Case for state control of local government

By Frank Ojeme Anyasi

 

 

At independence, Nigeria was widely thought to be one of Africa’s best prospects for democratic government. The hope for vibrant democracy in the country rested upon some objective characteristics of the political system such as, in particular, the federal structure of government, which was understood to imply acceptance of power sharing between the central government and the federating units as a fundamental principle, as well as the vitality and independence of the judiciary and legislature. The reality was, of course, vastly different from that hope.

The problem with Nigerian federalism started during the colonial rule. This was because the formation of the Nigerian federalism is unique in that, while other federations are aggregative of hitherto independent ethnic nationalities, Nigeria achieved federation by desegregation.

Up to 1951, Nigeria was a unitary state and was so administered.   A formal federal system was introduced in 1951 by constitutionally regionalizing the country’s structure, and administration, which recognized a federal government and the regional governments.  However, the constitutional arrangements were such that the powers granted to the centre were so overbearing that the regions felt choked. The 1954 constitution corrected the anomaly by virtually granting autonomy to the regions.  That arrangement was translated into the 1960 and 1963 constitutions.

Due to the vast nature of the country, the presence of the government, whether at the state or federal levels, was not felt by the people. Therefore, in a bid to bring the activities of the government closer to the people, local governments were created to serve as channels through which government’s policies were transmitted to the people.

Moreover, local governments help to bring meaningful development in the rural areas as government closest to the people through effective mobilization of resources. They also exist to preserve the heritage and culture of the local communities. There are over 364 ethnic groups with diverse cultures. These ethnic groups are divided into communities, by carving out local governments from amongst people of the same community, government is preserving such long traditional association of the communities and also foster the interest of the people concerned.

During the colonial era, local government existed as an instrument of control and expropriation with minimal responsibility for the provision of social and welfare services. This is why local government was widely regarded as an agency for maintenance of law and order. It was then normal to make a distinction between the old form of local government which was primarily concerned with maintenance of law and order and the new form. This new form of local administration whereby the political objectives and social welfare services were accorded a high priority was said to be development-oriented.

At independence, two different local government systems emerged in the southern and northern Nigeria, and each system conformed to the ideological orientation of the regional political class in power.

The regional governments were not only placing restrictions on local autonomy, they were also by-passing the local authorities. The local governments were, accordingly neglected, starved of funds and deprived of the necessary authority to raise adequate funds to initiate development of social activities in their areas of jurisdiction. One consequence is the tendency for population to drift into the cities in search of gainful employment and social amenities, which their local governments were unable to provide. The neglect of the local government areas has caused unbalanced development as more and more public funds were constantly poured into the cities for infrastructural development, at the expense of the Nigerians who live in the villages.

In order to bridge the development gap, the military administration, in 1976 introduced a uniform system of local government administration throughout the country. The philosophical underpinning of the reform lies in the conviction that a strong local government system, with clearly defined responsibilities in a power-sharing relationship with the states is an institutional safeguard against tranny by the state. The reorganization was remarkable for many reasons.  Firstly, it was considered essential to democracy to have a democratic system of local government. Secondly, the reforms were nationwide, which because of the federal structure of government, would have been almost impossible of achievement, but for the existence of a military government. Consequently, the reforms resulted in the establishment of 774 local governments with substantial uniformity in the country’s system of local government administration. In the event, the reforms also marked the end of era during which, in strict conformity, with the constitutional division of powers, the states had autonomy in reorganizing their local government systems. Thirdly, local government as a separate level of government was drawn into federal inter-governmental relations as third tier of government through the statutory grants made to the councils.

When the military handed over power in 1979, there were constitutional provisions guaranteeing the essentials of the 1976 reforms. Section 7(1) of the 1979 Constitution states that ‘the system of local government by democratically elected councils is, under this Constitution, guaranteed, and accordingly, the government of every state shall ensure their existence under a law, which provides for the establishment, structure, composition and finance, and functions of such councils’. This issue was further compounded by the fact that first schedule Part 1 of the 1999 constitution as amended, which defines the area of each state, also names such existing local governments.  This was read to mean that the local government councils could not be subdivided except that schedule to the constitution was amended. This is considered as an invasion of the state power in a true federal system.

The idea of a uniform local government system is no longer tenable because of dwindling revenue resources. In all the countries practicing the federal system of government, local government administration is under the state control. The Tenth Amendment of United States constitution makes local government a matter of state rather than federal law. The local governments only have sufficient administrative and fiscal autonomy to qualify as separate governments within the state. Unlike the relationship of federalism that exists between the United States government and the states in which power is shared between the two arms of government, municipal governments have no power, except what is granted to them by their sates to the effect. State governments can place whatever restrictions they choose on their municipalities.

In a heterogeneous multi-ethnic, multi-national, multi-religious federation like Nigeria, the federating units which are the states, should be in charge of local government administration to reflect the socio-cultural diversity of the country, as it was envisaged in 1963 Constitution.  A situation where the local government shares power with the federal and state government is analogous to unitary system of government and should be discouraged.

Accordingly, the constitution should be amended to allow states to create their own local governments based on need, peculiar circumstances and resource availability. Adequate legal regulatory framework should be put in place to ensure that the state governments do not choke them. The local governments do not need to be uniform to perform well; their uniqueness should be sustained in line with federal system of government. After all, the beauty of a garden is the diversity of the flowers. The financial dependence of the states and local governments on the centre’s mercy makes them meek and weak, and adds to their misery. Also it poses threat to the smooth functioning of federal spirit across the country.