|
This paper undertook a historical overview of the
development of the local government system in Nigeria,
especially from 1950, when Nigeria became a federal unit
(that is North, West and East). It was discovered that before
1976 when a unified local government system was adopted
throughout the country, each of the federating unit, later
state, operated the type of local government system that was
unique to their political needs, but the advent of military
regime with its centralised form of government affected this
former arrangement. But, with the re-emergence of civilian
regime in 1979, the former arrangement was adopted. Thus,
the 1979, 1989 and 1999 Constitutions recognised the local
government as a third tier of government, subject to the
control of State governments. The abuse of these provisions
in the Constitutions, especially by the State government, has
brought to the fore-front the question of local government
autonomy. Therefore, the only option is a review of the
Constitution. Provisions should be put in place to check the
loopholes that give room for such abuses by the State
governments.
|
|
Keywords: Autonomy, decentralisation, devolution, federal
systems, local government, rural development.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
98
|
 INTRODUCTION |
|
Globally, various
strategies and approaches have been
adopted or used by government for the purpose of good governance,
and in their efforts at distributing the state resources to reach
the
people at the grassroots. However, there has not been congruence
or general agreement on which strategy is the best, especially
in
the administration of the rural areas.
Decentralisation constitutes
the basic and principle basis
for the establishment of Local government. A renowned
International scholar of Local Government, Manhood as quoted
in Dalhatu (2006) that "too much concentration of political
and
economic power at one level would ultimately and inevitably lead
to what he referred to as managerial constipation". According
to
him, the basis of Local government is inextricably woven around
the principle of decentralization. Local government is the product
of decentralised administration. He further defined decentralisation
as:
an arrangement by which the management of the
public affairs of
a country is shared by the central/
state/province and
local government in a manner
that the Local government
is given reasonable scope
to raise funds and
to use its resources to provide a
range of socio-economic
services and establish
programmes to enhance
the welfare of those resident
in its area of authority.
Politically, decentralisation involves the transfer of authority
on a geographical basis and is inform of de-concentration or
devolution. Decentralisation by devolution is preferred in most
nations - state in order to promote rapid development of the country,
this manifests itself in the establishment of local government.
Most
nation-states avoid centralisation because it inhibits the active
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
99
|
 political
participation of the citizens in the running of their own
affairs, and could be by implementation; results in a situation
whereby despotism is extolled (Toyin In Omale, 2005). This
precisely explains why most countries of the world prefer to
decentralise their administration by devolution.
It could be argued
that centralisation of the government
though may appear to strengthen its power and grip over the people
effectively; it may as well weaken the ability to use this power
and
also completely erode the basis of its legitimacy. The power at
the
centre is already over-burdened by so many problems of localities.
Hardly could any political issue, irrespective of its frivolities,
be
resolved without reference to the power at the centre. Unnecessary
meddling in or handling of these problems of local concerns by
the national government may prevent it from dealing adequately
with these problems. As such, it is imperative for an appropriate
mechanism for dispersal and conservation of political power,
(Dalhatu, 2006).
The above assertion
brought to the fore-front the reason
for decentralisation and on this basis, the justification for the
existence of local government. As asserted by Orewa and Adewumi
(1992), the confusion had been on the form of decentralisation
in
which the local government system in Nigeria was based. Is it
decentralisation by de-concentration or decentralisation by
devolution? This issue is tenser when it comes to the issue of
local
government autonomy in Nigeria. Therefore, this paper examines
the issue of Local government autonomy in Nigeria from a
historical perspective. This is with a view to understanding the
intricacies of the fundamental problem of local government
autonomy in Nigeria. The paper will also examine some of the
inherent factors inhibiting local government autonomy in Nigeria.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
100
|
 THE HISTORY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DEVELOPMENT
IN NIGERIA
Local Government is literarily seen as the government at
the local level. Some scholars (Olowu 1988, Adeyeye, 2000) have
distinguished local government depending on the political
arrangement of the nation, i.e. unitary or federal system. Adeyeye
(2000) defines local government in the unitary state as "non-
sovereign community possessing the legal right but which are
essentially administrative agents of the central government".
On
the other hand, the United Nations Office for Public Administration
sees Local Government as:
A political subdivision of a nation (in a federal
system) state, which
is constituted by law and has
substantial control
of local affairs including the
powers to impose taxes
or to exact labour for
prescribed purposes.
The governing body of such
an entity is elected.
Similarly, the Guideline for Local Government Reform
(FGN, 1976) defines local government as:
Government at local level exercised through
representative councils
established by law to exercise
specific powers defined
areas. These powers should
give the council substantial
control over local affairs
as well as the staff
and institutional and financial
power to initiate
and direct the provision of services
and to determine and
implement projects so as to
complement the activities
of the state and federal
government in their
areas, and to ensure, through
devolution of functions
to these councils and through
the active participation
of the people and their
traditional institutes
, that local initiative and
responses to local
head and conditions are
maximised.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
101
|
|
The
implications of the above definitions are in four dimensions,
these include:
1.Local government must be a legal entity distinct from the
state and federal
government.
2.Local government must be administered by democratically
elected officials.
3.Local government must have specific powers to perform a
range of functions
assigned it by law.
4.Local government must enjoy substantial autonomy to
perform array of
functions, plan, formulate and execute its
own policies, programmes
and projects, and its own rules
and regulations as
deemed for its local needs. This autonomy
includes power to
control its finance, recruit and discipline
its staff.
Based on these definitions, and their implications, could it be
said
that the local government system in Nigerian is autonomous? This
paper is aimed at addressing this fundamental question.
The history of local
government system in Nigeria could
be traced back to the pre-colonial period when powerful empires
and kingdoms existed in Nigeria, such as; Oyo Empire, Borno
Empire, Sokoto Empire, Jukun Kingdom, Nupe Kingdom, and Igala
Kingdoms, among others. These empires and kingdoms had other
smaller districts, wards, towns and villages which were subjected
to them. The subordinate governments operated their own unique
administration suitable for their cultural and religious needs
and
aspirations. The bulk of the administrative activities of these
kingdoms and empires took place at these levels. This form of
administration could be referred to as Local government.
The advent of British
colonial administration in Nigeria
brought about a change in local government administration in which
the method of leadership changed from the traditional to the British
colonial government. The colonial administration of local
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
102
|
|
government
that was established was based on Indirect Rule system.
This required that administration at the local level should be
carried
out through the existing traditional rulers and institutions. In
the
areas where there were no existing traditional rulers, and/or
institutions, like in the South East, new ones were created. This
led to the establishment of Native Authority in its most rudimental
forms. The Native Authority Ordinance promulgated in 1910 which
gave impetus to the system of indirect rule and recognised the
traditional rulers as Sole Authority. The main function of the
traditional ruler was to maintain law and order.
The Indirect rule
system through the traditional rulers,
especially the recognition of traditional rulers as Sole Authority
met with a strong resistance by the people in the southern part
of
Nigeria. In the South-west where there were existing traditional
institutions, the traditional rulers were not recognised as absolute
rulers. In the South East, there were no existing traditional
institutions. The traditional system in the East was more of
republican-consensus.
In the Northern part
of the country, especially in the Muslim
dominated areas, the Indirect Rule system was highly accepted
due to their existing traditional system which recognised the
monarch (Emir) as the absolute Sole Authority. These resistance
and the various riots and other political disturbances that followed,
necessitated the various reforms in the 1930s and the 1940s which
culminated in the establishment of Chief-in-Council in place of
Sole Native Authority. The adoption of a Federal System of
government in 1950 marked another stage of Local government
development in Nigeria. The composition of the country into three
regions impacted on the Local government system. Each region
decided to adopt its own type or form of local government system.
The regional systems of local government, until the collapse of
the first republic in 1966, so prevailed with various refinements.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
103
|
|
The Military takeover of government according
to Gboyega
(2001) has severe repercussion for local government system which
was radically changed to accommodate not only the hierarchical
military command structure, but also to redress the abuses that
the
system had been subjected to. The restructuring was also meant
to
meet the aspirations of the people for greater political participation
and empowerment in local government area. Despite the imposition
of military rule and command structure, the regions and their
successor, states, still retained control over local government
policy-
making and were thus able to carry out reforms that were deemed
appropriate to their circumstances. The period of military rule
from
1966 to 1975, therefore witnessed extensive experimentation with
different theories and patterns of local government with quite
mixed
results (Gboyega, 2001).
The 1976 Local Government
Reform marked a turning point
in the historical development of local government administration
in Nigeria. As asserted by (Ugwu, 2001), the reform "form
a
watershed in the evolution of local government development and
Administration in Nigeria". The 1976 Reform marked the end
of
sound experiment or model and gave way to a common national
local government system in Nigeria.
The major thrust
of the reform in the word of Orewa and
Adewumi (1983) "is to entrust political responsibility to
where it
is most crucial and beneficial, that is to the people". It
also aimed
at social and development of and the effective delivery of the
respective local population scattered all over the country".
Unlike
previous reforms which were highly restricted in scope and range,
the 1976 reform followed extensive consultations at all the levels
of the federating units and among other stakeholders and experts.
The reform also conceptualised local government as the third tier
of government operating with a common institutional framework
with defined functions and responsibilities. As a third tier of
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
104
|
|
government,
local government gets its statutory share of allocation
direct from the Federation account and it is empowered to exercise
control over its spending. In addition, the reform provided for
a
democratically elected local government councils. All the
provisions of the 1976 Reform were entrenched in the 1979
Constitution which anchored in the Second Republic. However,
the1976 Reform invariably gave the Federal Government more
domineering role. As Gboyega (2001) rightly observes; "the
consequences of Federal intervention and imposition of a common
system of local government have been mixed ---- from a benign
role that clearly retained State dominance of Local government
policy-making, the federal role has gradually widened to the point
where the Federal Government can initiate local government Policy
reform".
The Second Republic
was a turbulent period in the history
of local government administration. It was a period in which to
put to practice the provision of the 1976 Local Government Reform
as contained in the 1979 Constitution. It was a testing period
in
which the State and the Federal Government contested the control
of Local Government Policy with each other. Attempts by the State
to re-establish their primacy in local government policy-making
not only created conflict with the Federal Government, but also
weakened the power of the local government.
The States, especially,
abused some provisions of the 1979
Constitution to suit their selfish desires. State governments
neglected or voided aspects of the 1976 Reforms that they were
displeased with and distorted those that were merely inconvenient.
For instance, throughout the Second Republic (1979-1983), no
election was held into the Local Government Councils, only Sole
Administrators were appointed. This was at variance with the 1976
Reforms and 1979 Constitution, especially (Section 7) which
provides for a democratic elected Local Government Council
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
105
|
|
throughout
the federation. Such behaviour painted the State as
villains and provoked demands for greater federal role in local
government Policy-making (Gboyega, 2001).
The re-emergence
of the military into the political scene
brought about a shift of Local government control from the State
to the Federal government. The Babangida administration (1984-
1993) initiated some reforms aimed at ensuring local government
autonomy. Some of the reforms included the abolition of the
Ministry of Local Government, establishment of executive and
legislative arms in Local Councils, and direct allocation to Local
government without passing through the State government. The
statutory allocation of the Local government was also increased
from 15 percent to 20 percent in 1992.
There was that agreement
among scholars, (Gboyega, 2001,
Igbuzor, 2003) that the reforms of this period are aimed at a
radical transformation of the status of local government in a
federal system. Thus, the Federal government's scheme of
decentralisation was deliberately and consciously focused in
transferring greater powers and resources to local governments
rather than to state governments. Through the reforms at this period,
it could be said that a greater measure of devolution was made
at
the expense of the state. This however, provoked negative reactions
from the state and suspicion about federal motives in promoting
the reforms. The Abacha Administration (1993-1996) however,
revised some of the reforms.
The exit of the
military and the enthronement of the
democratic government in 1999 brought to the fore, again, the
problem of local government autonomy. The provisions regarding
local government administration in the 1999 Constitution created
a lot of confusion. The 1999 constitution by its provisions in
section
7 and 8 recognise the local government as a third tier of government
and also guarantee it, but gives the state the autonomy to lord
over
the local government.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
106
|
|
Section 7 reads jointly with Section 8 provides
that there shall be:
The system of local government by democratically elected councils
(which) is by this Constitution guaranteed and accordingly, the
government of every State shall, subject to section 8 of this
Constitution…. ensure their existence under a law which provides
for the establishment; structure, composition, finance and functions
of such councils.
The implication of
these provisions is that local government
cannot exercise the functions assigned to it in section 1 schedule
4
of the Constitution until the State House of Assembly had passed
a
law. The same Fourth Schedule of the Constitution also provides
for "the functions of the Local government Council to also
include
participation of such Council in government of a state as in respect
of the following matters, education, agricultural materials
resources, healthcare and any other function assigned to it by
the
State House of Assembly.
Another area of confusion
is in terms of electing the Local
government Council and their tenure. 2nd section 7(6) of the 1999
Constitution provides for a democratically elected Local
government Council. While the Constitution provides for four year
tenure for Federal and State political office holders, it was silent
on the tenure of the Local government political office holders.
The Constitution in the concurrent legislative list gives the National
Assembly the power to make laws "with respect to the registration
of voters and the procedures regulating election to a Local
Government Council. The same Constitution gave the powers to
the State House of Assembly to make "laws with respect of
election
into a Local Government Council.
For instance, in
preparation for the Fourth Republic in 1999,
local government elections were held on 5th December, 1998. The
elected officers however did not assume office until six months
later in May, 1999. The electoral law under which the local
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
107
|
|
government
officials were elected (Basic Constitutional and
transitional provisions Decree No. 36 of 1998) provides for tenure
of three years. The local government officials later went to the
Supreme Court to ask for the increase of the tenure to four years.
In collaboration with National Assembly, the Supreme Court
however ruled that the National Assembly did not have the power
to increase or alter the tenure of elected officers of local
government.
At the expiration
of the three years which supposed to end
in May, 2002, the State Governments appointed Caretaker
Committees for all the Local Government Councils in their states
to serve until another date of election was agreed upon.
Subsequently, the election did not take place as and when due as
it
was postponed twice due to the tussle between the State
Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) and the Independent
Electoral Commission.
Although SIEC was
empowered by the Constitution to
conduct local government election, the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) has the responsibility of updating
the voters register and making same available to SEIC. But when
SEIC fixed May, 18, 2002 for election into the Local government
Councils, INEC failed to produce and make voters register available
to them. Thus, the election had to be postponed. Another date was
fixed for December, 2002, but due to the registration of more
political parties, the election was postponed to 21, June, 2003.
A
few days to the date of election, 17 June, 2003, the forum of local
government met and pushed for Constitution amendment to
empower State Governors to appoint Council Chairmen and
Councillors.
A day after, the
Governors met with the President at the
Council of State meeting where a decision was reached to set up
a
Technical Committee on the review of the structure of the Local
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
108
|
|
government
Councils in Nigeria. The Committee was chaired by
the late Etsu Nupe, Alhaji Umaru Sanda Ndayako. The report was
submitted in 2006 however, election into the Local government
Council however take place in 2007. It could be adduced that the
controversy over election into local government was created by
the 1999 Constitution. The confusion created by the 1999
Constitution became a subject of controversy between the Federal
and State governments on one hand, and the National Assembly
and State Houses of Assemblies on the other.
Another dimension
of the confusion created by the 1999
Constitution which affects Local government autonomy was the
provision that empowers the State to determine and create new
Local Government Areas. Section 8 (13) provides the modalities
for the creation of new Local government Areas and indeed vests
the power to do so on various State Houses of Assembly. Section
8(6) of the Constitution however empowers the members of the
National Assembly to ratify them. This provision also brought about
the tussle for the control of local government administration
between the States and the Federal government.
Many States (for
example, Kogi, Lagos, Niger, and Oyo
etc) created more Local Government Areas in line with the
modalities stipulated in the constitution, but the Federal
Government refused to recognise them. A state like Lagos, decided
to recognise and fund the new Local Government Areas it created.
This generated into a rift between Lagos State and the Federal
government in which the Federal Government stopped the statutory
allocations for the State.
Lagos State went to the Supreme Court to demand for justice. The
Supreme Court ruled that "States have the power to create
new
Local Government Areas as far as the modalities for its creation
as
stipulated in the Constitution are followed". It also ruled
that the
Lagos State Local government statutory allocations being withheld
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
109
|
|
by
the Federal Government was illegal and unconstitutional.
Despite the ruling, it took another 12 months for the Federal
Government to release the withheld allocations.
Nwabueze (1983) in
Ugwu (2003), had observed that the
Constitutional power to establish local government, define its
structure, composition and functions, belong to the State
governments. To them, as far as it is so, the local government
is a
mere State agency or a creation of the State government. It would
therefore be erroneous to see it as an independent third tier of
government. As such, the issue of autonomy of local government
becomes a myth and not a reality.
Another area of Local
government autonomy has to do with
the area of finance. The Constitution empowers the State to
scrutinise and approve Local government budgets, and expenditure
through the State House of Assembly, States here exercise arbitrary
and undue control over Local government finance through the
establishment of the State Local government Joint Account. The
issue of State Local government Joint Account has been a thorny
issue in Local government State relationship in the Fourth Republic.
This situation also brought to the fore the question of Local
government autonomy. The experience with many Local
government areas was that their states starve them of the statutory
grant thus denying them of rendering essential services as required.
As asserted by Dalhatu
(2006) "the issue of autonomy has
to do with the Local government, beyond mere constitutional
provision that would be organised as the third tier of government,
with power to regulate, to spend and powers to provide services".
But experience and empirical evidences have shown that financial
autonomy of local government is non-existent in Nigeria. The
former president, Olusegun Obasanjo in a meeting he had with the
774 Local governments Council Chairmen in Nigeria, broadcasted
live on Radio and NTA, acknowledged the thwarting of local
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
110
|
|
government
revenue by some State governments. He promised that
the then proposed Technical Committee will look into the matter
(Radio Nigeria, 2004). Through the Local Government State Joint
Account, some States apart from arbitrary deduction also forced
the local government to embark on some ridiculous projects that
are not in congruence with the needs of the local people under
the
pretext of ensuring uniformity in development.
|
|
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
|
|
In conclusion, the
provisions in the Constitution that dictate
the power and financial relationship between the various tiers
of
government, especially the State and the local government are
deliberate. They are made to serve as checks and balances; and
ensure transparency and accountability, among others. But the way
some sates go about it, is rather more of punitive rather than
corrective measure. For instance, Lagos State was one of the States
in which these provisions had not been arbitrarily used by the
state
government. Lagos State and its Local Government Councils work
like partners in progress rather than servant/master relationship.
It is therefore obvious,
that, for any meaningful development
to take place at the local level, the States need to recognise
the
Local government as partners in progress. That is partners in
enhancing sustainable rural development through the provision of
essential services to improve the Standard of living of the rural
populace. On local government election, the election into Local
government Council should be held a week before State Governors
election. If possible, election into State House of Assembly and
Local Government Council should be held the same day.
The tenure of the
Local government Chairmen/Councillor
should be the same with other political office holders in the State
and Federal level. On Local government creation, although the
process of Local government creation has been liberalised as 2/3
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
111
|
|
of
the population of intended area or community must agree to the
creation by consensus. The intended local government should be
made to rely on its internally generated revenue for a period of
four years as a condition for its creation. Thus, any intended
local
government Council that is able to sustain itself without any support
from the Federation Account for the period of four years can be
allowed. This condition should also apply to State creation.
This paper also suggested
that 70% of the statutory
allocation to the Local government should be the responsibility
of
the State, and 30% from the Federal government. This will reduce
the quest by the State to want to 'commando' the local government
statutory allocation or exert excessive control on it. It would
also
check the quest for creation of more Local Government Areas by
the State government. If possible, the statutory allocation to
Local
government should be determined by certain percentage of what
was internally generated in the area. The allocations could as
well
be tier to programmes and projects to be executed by the Local
government Council.
The role of the Federal
Government should be that of
supervision and monitoring of local government projects and
programmes in order to maintain standard. It should also be that
of ensuring prudence and accountability, and effective Service
delivery. With these in place, Local government autonomy will be
guaranteed and it will be able to effectively play its role as
a catalyst
for Sustainable Rural Development.
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
Adeyeye M. (2005). The Dynamics
of administration Reform: An
Analysis of Nigerian
Local Government. Being Paper
Presented at the Mid.
Term International Conference
organised by IPSA Rc
4 in Association with the Nnamdi
Azikiwe University,
Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria and
Centre for Democratic
Governance (AFRIGOV) Abuja.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
112
|
|
Dalhatu,
S. (2006). Essays on Local Government Administration:
Fostering Better Service
Delivery, Record Keeping,
Accountability and
Empowerment at the Local Government
Kano: Benchmark Publishers
Federal Government of Nigeria (1976). Constitution of Federal
Republic of Nigeria.
Lagos: Federal Government Press.
Federal Government of Nigeria (1979). Constitution of Federal
Republic of Nigeria.
Lagos: Federal Government Press
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1979). Guidelines for Local
Government Reforms.
Kaduna: Government Printers
Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN). State of the
Nation. A Network Service
Programme broadcasted on 5,
January, 2004 at 7
pm.
Gboyega, A. (2001). Local
Autonomy in Federal politics: The
Nigerian Local Government
System in Historical
Perspective",
Being a paper presented at an International
Conference on New Directions"
Federalism in African,
Abuja Nigeria.
Igbuzor, O. (2003). Local
Government Reform and Constitutional
Review in Nigeria"
Lagos: Centre for Democracy and
Development (CDD).
Olowu, D. (1988). African
Local Government as Instrument of
Economic and Social
Development" Netherlands: The
International Union
of Local Authorities
Omale, I. (2005). New Perspectives
in Public Sector Management
in Nigeria, Ankpa:
Ultimate publishers.
Orewa, G. O. and Adewumi, J. B. (1992). Local Government in
Nigeria: The Changing
Scene: Vol. II, Benin City: Ethiope
Publishing Corporation.
Ugwu, S.C. (2001). Issues
in Local Government and Urban
Administration in Nigeria,
Enugu: Academic Publishing
Company.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
113
|
|
This paper undertook a historical overview of the
development of the local government system in Nigeria,
especially from 1950, when Nigeria became a federal unit
(that is North, West and East). It was discovered that before
1976 when a unified local government system was adopted
throughout the country, each of the federating unit, later
state, operated the type of local government system that was
unique to their political needs, but the advent of military
regime with its centralised form of government affected this
former arrangement. But, with the re-emergence of civilian
regime in 1979, the former arrangement was adopted. Thus,
the 1979, 1989 and 1999 Constitutions recognised the local
government as a third tier of government, subject to the
control of State governments. The abuse of these provisions
in the Constitutions, especially by the State government, has
brought to the fore-front the question of local government
autonomy. Therefore, the only option is a review of the
Constitution. Provisions should be put in place to check the
loopholes that give room for such abuses by the State
governments.
|
|
Keywords: Autonomy, decentralisation, devolution, federal
systems, local government, rural development.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
98
|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|
Globally, various
strategies and approaches have been
adopted or used by government for the purpose of good governance,
and in their efforts at distributing the state resources to reach
the
people at the grassroots. However, there has not been congruence
or general agreement on which strategy is the best, especially
in
the administration of the rural areas.
Decentralisation constitutes
the basic and principle basis
for the establishment of Local government. A renowned
International scholar of Local Government, Manhood as quoted
in Dalhatu (2006) that "too much concentration of political
and
economic power at one level would ultimately and inevitably lead
to what he referred to as managerial constipation". According
to
him, the basis of Local government is inextricably woven around
the principle of decentralization. Local government is the product
of decentralised administration. He further defined decentralisation
as:
an arrangement by which the management of the
public affairs of
a country is shared by the central/
state/province and
local government in a manner
that the Local government
is given reasonable scope
to raise funds and
to use its resources to provide a
range of socio-economic
services and establish
programmes to enhance
the welfare of those resident
in its area of authority.
Politically, decentralisation involves the transfer of authority
on a geographical basis and is inform of de-concentration or
devolution. Decentralisation by devolution is preferred in most
nations - state in order to promote rapid development of the country,
this manifests itself in the establishment of local government.
Most
nation-states avoid centralisation because it inhibits the active
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
99
|
|
political
participation of the citizens in the running of their own
affairs, and could be by implementation; results in a situation
whereby despotism is extolled (Toyin In Omale, 2005). This
precisely explains why most countries of the world prefer to
decentralise their administration by devolution.
It could be argued
that centralisation of the government
though may appear to strengthen its power and grip over the people
effectively; it may as well weaken the ability to use this power
and
also completely erode the basis of its legitimacy. The power at
the
centre is already over-burdened by so many problems of localities.
Hardly could any political issue, irrespective of its frivolities,
be
resolved without reference to the power at the centre. Unnecessary
meddling in or handling of these problems of local concerns by
the national government may prevent it from dealing adequately
with these problems. As such, it is imperative for an appropriate
mechanism for dispersal and conservation of political power,
(Dalhatu, 2006).
The above assertion
brought to the fore-front the reason
for decentralisation and on this basis, the justification for the
existence of local government. As asserted by Orewa and Adewumi
(1992), the confusion had been on the form of decentralisation
in
which the local government system in Nigeria was based. Is it
decentralisation by de-concentration or decentralisation by
devolution? This issue is tenser when it comes to the issue of
local
government autonomy in Nigeria. Therefore, this paper examines
the issue of Local government autonomy in Nigeria from a
historical perspective. This is with a view to understanding the
intricacies of the fundamental problem of local government
autonomy in Nigeria. The paper will also examine some of the
inherent factors inhibiting local government autonomy in Nigeria.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
100
|
|
THE HISTORY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DEVELOPMENT
IN NIGERIA
Local Government is literarily seen as the government at
the local level. Some scholars (Olowu 1988, Adeyeye, 2000) have
distinguished local government depending on the political
arrangement of the nation, i.e. unitary or federal system. Adeyeye
(2000) defines local government in the unitary state as "non-
sovereign community possessing the legal right but which are
essentially administrative agents of the central government".
On
the other hand, the United Nations Office for Public Administration
sees Local Government as:
A political subdivision of a nation (in a federal
system) state, which
is constituted by law and has
substantial control
of local affairs including the
powers to impose taxes
or to exact labour for
prescribed purposes.
The governing body of such
an entity is elected.
Similarly, the Guideline for Local Government Reform
(FGN, 1976) defines local government as:
Government at local level exercised through
representative councils
established by law to exercise
specific powers defined
areas. These powers should
give the council substantial
control over local affairs
as well as the staff
and institutional and financial
power to initiate
and direct the provision of services
and to determine and
implement projects so as to
complement the activities
of the state and federal
government in their
areas, and to ensure, through
devolution of functions
to these councils and through
the active participation
of the people and their
traditional institutes
, that local initiative and
responses to local
head and conditions are
maximised.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
101
|
|
The
implications of the above definitions are in four dimensions,
these include:
1.Local government must be a legal entity distinct from the
state and federal
government.
2.Local government must be administered by democratically
elected officials.
3.Local government must have specific powers to perform a
range of functions
assigned it by law.
4.Local government must enjoy substantial autonomy to
perform array of
functions, plan, formulate and execute its
own policies, programmes
and projects, and its own rules
and regulations as
deemed for its local needs. This autonomy
includes power to
control its finance, recruit and discipline
its staff.
Based on these definitions, and their implications, could it be
said
that the local government system in Nigerian is autonomous? This
paper is aimed at addressing this fundamental question.
The history of local
government system in Nigeria could
be traced back to the pre-colonial period when powerful empires
and kingdoms existed in Nigeria, such as; Oyo Empire, Borno
Empire, Sokoto Empire, Jukun Kingdom, Nupe Kingdom, and Igala
Kingdoms, among others. These empires and kingdoms had other
smaller districts, wards, towns and villages which were subjected
to them. The subordinate governments operated their own unique
administration suitable for their cultural and religious needs
and
aspirations. The bulk of the administrative activities of these
kingdoms and empires took place at these levels. This form of
administration could be referred to as Local government.
The advent of British
colonial administration in Nigeria
brought about a change in local government administration in which
the method of leadership changed from the traditional to the British
colonial government. The colonial administration of local
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
102
|
|
government
that was established was based on Indirect Rule system.
This required that administration at the local level should be
carried
out through the existing traditional rulers and institutions. In
the
areas where there were no existing traditional rulers, and/or
institutions, like in the South East, new ones were created. This
led to the establishment of Native Authority in its most rudimental
forms. The Native Authority Ordinance promulgated in 1910 which
gave impetus to the system of indirect rule and recognised the
traditional rulers as Sole Authority. The main function of the
traditional ruler was to maintain law and order.
The Indirect rule
system through the traditional rulers,
especially the recognition of traditional rulers as Sole Authority
met with a strong resistance by the people in the southern part
of
Nigeria. In the South-west where there were existing traditional
institutions, the traditional rulers were not recognised as absolute
rulers. In the South East, there were no existing traditional
institutions. The traditional system in the East was more of
republican-consensus.
In the Northern part
of the country, especially in the Muslim
dominated areas, the Indirect Rule system was highly accepted
due to their existing traditional system which recognised the
monarch (Emir) as the absolute Sole Authority. These resistance
and the various riots and other political disturbances that followed,
necessitated the various reforms in the 1930s and the 1940s which
culminated in the establishment of Chief-in-Council in place of
Sole Native Authority. The adoption of a Federal System of
government in 1950 marked another stage of Local government
development in Nigeria. The composition of the country into three
regions impacted on the Local government system. Each region
decided to adopt its own type or form of local government system.
The regional systems of local government, until the collapse of
the first republic in 1966, so prevailed with various refinements.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
103
|
|
The Military takeover of government according
to Gboyega
(2001) has severe repercussion for local government system which
was radically changed to accommodate not only the hierarchical
military command structure, but also to redress the abuses that
the
system had been subjected to. The restructuring was also meant
to
meet the aspirations of the people for greater political participation
and empowerment in local government area. Despite the imposition
of military rule and command structure, the regions and their
successor, states, still retained control over local government
policy-
making and were thus able to carry out reforms that were deemed
appropriate to their circumstances. The period of military rule
from
1966 to 1975, therefore witnessed extensive experimentation with
different theories and patterns of local government with quite
mixed
results (Gboyega, 2001).
The 1976 Local Government
Reform marked a turning point
in the historical development of local government administration
in Nigeria. As asserted by (Ugwu, 2001), the reform "form
a
watershed in the evolution of local government development and
Administration in Nigeria". The 1976 Reform marked the end
of
sound experiment or model and gave way to a common national
local government system in Nigeria.
The major thrust
of the reform in the word of Orewa and
Adewumi (1983) "is to entrust political responsibility to
where it
is most crucial and beneficial, that is to the people". It
also aimed
at social and development of and the effective delivery of the
respective local population scattered all over the country".
Unlike
previous reforms which were highly restricted in scope and range,
the 1976 reform followed extensive consultations at all the levels
of the federating units and among other stakeholders and experts.
The reform also conceptualised local government as the third tier
of government operating with a common institutional framework
with defined functions and responsibilities. As a third tier of
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
104
|
|
government,
local government gets its statutory share of allocation
direct from the Federation account and it is empowered to exercise
control over its spending. In addition, the reform provided for
a
democratically elected local government councils. All the
provisions of the 1976 Reform were entrenched in the 1979
Constitution which anchored in the Second Republic. However,
the1976 Reform invariably gave the Federal Government more
domineering role. As Gboyega (2001) rightly observes; "the
consequences of Federal intervention and imposition of a common
system of local government have been mixed ---- from a benign
role that clearly retained State dominance of Local government
policy-making, the federal role has gradually widened to the point
where the Federal Government can initiate local government Policy
reform".
The Second Republic
was a turbulent period in the history
of local government administration. It was a period in which to
put to practice the provision of the 1976 Local Government Reform
as contained in the 1979 Constitution. It was a testing period
in
which the State and the Federal Government contested the control
of Local Government Policy with each other. Attempts by the State
to re-establish their primacy in local government policy-making
not only created conflict with the Federal Government, but also
weakened the power of the local government.
The States, especially,
abused some provisions of the 1979
Constitution to suit their selfish desires. State governments
neglected or voided aspects of the 1976 Reforms that they were
displeased with and distorted those that were merely inconvenient.
For instance, throughout the Second Republic (1979-1983), no
election was held into the Local Government Councils, only Sole
Administrators were appointed. This was at variance with the 1976
Reforms and 1979 Constitution, especially (Section 7) which
provides for a democratic elected Local Government Council
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
105
|
|
throughout
the federation. Such behaviour painted the State as
villains and provoked demands for greater federal role in local
government Policy-making (Gboyega, 2001).
The re-emergence
of the military into the political scene
brought about a shift of Local government control from the State
to the Federal government. The Babangida administration (1984-
1993) initiated some reforms aimed at ensuring local government
autonomy. Some of the reforms included the abolition of the
Ministry of Local Government, establishment of executive and
legislative arms in Local Councils, and direct allocation to Local
government without passing through the State government. The
statutory allocation of the Local government was also increased
from 15 percent to 20 percent in 1992.
There was that agreement
among scholars, (Gboyega, 2001,
Igbuzor, 2003) that the reforms of this period are aimed at a
radical transformation of the status of local government in a
federal system. Thus, the Federal government's scheme of
decentralisation was deliberately and consciously focused in
transferring greater powers and resources to local governments
rather than to state governments. Through the reforms at this period,
it could be said that a greater measure of devolution was made
at
the expense of the state. This however, provoked negative reactions
from the state and suspicion about federal motives in promoting
the reforms. The Abacha Administration (1993-1996) however,
revised some of the reforms.
The exit of the
military and the enthronement of the
democratic government in 1999 brought to the fore, again, the
problem of local government autonomy. The provisions regarding
local government administration in the 1999 Constitution created
a lot of confusion. The 1999 constitution by its provisions in
section
7 and 8 recognise the local government as a third tier of government
and also guarantee it, but gives the state the autonomy to lord
over
the local government.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
106
|
|
Section 7 reads jointly with Section 8 provides
that there shall be:
The system of local government by democratically elected councils
(which) is by this Constitution guaranteed and accordingly, the
government of every State shall, subject to section 8 of this
Constitution…. ensure their existence under a law which provides
for the establishment; structure, composition, finance and functions
of such councils.
The implication of
these provisions is that local government
cannot exercise the functions assigned to it in section 1 schedule
4
of the Constitution until the State House of Assembly had passed
a
law. The same Fourth Schedule of the Constitution also provides
for "the functions of the Local government Council to also
include
participation of such Council in government of a state as in respect
of the following matters, education, agricultural materials
resources, healthcare and any other function assigned to it by
the
State House of Assembly.
Another area of confusion
is in terms of electing the Local
government Council and their tenure. 2nd section 7(6) of the 1999
Constitution provides for a democratically elected Local
government Council. While the Constitution provides for four year
tenure for Federal and State political office holders, it was silent
on the tenure of the Local government political office holders.
The Constitution in the concurrent legislative list gives the National
Assembly the power to make laws "with respect to the registration
of voters and the procedures regulating election to a Local
Government Council. The same Constitution gave the powers to
the State House of Assembly to make "laws with respect of
election
into a Local Government Council.
For instance, in
preparation for the Fourth Republic in 1999,
local government elections were held on 5th December, 1998. The
elected officers however did not assume office until six months
later in May, 1999. The electoral law under which the local
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
107
|
|
government
officials were elected (Basic Constitutional and
transitional provisions Decree No. 36 of 1998) provides for tenure
of three years. The local government officials later went to the
Supreme Court to ask for the increase of the tenure to four years.
In collaboration with National Assembly, the Supreme Court
however ruled that the National Assembly did not have the power
to increase or alter the tenure of elected officers of local
government.
At the expiration
of the three years which supposed to end
in May, 2002, the State Governments appointed Caretaker
Committees for all the Local Government Councils in their states
to serve until another date of election was agreed upon.
Subsequently, the election did not take place as and when due as
it
was postponed twice due to the tussle between the State
Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) and the Independent
Electoral Commission.
Although SIEC was
empowered by the Constitution to
conduct local government election, the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) has the responsibility of updating
the voters register and making same available to SEIC. But when
SEIC fixed May, 18, 2002 for election into the Local government
Councils, INEC failed to produce and make voters register available
to them. Thus, the election had to be postponed. Another date was
fixed for December, 2002, but due to the registration of more
political parties, the election was postponed to 21, June, 2003.
A
few days to the date of election, 17 June, 2003, the forum of local
government met and pushed for Constitution amendment to
empower State Governors to appoint Council Chairmen and
Councillors.
A day after, the
Governors met with the President at the
Council of State meeting where a decision was reached to set up
a
Technical Committee on the review of the structure of the Local
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
108
|
|
government
Councils in Nigeria. The Committee was chaired by
the late Etsu Nupe, Alhaji Umaru Sanda Ndayako. The report was
submitted in 2006 however, election into the Local government
Council however take place in 2007. It could be adduced that the
controversy over election into local government was created by
the 1999 Constitution. The confusion created by the 1999
Constitution became a subject of controversy between the Federal
and State governments on one hand, and the National Assembly
and State Houses of Assemblies on the other.
Another dimension
of the confusion created by the 1999
Constitution which affects Local government autonomy was the
provision that empowers the State to determine and create new
Local Government Areas. Section 8 (13) provides the modalities
for the creation of new Local government Areas and indeed vests
the power to do so on various State Houses of Assembly. Section
8(6) of the Constitution however empowers the members of the
National Assembly to ratify them. This provision also brought about
the tussle for the control of local government administration
between the States and the Federal government.
Many States (for
example, Kogi, Lagos, Niger, and Oyo
etc) created more Local Government Areas in line with the
modalities stipulated in the constitution, but the Federal
Government refused to recognise them. A state like Lagos, decided
to recognise and fund the new Local Government Areas it created.
This generated into a rift between Lagos State and the Federal
government in which the Federal Government stopped the statutory
allocations for the State.
Lagos State went to the Supreme Court to demand for justice. The
Supreme Court ruled that "States have the power to create
new
Local Government Areas as far as the modalities for its creation
as
stipulated in the Constitution are followed". It also ruled
that the
Lagos State Local government statutory allocations being withheld
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
109
|
|
by
the Federal Government was illegal and unconstitutional.
Despite the ruling, it took another 12 months for the Federal
Government to release the withheld allocations.
Nwabueze (1983) in
Ugwu (2003), had observed that the
Constitutional power to establish local government, define its
structure, composition and functions, belong to the State
governments. To them, as far as it is so, the local government
is a
mere State agency or a creation of the State government. It would
therefore be erroneous to see it as an independent third tier of
government. As such, the issue of autonomy of local government
becomes a myth and not a reality.
Another area of Local
government autonomy has to do with
the area of finance. The Constitution empowers the State to
scrutinise and approve Local government budgets, and expenditure
through the State House of Assembly, States here exercise arbitrary
and undue control over Local government finance through the
establishment of the State Local government Joint Account. The
issue of State Local government Joint Account has been a thorny
issue in Local government State relationship in the Fourth Republic.
This situation also brought to the fore the question of Local
government autonomy. The experience with many Local
government areas was that their states starve them of the statutory
grant thus denying them of rendering essential services as required.
As asserted by Dalhatu
(2006) "the issue of autonomy has
to do with the Local government, beyond mere constitutional
provision that would be organised as the third tier of government,
with power to regulate, to spend and powers to provide services".
But experience and empirical evidences have shown that financial
autonomy of local government is non-existent in Nigeria. The
former president, Olusegun Obasanjo in a meeting he had with the
774 Local governments Council Chairmen in Nigeria, broadcasted
live on Radio and NTA, acknowledged the thwarting of local
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
110
|
|
government
revenue by some State governments. He promised that
the then proposed Technical Committee will look into the matter
(Radio Nigeria, 2004). Through the Local Government State Joint
Account, some States apart from arbitrary deduction also forced
the local government to embark on some ridiculous projects that
are not in congruence with the needs of the local people under
the
pretext of ensuring uniformity in development.
|
|
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
|
|
In conclusion, the
provisions in the Constitution that dictate
the power and financial relationship between the various tiers
of
government, especially the State and the local government are
deliberate. They are made to serve as checks and balances; and
ensure transparency and accountability, among others. But the way
some sates go about it, is rather more of punitive rather than
corrective measure. For instance, Lagos State was one of the States
in which these provisions had not been arbitrarily used by the
state
government. Lagos State and its Local Government Councils work
like partners in progress rather than servant/master relationship.
It is therefore obvious,
that, for any meaningful development
to take place at the local level, the States need to recognise
the
Local government as partners in progress. That is partners in
enhancing sustainable rural development through the provision of
essential services to improve the Standard of living of the rural
populace. On local government election, the election into Local
government Council should be held a week before State Governors
election. If possible, election into State House of Assembly and
Local Government Council should be held the same day.
The tenure of the
Local government Chairmen/Councillor
should be the same with other political office holders in the State
and Federal level. On Local government creation, although the
process of Local government creation has been liberalised as 2/3
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
111
|
|
of
the population of intended area or community must agree to the
creation by consensus. The intended local government should be
made to rely on its internally generated revenue for a period of
four years as a condition for its creation. Thus, any intended
local
government Council that is able to sustain itself without any support
from the Federation Account for the period of four years can be
allowed. This condition should also apply to State creation.
This paper also suggested
that 70% of the statutory
allocation to the Local government should be the responsibility
of
the State, and 30% from the Federal government. This will reduce
the quest by the State to want to 'commando' the local government
statutory allocation or exert excessive control on it. It would
also
check the quest for creation of more Local Government Areas by
the State government. If possible, the statutory allocation to
Local
government should be determined by certain percentage of what
was internally generated in the area. The allocations could as
well
be tier to programmes and projects to be executed by the Local
government Council.
The role of the Federal
Government should be that of
supervision and monitoring of local government projects and
programmes in order to maintain standard. It should also be that
of ensuring prudence and accountability, and effective Service
delivery. With these in place, Local government autonomy will be
guaranteed and it will be able to effectively play its role as
a catalyst
for Sustainable Rural Development.
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
Adeyeye M. (2005). The Dynamics
of administration Reform: An
Analysis of Nigerian
Local Government. Being Paper
Presented at the Mid.
Term International Conference
organised by IPSA Rc
4 in Association with the Nnamdi
Azikiwe University,
Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria and
Centre for Democratic
Governance (AFRIGOV) Abuja.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
112
|
|
Dalhatu,
S. (2006). Essays on Local Government Administration:
Fostering Better Service
Delivery, Record Keeping,
Accountability and
Empowerment at the Local Government
Kano: Benchmark Publishers
Federal Government of Nigeria (1976). Constitution of Federal
Republic of Nigeria.
Lagos: Federal Government Press.
Federal Government of Nigeria (1979). Constitution of Federal
Republic of Nigeria.
Lagos: Federal Government Press
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1979). Guidelines for Local
Government Reforms.
Kaduna: Government Printers
Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN). State of the
Nation. A Network Service
Programme broadcasted on 5,
January, 2004 at 7
pm.
Gboyega, A. (2001). Local
Autonomy in Federal politics: The
Nigerian Local Government
System in Historical
Perspective",
Being a paper presented at an International
Conference on New Directions"
Federalism in African,
Abuja Nigeria.
Igbuzor, O. (2003). Local
Government Reform and Constitutional
Review in Nigeria"
Lagos: Centre for Democracy and
Development (CDD).
Olowu, D. (1988). African
Local Government as Instrument of
Economic and Social
Development" Netherlands: The
International Union
of Local Authorities
Omale, I. (2005). New Perspectives
in Public Sector Management
in Nigeria, Ankpa:
Ultimate publishers.
Orewa, G. O. and Adewumi, J. B. (1992). Local Government in
Nigeria: The Changing
Scene: Vol. II, Benin City: Ethiope
Publishing Corporation.
Ugwu, S.C. (2001). Issues
in Local Government and Urban
Administration in Nigeria,
Enugu: Academic Publishing
Company.
|
|
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance
Vol. 1 No.1, April 2010
|
|
113
|
No comments:
Post a Comment