Opinion

Should LGAs Be Financially Autonomous?

Published

14 years ago

August 20, 2012

Chike Nmerukini

– Lawyer

I think the funds for local governments should come directly
from the Federal Government to the local governments, because according to the
constitution, the local government is supposed to be autonomous. But because of
what happened in the past, the idea of joint account between the States and
LGAs was introduced so that States can check how local government funds are
used.

Incidentally, the States now take that as an opportunity to,
most times, deduct or delay the release of the local governments funds.

So, I think if the Federal Government does it directly, all
the local governments will improve. The States will be there to check them. Nobody stops them from
checking them. But I believe the local governments should be funded directly
from the Federal allocation.

I think the local governments’ joint account with the State
governments which they call JAC is a problem because when they get this money
from the Federal Government, the States decide on their own when to release
this money, which is not supposed to be. Local governments should have their
autonomy. If the local governments are not allowed to run their affairs or they
are under the States, the State governments influence them. Most times the
State governments under this situation do not give the local governments the
chance to carry out their projects effectively, because they believe that they,
at the States, are doing more than the local governments.

There has been this argument that if the local governments
are financially autonomous, if their monies come directly from the Federal
Government, it leads to the proliferation of local governments as some States
may decide to create more local governments to attract more fund from the
Federal Government.

But in that case, I think a body should be set up by the
Federal Government to look into it even though we know it is the right of the
State assembly exclusively, to do that. But the Federal Government can set up a
body to check territorial boundaries and population through the census, so that
the States don’t just jump into creating unnecessary LGAs because they want to
get more money from the Federal Government.

So I believe local governments bring government to the
people at the grassroot, so they should not be killed through any means
whatsoever.

Dike Prince Obinna:

– Civil Engineering Consultant

In my opinion, I think the State government should control
the finance of the local government and monitor how the money is being used.
State governments are closer to the local governments and can monitor whatever
projects the local government chairmen are carrying out. Federal Governments
cannot do that.

So, for me, I don’t see the Federal Government releasing
fund to the local governments directly as being reasonable. State government
should be allowed to control the LGA funds. Unfortunately, most of our
governors are very dubious. Most of them don’t even have focus. Some of them
are just there to loot our treasury and get away.

Inspite of that, I still believe it is most idle for State
governments to monitor the finances of the local governments and ensure they
are put into proper use for the benefit of the people at the grassroot.

Victor Ali

– Public Affairs Practitioner

I think the local governments, funds should come directly
from the Federal Government. The idea of Federal Government releasing the LG
fund to the State, then the State to the LGAs is not good because atimes the
States starve the local governments of fund. So since the Federal Government
releases the State government ‘s fund direct to the state, they should also
release straight to the local governments because the local government is
autonomous just like the State. Because the LGAs funds are transferred from the
federal to the State, that is why the States have power to trap the funds of
the local governments.

Really, the local governments are not doing much, but there
should be a constitutional means of checking their excesses, especially the
chairmen. If they (federal and State governments) have a constitutional way of
doing that, then the local governments will perform.

However, a situation where the State governments control and
almost run the affairs of the local governments is not good. Because people are
feeling that since the States have upper hand on the local governments, any
local government chairman that does not tow the line of the state authority,
can be suspended not minding that the chairman was elected just like the
governors. All these people – governor, President, Vice President, local
government chairmen were all elected and for any of them to be removed from the
office, due process must be followed according to the constitution.

So I think that anything that should be done in the on-going
constitution review should be done properly, so that the local government as an
arm of government, should be truly autonomous. Any fund released by the Federal
Government should go to them directly.

I will also advocate that for us to be able to check the excesses
of those in authority both at the states and local government levels, the
people should know their rights. Let them know what the State and local
governments are supposed to do for them. If we are paying our taxes to the
local governments, we should be able to ask questions how the money is being
used. If the people stand up and know their rights, those in government will
sit up.

Dio Anamachree

– Graudate Student

I am of the opinion that the funds of the LGAs should come
direct from the Federal Government to the local governments.

We all know that the local government monies used to come to
them directly from the Federal Government but because the State governments
wanted to secure more powers for themselves, they negotiated with the Federal
Government and gained the control of LGAs’ funds. The reason for the joint
account between State governments and LGAs, to me, is just for governors to
control the revenue of the local governments and that is why they are
clamouring that they should have a constitutional backing to do so.

But my opinion remains that Federal Government should
release LGAs fund directly into LGA accounts and not through the State
governments. That will enhance project execution in the local governments.

For instance, for some chairmen of LGAs to carry out certain
developmental projects in the local government areas, they have to obtain
permission from the State government. So if you are not a well articulated
chairman, if you are not focused, at the end of the day, you will not be able
to have any project on ground. The State government can still monitor the local
government but should not be receiving the monies meant for the local
governments. That is not ideal in a democratic government. Governors should
allow local government chairmen to control the fund of the LGAs. Sending their
monies through the state governments means denying them of their political
rights. Some LGAs, once they pay salaries, the money is gone. So, they are just
there to pay workers’ salaries. Some of them cannot sink ordinary borehole for
their people because the money is not there. But another issue is the Federal
Government monitoring the state governments to know how far they use their
money.

Kenneth Ibekwe

– Public Servant

I believe that the Federal Government should fund LGAs
directly, not through states, because the LG chairmen are elected officers just
like governors.

So, the local governments are supposed to have autonomy so
that they will be able to reach the grassroot. LGAs are very close to the grassroot,
they deal with us directly, not governors. So LGAs are supposed to be funded
very well.

Some governors make use of LGs money and the chairmen can’t
work with empty lands. And that is why you see nothing happening in many LGAs.
They use the little money they receive in paying salaries and that is the end
of it.

The masses are supposed to come out and demand for full
financial autonomy for LGAs so that they will be able to perform. We cannot
elect somebody and somebody somewhere is claiming to be his godfather,
siphoning the money meant for the LGA, it cannot work.

Miss Favour

– Student

I don’t think the problem is who controls the LGAs funds, or
not.

Our problem is corruption, selfishness and greed and unless
we deal with these vices, all we are doing will account to waste of time.

The monies meant for LGAs used to be paid directly to their
accounts, but instead of developing the LGAs with the money, the chairmen were
enriching themselves with it. Workers
were being owed for months, there was nothing on ground to account for the huge
allocations they receive.

That was how the idea of joint account with the State
governments came up, believing that State governors would be able to control
the funds effectively. Unfortunately, we all know what the governors are doing
with the money, enriching themselves and starving the LGA chairmen of funds.
This has hindered development at the grassroot.

So which everway you look at it, the people are suffering,
while the monies meant for them are being spent by some individuals.

But what is the assurance that if the situation is reversed
to status quo, it would result to the the development of our LGAs?

So, I don’t know, whoever wants to control the local
governments fund whether States or LGAs, should go ahead.

Opinion

Bazia EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

17 hours ago

March 23, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “For the first time in years, Rivers journalists are not just hearing promises—they are seeing a union that works.”

The first year in office of the Paul Bazia-led executive of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), has offered something many had almost given up on—renewed confidence in union leadership. For a body as critical as the NUJ, whose responsibility goes beyond professional coordination to include the welfare, protection, and continuous development of journalists, expectations are always high. Unfortunately, past experiences had conditioned many members to expect less—less action, less visibility, and less impact.This is why the past twelve months stand out. Within a relatively short period, the Bazia-led administration has demonstrated a level of drive that distinguishes it from its predecessors. There is a noticeable shift from inertia to activity, from routine administration to purposeful leadership. Initiatives captured in the one-year report point to an executive that understands both the urgency of its mandate and the frustrations of its members.

Particularly commendable is the renewed attention to journalists’ welfare. For too long, welfare issues have lingered without meaningful resolution, leaving many practitioners feeling unsupported. The current leadership’s efforts—through engagement, structured support, and timely interventions—signal a welcome change in priorities. Equally important is the push toward professional development. In an era where journalism is rapidly evolving, capacity building is no longer optional. The administration’s commitment to training and skill enhancement reflects an understanding that a stronger union must be built on more competent and competitive professionals. There is also something to be said about visibility and voice. A vibrant NUJ must not only serve its members internally but also stand as a credible voice in the public space—defending press freedom, promoting ethical standards, and constructively engaging critical issues.

Encouragingly, the current executive appears more present and responsive, giving the union a renewed sense of relevance. Perhaps what resonates most, however, is the sense of movement. For many members, the difference between the present and the immediate past is not subtle—it is clear. Where there was once stagnation, there is now direction. Where there was doubt, there is growing belief. Beyond the visible strides recorded within this first year, what perhaps deserves even greater applause is the restoration of institutional confidence within the Nigeria Union of Journalists. For a long time, many members had grown disenchanted, viewing the union more as a ceremonial body than an active force capable of defending their interests and advancing their welfare. That narrative, however, is gradually changing. The Bazia-led executive has not only initiated programs but has also rekindled a sense of belonging among members.

Meetings appear more purposeful, engagements more intentional, and decisions more reflective of collective interest. This psychological shift—subtle as it may seem—is one of the most critical achievements of the past year, because a union that its members believe in is already halfway to effectiveness. It is also important to underscore the contrast with the immediate past, not as an exercise in criticism, but as a necessary context for measuring progress. Where previous administrations struggled to translate plans into action, the current leadership has shown a greater bias for execution. Projects that once lingered in discussion stages are now seeing tangible movement, and issues that were previously deferred are receiving attention. This difference in approach—moving from prolonged deliberation to decisive action—has helped reposition the union as a more responsive and relevant institution.

While no administration is without its shortcomings, the willingness to act, even in the face of constraints, marks a significant departure from what members were accustomed to. Looking ahead, the expectations of members—and indeed the wider public—will only grow stronger. With a solid first year behind it, the Bazia-led executive now carries the burden of consistency. Members will expect deeper welfare interventions that go beyond immediate relief to more sustainable support systems. They will look for expanded training opportunities that prepare journalists for the rapidly changing media landscape. They will also expect a firmer, more courageous voice on issues affecting press freedom and professional integrity. Above all, they will demand continuity—assurance that the progress recorded so far is not a fleeting phase but the beginning of a sustained transformation.

Meeting these expectations will not be easy, but it is precisely this challenge that defines enduring leadership. That said, this moment of applause must also serve as a moment of reflection. A strong first year inevitably raises expectations. Journalists in Rivers State will now look beyond initial achievements toward consolidation. Welfare interventions must become more structured and far-reaching. Training programs must be sustained and expanded. Advocacy must become more consistent and impactful. Most importantly, the unity of the union must be strengthened, ensuring that all members feel included and carried along. Transparency will also be key. Continued open communication about finances, decisions, and challenges will deepen trust and set a standard for accountable union leadership. The task ahead is clear: to convert early momentum into lasting institutional progress.

For the Bazia-led executive, the opportunity is significant. It has, within one year, reawakened belief in what the NUJ Rivers State Council can be. The next step is to ensure that this renewed energy does not fade, but instead becomes the foundation of a stronger, more responsive, and more respected union. For the members, the message is equally clear—expect more, demand more, and support what works because in the end, a vibrant union is not built by leadership alone, but by a collective commitment to progress. And for now, under Bazia, that progress has truly begun.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

As Service Chiefs Relocate To Borno

Published

17 hours ago

March 23, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Relocation may signal urgency, but without structural reforms, it risks becoming a cycle of temporary relief and recurring crisis.”

Here we go again. We have seen this script play out before. Under the administration of Muhammadu Buhari, service chiefs were directed to relocate to security hotspots as a demonstration of urgency and resolve. Today, under Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the same approach is being repeated. Following the recent suicide bombing in Maiduguri, Borno State, which claimed scores of lives, the President ordered the immediate relocation of service chiefs to take charge of the situation. On paper, the directive appears logical and commendable. It suggests a hands-on approach aimed at enhancing coordination among security agencies, improving response time, and restoring public confidence. However, the critical question remains: has this strategy ever truly worked? Experience suggests otherwise. While such relocations often create a temporary sense of calm, the effect is usually short-lived.

The presence of high command tends to produce what may be described as “cosmetic stability”—a brief period of intensified operations and visibility. Yet, once the service chiefs return to Abuja, the underlying problems resurface. A clear example can be drawn from January 2018, when President Buhari ordered the then Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, to relocate to Benue State in response to escalating violence. At the time, the directive was widely praised. Yet years later, killings, displacement, and destruction of livelihoods persist, raising doubts about the long-term effectiveness of such measures. This recurring pattern has led many observers to describe relocation orders as political theatre—a performative gesture designed to project action rather than deliver sustainable results. While this may seem harsh, it is difficult to ignore the structural deficiencies that continue to undermine the nation’s security framework.

First is the issue of intelligence. Effective security operations depend not just on troop deployment but on timely, accurate, and actionable intelligence. Yet the nation’s intelligence-gathering mechanisms, particularly at the grassroots level, remain weak and poorly coordinated. Relocating service chiefs does little to address this fundamental gap. There is also the challenge of resources. Many security personnel on the frontlines continue to grapple with inadequate equipment, insufficient logistics, and poor welfare conditions. In such circumstances, the physical presence of top commanders cannot substitute for the systematic investment needed to strengthen operational capacity. Equally important is the issue of sustainability. Security is not achieved through sporadic interventions but through consistent, long-term strategies.

The relocation of service chiefs is, by its nature, temporary and does not build enduring institutions capable of sustained response. Beyond these concerns lies a pressing question: what criteria determine which states receive such high-level attention? While Borno has long been an epicentre of insurgency, other states such as Plateau and Benue have also experienced alarming levels of violence, including banditry and communal clashes. Why were similar measures not applied there? The truth is that the nation’s current approach to tackling insecurity is insufficient. One alternative that has gained traction is the establishment of state police. Nigeria’s policing system remains highly centralised, with command structures controlled from Abuja—a model that has proven increasingly inadequate in addressing localised security challenges.

State police would allow for more community-based policing, enabling officers familiar with local terrain and dynamics to respond more effectively. It would also improve intelligence gathering, as local officers are more likely to build trust with residents. However, the idea is not without its critics. Concerns have been raised about the potential for abuse by state governments, particularly in using the police to intimidate opponents or suppress dissent. Funding is another major challenge, as many states already struggle to meet basic financial obligations.These concerns are legitimate but not insurmountable. They can be mitigated through robust legal frameworks, effective oversight mechanisms, and a clear delineation of powers between federal and state authorities. Establishing independent State Police Service Commissions to handle recruitment, discipline, and promotions could help safeguard institutional integrity.

In addition to decentralising policing, there must be a renewed focus on intelligence reform. Investing in modern surveillance technologies, data analysis, and inter-agency coordination is essential. Security agencies must move beyond reactive strategies and adopt proactive approaches that anticipate threats. Equally important is addressing the socio-economic drivers of insecurity. Poverty, unemployment, and lack of education continue to create fertile ground for criminality and extremism. Any meaningful security strategy must therefore include efforts to improve livelihoods, expand access to education, and promote inclusive development. Furthermore, there is a need for greater accountability within the security sector. Transparent evaluation of strategies, clear performance benchmarks, and consequences for failure are necessary to ensure that policies are not just announced but effectively implemented.

Ultimately, the fight against insecurity requires more than symbolic gestures. It demands bold, innovative, and sustained reforms that address both immediate threats and their root causes. The relocation of service chiefs may offer temporary visibility, but it cannot substitute for a comprehensive national security strategy. The nation stands at a critical juncture. Continuing to rely on approaches that have yielded limited results in the past is unlikely to produce different outcomes. It is time to rethink, recalibrate, and rebuild a security architecture that is responsive, resilient, and grounded in the realities of our society.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Beyond the Adichie Tragedy

Published

1 week ago

March 16, 2026

The Tide

Quote:: “Justice must never depend on fame, wealth, or connections. The child of a roadside trader deserves the same standard of care as the child of a globally celebrated writer. When accountability works only for the prominent, public trust in institutions quietly erodes.”

Public reaction to the suspension of doctors by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) following the death of the son of celebrated Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie reveals something deeper than outrage over a single tragedy. Across social media and public commentary, a recurring sentiment stands out: many Nigerians believe justice was served only because of the prominence of the family involved. Comments such as “The doctors were punished because Chimamanda is well known,” or “If it was a poor man’s child, the case would have been swept under the carpet,” capture a troubling lack of faith in the system.

Whether these perceptions are always accurate is not the most important issue. What should concern the nation is that so many citizens instinctively believe that justice in Nigeria often depends on status, wealth, or influence.The tragedy that befell the Adichie family is heartbreaking. No parent should have to bury a child, particularly under circumstances that raise questions about professional responsibility. But beyond the grief lies a larger national concern: medical negligence in Nigeria is far more widespread than the few cases that attract public attention. Across the country, families quietly lose loved ones in hospitals and clinics under troubling circumstances. Patients are sometimes misdiagnosed. Emergency cases may be delayed. Surgical procedures may be mishandled, while basic standards of care can be compromised due to negligence, poor supervision, or systemic pressure on medical staff.

In many situations, grieving families simply accept their loss and move on, believing there is little they can do. The result is what can only be described as a silent epidemic of unreported medical negligence.In more developed healthcare systems, such incidents rarely go unexamined. Independent regulatory bodies investigate complaints, enforce professional standards, and sanction erring practitioners. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Care Quality Commission inspects hospitals, clinics, and care providers to ensure strict compliance with safety and quality standards.Nigeria does have oversight institutions, notably the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria. However, enforcement often appears inconsistent, and many cases of negligence never reach the stage where regulators can intervene. Sometimes victims are unaware of the complaint process. In other cases, fear, cost, or bureaucracy discourage families from seeking justice.

While government institutions must improve their oversight mechanisms, citizens must also confront a difficult truth: Nigerians often fail to pursue their rights when they are violated. Too frequently, when injustice occurs, people retreat into resignation. Instead of filing complaints or seeking legal remedies, many respond with the familiar phrase: “God will judge them.” Faith is important, but it should not replace civic responsibility. A society that leaves accountability solely to divine intervention risks allowing negligence and impunity to flourish. Some commentators have suggested that the Adichie family likely pursued the matter relentlessly through petitions and formal complaints before authorities acted. If that is the case, it demonstrates a path other citizens can follow. When malpractice occurs, persistence in seeking justice can make institutions respond.

If more families reported cases of medical negligence to the appropriate authorities, regulatory bodies would have stronger grounds to investigate. Public pressure would also push healthcare institutions to improve their standards. Negligence, as defined by Nigeria’s Supreme Court in Odinaka v. Moghalu, refers to the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under similar circumstances. Within medical ethics, physicians are expected to provide competent care with compassion and respect for human dignity. These principles form the foundation of the duty of care that patients rely upon. Citizens must therefore be able to recognise signs of negligence and take appropriate steps to seek redress. Patients and families should learn to document incidents, keep medical records, ask questions about treatment decisions, and report suspicious circumstances surrounding medical care.

Where necessary, formal complaints should be lodged with regulatory authorities or pursued through the courts. Civil society organisations, advocacy groups, and the media also play a crucial role. By exposing cases of negligence and demanding accountability, they help ensure such incidents do not disappear into silence. A healthcare system shielded from scrutiny cannot improve. Nevertheless, responsibility cannot rest solely on citizens. Government must take decisive steps to strengthen healthcare regulation and reduce medical negligence. Hospitals and clinics—both public and private—should undergo regular inspections to ensure compliance with professional standards, safety protocols, and ethical guidelines. Persistent violations must attract meaningful sanctions. Legal practitioner and Senior Advocate of Nigeria Olisa Agbakoba has suggested the creation of an independent health regulatory authority and the restoration of Chief Medical Officers at federal and state levels.

In the past, these officials, alongside health inspectors, helped enforce professional standards and ensured accountability within healthcare facilities. Government must also invest more seriously in the training and continuous education of healthcare professionals. Medicine is an evolving field, and practitioners must constantly update their knowledge and skills. Mandatory professional development programmes, stricter licensing renewal requirements, and improved mentorship systems could help reduce errors arising from outdated practices or inadequate training. At the same time, systemic challenges within the healthcare system cannot be ignored. Many Nigerian doctors and nurses work under extremely difficult conditions—overcrowded hospitals, outdated equipment, staff shortages, and overwhelming patient loads. Such pressures increase the risk of mistakes and professional burnout.

Improving healthcare infrastructure, funding, and staffing is therefore not merely an administrative matter; it is a fundamental requirement for patients’ safety. Equally important is transparency when allegations of negligence arise. Investigations must be timely, credible, and accessible. Families deserve to know what happened to their loved ones and whether professional standards were breached. Regulatory bodies must ensure that findings are communicated clearly so that public confidence in the healthcare system is strengthened. The tragedy that drew national attention to medical negligence should not be treated as an isolated incident involving a prominent personality. Rather, it should serve as a wake-up call for systemic reform.

Every Nigerian life carries equal value. Justice must not depend on prominence or privilege. When citizens demand accountability and institutions respond with fairness and transparency, trust begins to grow. Nigeria’s health sector is filled with dedicated doctors, nurses, and medical workers who save lives daily despite difficult conditions. Recognising their commitment, however, should not prevent society from confronting the reality that negligence sometimes occurs—and when it does, it must be addressed firmly. If this painful moment encourages Nigerians to speak up, demand accountability, and push for stronger regulatory systems, it may yet produce meaningful reform. Citizens must refuse to accept negligence as fate, while government strengthens oversight and improves healthcare conditions. Only through this collective effort can Nigeria build a healthcare system where every patient—regardless of social status—receives safe, responsible, and dignified care.

By: Calista Ezeaku