Former Governor of Delta State, Chief James Ibori, criticized the Supreme Court judgment on Thursday that granted financial autonomy to local government councils, arguing it undermines the principles of federalism.
Reacting to the judgment on his X handle, Ibori stated: “Supreme Court has dealt a severe setback on the principle of federalism as defined by section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).”
Quoting the constitution, he added: “The section expressly provides thus: ‘Any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the Local Government Councils in each State on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.’ Sections 6 provide further clarity on the subject matter. (6) Each State shall maintain a special account to be called ‘State Joint Local Government Account’ into which shall be paid all allocations to the Local Government Councils of the State from the Federation Account and the Government of the State.”
Ibori emphasized that the court’s ruling contradicts true federalism, stating: “The court’s ruling on the matter is an assault on true federalism. The federal government has no right to interfere with the administration of Local Governments under any guise whatsoever. There are only two tiers of government in a federal system of government.”
He expressed concerns about the ruling’s implications, listing several key issues:
Constitutional Interpretation: Ibori argued that the ruling contradicts the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution, raising questions about judicial interpretation and potential overreach.
Balance of Power: The decision could shift the balance of power towards the federal government, centralizing more authority and undermining federalism principles.
State Autonomy: The ruling might erode state autonomy, which is essential for states to control their internal affairs, including local government administration.
Financial Independence: Federal intervention in local government finances could impact the financial independence of states and local governments, potentially being used for political leverage.
Precedent Setting: This decision might set a precedent for further federal interventions in areas typically reserved for state governance, leading to a more centralized system.
Ibori stated, “That Local Governments must be ‘democratically elected’ goes without saying. Yes, I agree, that’s the position of the constitution but withholding their allocation is not the way to go. It’s wrong.”
He further elaborated on the potential chaos of the ruling: “In the coming days, we will begin to fully understand the implications of the Supreme Court decision. An assault on the constitution is not the answer to fiddling with the Joint LG Account. If the ruling is saying Governors cannot temper, touch, or fiddle with the Joint Accounts, that’s fine because they shouldn’t be doing that in the first place. But asking the Federal Government to pay Local Government allocations to the account of the Local Government directly will lead to utter chaos and avoidable friction in governance.”
Ibori concluded by quoting the late Hon. Justice Oputa JSC, “we are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” He expressed hope that the judgment would be reviewed soon, as it “clearly stands the concept of federalism on its head.”