It is very laughable to think that in this time and age, one would attempt to deceive the good people of Benue with rhetorics and lie about the relationship between the state and the local governments. First of all, the whole of Nigeria is one entity. We have the National, Sub-nationals and the local governments. If no relationship exists between these three as a result of autonomy how do you explain the interventions by the federal government in states like Plateau during President Olusegun Obasanjo’s era and the recent intervention in Rivers State by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the premise that the states have autonomy?
The truth is the argument being peddled by some members of the opposition that the Benue State Government is constitutionally incapable of directing or supervising aspects of local government administration because local governments constitute a “distinct tier” of government is, with respect, an incomplete reading of the 1999 Constitution. Nobody in the Alia-led administration disputes that Local Government Councils are constitutionally recognized institutions of governance. Section 7(1) of the Constitution guarantees the system of local government by democratically elected local government councils. The Fourth Schedule also assigns important responsibilities to Local Government Councils.
But constitutional recognition is not the same thing as absolute administrative independence, and this distinction is critical. The Constitution does not establish Nigerian local governments as completely autonomous governments operating outside the constitutional and legislative framework of their respective states. Indeed, Section 7 itself provides that the system of local government shall be established and provided for by a law enacted by the House of Assembly of the State. That provision cannot simply be wished away.
Secondly, and I’ll put this in capital letters for emphasis: AUTONOMY DOES NOT MEAN ABSENCE OF SUPERVISION!!! Therefore, the argument that any directive from a state government necessarily amounts to “domination” is a false equivalence. There is a constitutional difference between controlling the affairs of a local government as though it were a department of the Governor’s Office and exercising lawful supervisory, regulatory or coordinating powers conferred by the Constitution and state legislation.
The Fourth Schedule itself demonstrates that the relationship between State and Local Government is not one of complete separation. Among the functions assigned to local governments are matters that expressly involve the State, including recommendations concerning the economic development of the State and functions relating to roads, streets and other public facilities “as may be prescribed from time to time by the House of Assembly of a State.” Therefore, the Constitution does not envisage local government administration as an entirely sealed-off sphere into which the State Government can never lawfully enter.
The proper question is not: “Does the Governor have anything to do with local government?” The proper question is: “What specific power is being exercised, under what law, and does that exercise unlawfully displace a constitutionally protected function of the elected Local Government Council?”
Again, it is important for me to emphasize that: SECTION 7 DOES NOT GIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS UNLIMITED AUTONOMY. The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Others, SC/CV/343/2024, addressed, among other things, the constitutional requirement for democratically elected local government councils and the treatment of funds standing to the credit of those councils.
The judgment therefore strengthens the case for genuine local government institutions. But that judgment should not be converted into a constitutional proposition that every directive, regulation, policy or supervisory action emanating from a state government is automatically unlawful. It does not erase every legislative or supervisory relationship between a State and its Local Government Councils.
And just to be clear: THE FOURTH SCHEDULE DOES NOT CREATE 774 MINIATURE STATES. The Fourth Schedule establishes functions of Local Government Councils, but it does so within the broader constitutional structure. Indeed, the Schedule expressly recognizes roles for State institutions and allows additional functions to be conferred on Local Government Councils by State legislation.
Consequently, the existence of a constitutional function does not automatically answer every question about how that function is to be exercised, regulated, financed or coordinated.
Those questions may depend upon the Constitution, valid legislation and the particular circumstances of the directive being challenged. The critical issue is therefore the legal source and content of the directive, not merely the fact that the directive came from the State Government.
The Opposition has thrown up the “LANDLORD AND TENANT” analogy, which is quite misleading. The landlord analogy makes for attractive political rhetoric, but it does little to resolve a constitutional question. A State Government is not the “landlord” of a Local Government Council. At the same time, a Local Government Council is not a sovereign government existing independently of the State constitutional framework. As I stated in the beginning, Nigeria operates a federal constitutional structure in which the Federation, States and Local Government Councils have constitutionally defined relationships. The real constitutional debate should therefore be about boundaries of power, not whether one tier is a “landlord” and another is a “tenant.”
If a Benue State directive exceeds powers granted to the State by the Constitution or a valid law, it can and should be challenged on that specific legal ground. But if the directive is an exercise of a power lawfully conferred upon the State Government, simply describing it as “domination” does not make it unconstitutional.
Now, let’s consider what the 2024 Supreme Court judgment really changed. And this is perhaps the most important correction required. The Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in AGF v. AG Abia State & 35 Others was indeed a major decision concerning local government constitutional status and financial autonomy. The suit specifically concerned issues including the constitutional treatment of money belonging to Local Government Councils. It, however, did not abolish the constitutional role of States in local government administration. It did not transform Nigeria into a three-tier system in which Local Government Councils are constitutionally equivalent to sovereign sub-national governments with complete freedom from State legislation and supervision. And this distinction is very important.
The major point we must all take away is that: Financial autonomy is not the same thing as absolute administrative autonomy. Neither is democratic election the same as constitutional separation from the State. A constitutionally protected council is not the same thing as a sovereign government.
If the Benue State Government issued a directive to the 23 Local Government Councils, the intellectually honest way to determine whether that directive was constitutional is to examine: What exactly did the directive require? Does the directive merely coordinate or regulate local government activities, or does it purport to take over a power constitutionally vested in an elected council? Does it suspend, dissolve or replace democratically elected councils? Is there a valid Benue State law authorizing the particular administrative measure?
Those questions are considerably more useful than simply declaring that the Governor cannot “run local governments.”
SUPERVISION AND TAKEOVER ARE NOT THE SAME THING
Local government autonomy must not become a slogan for insulating councils from every lawful state regulation or supervision. And the opposition should NOT automatically characterize every State directive affecting local governments as an unconstitutional invasion of local government autonomy. Local government autonomy is not to pretend that State Governments have no constitutional relationship with Local Government Councils.
Where a State Government unlawfully assumes powers constitutionally reserved for elected local government institutions, that action should be challenged. But where the State Government acts pursuant to a valid constitutional or statutory power to regulate, coordinate or supervise matters within its lawful competence, the mere existence of such a directive does not make the action unconstitutional. The 2024 Supreme Court judgment strengthened the constitutional protection of Local Government Councils. It did not erase the constitutional role of the States.
The issue, therefore, is not whether Benue State has any authority concerning its 23 Local Government Councils. It clearly has constitutional and statutory responsibilities in the local government system. The real issue is whether the particular action being challenged falls within those lawful powers or crosses the constitutional boundary into unlawful interference. That is the argument that should be settled by the Constitution, the relevant Benue State law and, where necessary, the courts, not by political metaphors about landlords, tenants or living rooms.
Hon. Chief Solomon Iorpev,
Honourable Commissioner, Information and Orientation, Benue State.
