the grassroots are the states? We can improve on governance at the local government level; we can make them more accountable. But to scrap them and merge their functions with the state is like scrapping the state and merging its functions with those of the federal government. Let the local government areas be. Ensure good governance at every tier of government,” Oluwatoki, former LASU chapter chairman of Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), stressed.
Ikenna Odife, equally a Senior Lecturer, Department of History and International Studies, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, argues in similar vein. He said the perceived rot in the councils is a reflection of the regime of corruption in the land. His words: “Scrapping the local governments is not the solution. All that is needed is to strengthen the democratic institutions that will guarantee council autonomy and make the system transparent.”
For Ewa, transfer of the responsibility of local councils to the state government would return local councils to the pre-1976 era and also that of 1979 to 1983 with its attendant implications.
Evolution of LG system
Local government administration, as it currently operates, is a product of the 1976 local government reforms. It was a fall-out of the then Generals Olusegun Obasanjo/Shehu Yar’Adua political transition agenda, aimed at transferring power to an elected civilian government in 1979.
Before 1978, council administration had existed, but in different guises. There had, for instance, been county councils, municipal councils, divisions or native authorities, depending on time and areas of operation.
In the North, before and shortly after Independence, native authorities and emirate councils carried out the functions of local governments. In the South, county councils or municipal councils were largely in vogue. Though various forms of elections were conducted to choose some members of the councils, many of them were chosen by appointment or by consensus by their respective constituencies. Chairmen of the councils were appointed by the government.
Members of the local governments assisted the government in collection of taxes or rates and other levies. They were also used in propagating the principles of governance to the people. For these reasons, traditional rulers and chiefs were co-opted in the councils. To encourage and reward them, they were allowed to keep a certain percentage of the revenue collected. With time, however, corruption crept into the system. Council members not only appropriated the bulk of the revenue collected; they began to see themselves as tin gods. They became draconian, ordering the arrest and detention of perceived opponents on flimsy excuses.
Along the line, various forms of reforms were initiated and some were actually implemented, to make the councils yield to the demands of the day.
A system derailed
With the incursion of the military into the nation’s politics in 1966, there was a heavy set-back in the evolution of the councils. Though some miniature forms and structures of the system were tolerated, members were appointed and supervised outright by the state military administrators. Their tenure also depended on the mood of the governor.
Obasanjo-Yar’Adua to the rescue
That was the prevailing situation until 1976 when the Obasanjo-led military regime made case for the local councils to become a distinct tier of government.
Consequently, elections were held in the councils on non-party basis. On account of its success, the exercise was received all over the country with huge ululation. That formed the nucleus of what could be termed the modern system of local government administration. The effort was in itself the high point of local government reform.
The Constituent Assembly and the Constitution Drafting Committee between 1975 and 1978 debated the intention of the reform in details.
Both efforts culminated in the inherent status in financing and functions of the local government as contained in the 1979 Constitution.
In fact, Section 7(2) of the 1979 Constitution states that “the system of the local government by democratically-elected local government councils is, under this constitution, granted; and accordingly, the government of every state shall ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils”.
Implicit in the 1976 reform was the desire to involve local citizens in the management of local affairs. There was also the need to ensure that basic needs of local citizens were speedily and efficiently met. It also provided a framework for effective mobilisation of human and material resources at the local level.
Perhaps, not oblivious of the likely abuse of the spirit of the reform, it was fashioned in such a manner that the councils would have legal personality. Thus, they could sue or be sued.
They were equally imbued with specific powers with which to act. And they were envisaged to enjoy substantial autonomy, especially in financial and staff matters, subject to limited control from the central government. With the government accepting the reforms, it created additional councils.
Democracy in the councils
In December of that year (1976), elections were held in the reformed councils on non-party basis. Similar exercise of electing council officials at specific time was to have been continued by the succeeding President Shehu Shagari civilian administration.
A system mismanaged
Ironically, the Shagari civilian administration, which many had looked up to for consolidation of the gains of the 1976 council reforms, failed to conduct elections into the local councils.
In addition, the administration was accused of starving the councils of funds. This gravely impacted on their ability to carry out their constitutional functions. The government, also, for political reasons, created what later were regarded as “mushroom councils”, that were quite unable to sustain themselves. The councils thus depended heavily on the state governments for sustenance. The local governments were also frequently dissolved on flimsy excuses. Simply put, the era of politicisation of local governments has started.
Autocracy in the councils
By December 31, 1983, the civilian government was sacked by the General Muhammadu Buhari military junta. The regime, shunning pretensions of any democratic credentials, went on with appointing sole administrators for the councils. It, however, abolished the councils created by the previous administration. Significant drawback of the sole administrator arrangement was that it was found lacking in transparency and accountability.
Revisiting the 1976 reforms
Following the ouster of the regime by another group of coup-plotters led by General Ibrahim Babangida, an amended reform of the 1976 version was brought to bear on the councils.
Initially, the chairmen and other principal officers of the councils were appointed. But by Decree No. 3 of 1991, it became mandatory for the council chairmen, vice chairmen, speakers of the councils and their councillors to be elected.
Babangida further upped the statutory allocation of the councils to 20 per cent and directed that such funds should go directly to the councils as against the situation of channelling them through the states. The regime created additional councils, thus bringing the number to 589.
The apparent new lease of life infused into the local government system by the Babangida regime suffered a major setback with the succeeding General Sani Abacha administration. The government jettisoned the idea of electing council officials and rather opted for caretaker committees as the supervising bodies for the councils. It, however, gave the country its current 774 local government structure.
Politicking with the councils
It was under the transition government of General Abdulsalami Abubakar that elections were again held on party basis to the local government areas. The officials were elected in December 1998 but were sworn in, May 1999, clearly six months after. They were initially billed to stay for three years. But before their term elapsed in 2002, they had succeeded in getting the National Assembly to enact a law extending their tenure by one year. There was what many read as the unseen hands of the presidency in the entire affair.
The suspicion was that the then President Olusegun Obasanjo, obviously uncomfortable with the attitude of some of the governors, had angled towards using the council officials, who would play significant role during the various party congresses, to get rid of perceived recalcitrant governors. This allegation was not clinically proved. But whatever was the case, the governors did not want to take chances. They needed re-election as did the president. And they needed the councils to be firmly under their control, by being allowed to appoint cronies who would be loyal, if not subservient, to them. Thus, they headed for the Supreme Court, challenging the elongation of the council tenure by the National Assembly.
The governors obtained judgment in their favour, when the Supreme Court ruled on the matter on March 28, 2002.
Return of caretaker committees
In what seemed to be a stop-gap, however, they floated the idea of appointing transition committees to oversee the affairs of the councils. The trend has sadly been maintained in some states.
But with the recommendation of the confab committee, the future of the councils remains uncertain.