Connect with us

Opinion

Should LGAs Be Financially Autonomous?

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Opinion

One Attack Too Many 

Published

on

Quote: “Ogoniland does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create more opportunities, empower youths and build a better future.”

The latest attack by Chief Gani Topba on the President of KAGOTE and Chief Executive Officer of Giolee Global Resources Ltd, Chief Lesi Maol, appears to have opened another troubling chapter in the politics of leadership and influence in Ogoniland. While disagreements are inevitable, the frequency and manner of attacks directed at individuals or organisations contributing to Ogoni development should concern every stakeholder. The concluded extraordinary meeting of Ogoni stakeholders in Bori was convened to deliberate on challenges confronting the people, including insecurity, farmers-herders clashes, youth disunity, education and development. It also considered harmonising the numerous youth organisations operating across Ogoniland under a strong and representative umbrella capable of giving Ogoni youths a more coordinated voice. One would have expected such an initiative to attract constructive contributions, especially from those with reservations about it.

Instead, the gathering and its organisers have come under criticism, raising a fundamental question: what exactly is wrong with Ogoni stakeholders coming together to discuss problems affecting their people? If there are legitimate concerns about the meeting, its organisers or resolutions, such concerns should be supported by facts and subjected to constructive engagement rather than personalised attacks. Leadership is demonstrated through service, sacrifice, participation and results. If Chief Gani Topba believes the stakeholders’ meeting was unnecessary or lacked legitimacy, nothing prevents him from convening another meeting and demonstrating that he can attract traditional rulers, professionals, academics, clergy and youths. Different approaches to development should therefore be allowed to compete on their merits.

The proposal for a unified youth platform should equally not be presented as an attempt to silence Ogoni youths. Rather, it should be examined against the reality of numerous organisations claiming to represent different segments of Ogoni youths. Too many competing organisations can create confusion, weaken collective bargaining power and make it difficult for genuine concerns affecting young people to receive coordinated attention. A credible umbrella body, if properly constituted and broadly accepted, could strengthen the voice of Ogoni youths and provide an organised platform for employment, education, skills acquisition, security and governance. Ogoniland has experienced enough institutional fragmentation. Its history contains painful lessons about divisions that allow personal interests, leadership struggles and competing platforms to overshadow collective objectives. The present generation should learn that destroying institutions one does not control damages society.

The question should be: who benefits when Ogoni youths remain divided and every attempt at unity is interpreted as rivalry? Against this background, KAGOTE deserves objective scrutiny rather than blanket condemnation. Any organisation with influence must be accountable, but accountability is different from a campaign aimed at delegitimising initiatives associated with its leadership. Chief Lesi Maol’s activities through KAGOTE and Giolee Global Resources Ltd have attracted attention in areas including skills development, education, youth empowerment and community support. Such interventions should be assessed on their impact and encouraged where they serve the public good. Those who believe Chief Maol is not doing enough should not stop at criticism. They should show Ogoni what they can do better. Where are the alternative skills programmes? Where are the educational interventions? Where are the youth empowerment schemes? Where are the community development initiatives?

It is easy to criticise someone who is building; it is harder to mobilise resources and sustain programmes that benefit ordinary people. This is not to suggest that Chief Maol or KAGOTE should be immune from criticism. No leader or institution should be beyond scrutiny, and legitimate questions about accountability must be welcomed. But responsible criticism should be based on facts, evidence and alternative ideas. Personal attacks and attempts to destroy initiatives simply because their leadership is not controlled by particular interests cannot provide the solutions Ogoniland needs. What is unfolding is bigger than one meeting, one statement or even two individuals. It reflects a broader contest over influence and leadership. If anyone believes KAGOTE is taking Ogoni in the wrong direction, the response is to present a better direction. If anyone believes Lesi Maol is not doing enough, the answer is to demonstrate what more can be done. Ogoni does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create opportunities, improve education, promote security, empower youths and contribute to development.

The people are looking beyond rhetoric. They are examining records, observing programmes and measuring results. No individual owns the permanent right to speak for Ogoni or determine which organisation must survive or collapse. Ogoni must replace the politics of personal control with a culture of ideas, service, accountability and measurable achievement. Differences should produce better alternatives, not destruction. Every Ogoni leader and stakeholder should ask whether his actions are strengthening the region or deepening divisions. Ogoni needs people who can build bridges, institutions, opportunities and hope. Those who genuinely love Ogoni should support what is good, correct what is wrong and offer better alternatives. The future of Ogoni will not be secured by destroying its builders, but by encouraging more people to build.

onest people can reach different conclusions based on different experiences and information. Public debate should therefore remain respectful, evidence-based and open to correction. Truth is strengthened by honest examination, not insults, suspicion or personal attacks. The phrase “Truth has no agenda” carries a powerful message. Truth does not belong to any political party, ethnic group, religion or ideology. It cannot be permanently owned or manipulated by those in power. Governments change, institutions rise and fall, and public opinion shifts, but truth remains indifferent to popularity.The real test of character comes when speaking honestly threatens influence, privilege or personal advantage. It is easy to defend justice when there is nothing to lose. It is far more difficult when the truth may cost us something. That is when conscience must rise above convenience.

Society must therefore cultivate a culture where integrity is valued more than comfort and accountability is welcomed rather than feared. Leaders should learn to accept criticism without hostility, while citizens should express disagreement responsibly. Progress becomes difficult when honest questions are treated as acts of disloyalty. Ultimately, every society must choose the future it desires. A nation built on silence cannot sustain justice, while a community where comfort consistently outweighs conscience risks making injustice ordinary. But people committed to truth, even when inconvenient, lay the foundation for stronger institutions, trustworthy leadership and lasting progress. The call is not to condemn those who succeed or to glorify perpetual criticism. It is to remember that privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good. Truth has no hidden agenda. It seeks neither applause nor favour. It simply asks to be spoken, defended and lived. When truth is silenced by comfort, everyone eventually pays the price.

By:  King Onunwor
Continue Reading

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth  

Published

on

Quote: “Privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good.”

There is an old saying that truth does not fear investigation. Genuine truth neither depends on applause nor seeks permission to exist. It remains constant whether celebrated or rejected, defended or ignored. Yet, in today’s society, truth often competes with comfort, convenience, loyalty and personal interest. This raises an important question: Can a person remain objective after beginning to benefit from the very system he once criticised? Throughout history, reform movements have been driven by courageous individuals willing to challenge injustice despite personal risks. Their commitment to truth sometimes cost them popularity, comfort, freedom and even their lives. History has also recorded instances where influential voices became quieter after receiving appointments, promotions, contracts, political favours or other advantages.

While motivations cannot always be known, such patterns remind us that personal benefit can sometimes influence public conviction. Human beings naturally seek security, stability and opportunities for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with success or advancement. The concern arises when personal comfort replaces public responsibility, or privilege becomes a reason to ignore problems affecting others. One of the greatest dangers facing society is not only corruption or poor governance but the normalisation of silence. Systems rarely collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually when people who know better decide that speaking the truth is no longer worth the personal cost. Every society therefore depends on citizens willing to ask difficult questions, demand accountability and defend justice, regardless of who benefits or feels uncomfortable.

A person who benefits from a broken system may become less inclined to challenge it. This is not true of everyone, and individuals should not be judged without evidence. Many principled people continue to advocate reform while working within imperfect institutions. Nevertheless, personal interests can sometimes soften criticism, dilute conviction or redirect attention from uncomfortable realities.Perhaps the greatest threat to truth is not open opposition but quiet compromise. Censorship is easy to recognise; silence purchased through convenience is harder to detect. When people gradually stop asking questions, demanding transparency or defending principles they once considered important, society should ask whether something has changed. Perspectives may genuinely evolve with new information, but incentives can also influence what people say—or choose not to say.

This is why citizens should not place blind trust in personalities. Ideas, principles and actions should be examined independently. Loyalty to individuals must never exceed loyalty to truth. Political affiliation, professional status, financial success or social influence should not exempt anyone from accountability. A healthy democracy depends on independent thinking, not unquestioning allegiance.The responsibility to speak truth does not belong only to journalists, activists, judges, religious leaders or opposition politicians. It belongs to every citizen. The teacher who refuses to manipulate facts, the public servant who rejects corruption, the business owner who acts with integrity, the parent who teaches honesty and the young person who chooses principle over popularity all contribute to a more just society. However, defending truth also requires humility.

We must not assume that everyone who disagrees with us has been compromised.

By: Michael  Abraham

Continue Reading

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s  Outburst

Published

on

Quote:”Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat”

The recent outburst by the lawmaker representing Edo North Senatorial District, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, over the deplorable condition of federal roads in Edo and Delta states has once again drawn national attention to one of Nigeria’s most persistent infrastructure challenges. During Senate plenary last Wednesday, Oshiomhole criticized the Minister of Works, David Umahi, accusing the Federal Ministry of Works of neglecting major federal highways in Edo and Delta while prioritizing new road projects. According to him, the government should focus on rehabilitating existing roads that have become impassable before embarking on new construction. He identified the Benin-Warri, Benin-Asaba, Benin-Auchi and Auchi-Okene highways as strategic economic corridors that have deteriorated to alarming levels, making travel difficult for commuters and motorists while increasing the cost of transporting goods and services.

The senator also alleged that road projects affecting Edo and Delta states were repeatedly omitted from budgetary provisions and that some interventions were only undertaken following directives from President Bola Tinubu. Ironically, the Federal Government has consistently reiterated its commitment to reconstructing and rehabilitating federal roads across the country. The Minister of Works has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the government is deploying reinforced concrete technology to build more durable highways capable of withstanding the country’s climatic conditions. Despite these assurances, vast sections of federal road across the country remain in deplorable condition. The consequences are enormous. Federal highways serve as the backbone of the nation’s economy, carrying more than 90 per cent of passengers and freight.

They connect ports, airports, industrial centres, state capitals and agricultural belts, facilitating the movement of food, fuel, cement and manufactured goods. When these roads fail, the entire economy suffers. Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat. The result is a recurring cycle in which newly completed roads quickly deteriorate while existing ones are left to collapse. The economic consequences are severe. Bad roads increase transportation costs, contribute to food inflation, delay the movement of goods from ports to markets, increase vehicle maintenance expenses and lead to avoidable road crashes that claim countless lives every year.

To address these challenges, the Federal Government has introduced initiatives such as the Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI), which seeks to attract private investment into road maintenance through concessions and tolling. While the initiative holds promise, public acceptance will depend largely on visible improvements in road quality and transparent management of toll revenues. Similarly, the Road Infrastructure Tax Credit Scheme is designed to encourage companies to finance the reconstruction of strategic highways in exchange for tax credits. While the scheme has shown promise, its ability to address road infrastructure challenges equitably across the country remains to be seen. Other countries facing similar infrastructure challenges have demonstrated that sustainable road management requires a different approach.

Rwanda and Morocco, for instance, have prioritized dedicated road maintenance funds, performance-based contracts that reward quality rather than kilometers constructed, and policies that allocate a significant proportion of road budgets to maintenance instead of new construction. Nigeria can draw useful lessons from these experiences. Maintenance funding should be increased and protected because preventive maintenance is far cheaper than complete reconstruction. Public-private partnerships should be expanded with adequate safeguards, transparent tolling policies and independent monitoring. Development finance institutions should support contractors with affordable financing to minimize disruptions caused by delayed government payments. Road designs should withstand heavier rainfall and flooding, while compensation and right-of-way issues must be resolved before projects begin to avoid unnecessary delays.

FERMA should also prioritize durable, high-quality road maintenance over the shoddy repairs that have become all too common. Ultimately, Nigerians are not asking for perfect roads; they simply want roads that are safe, durable and properly maintained. While new highways are desirable, a well-maintained five-kilometer stretch is often far more valuable to road users than a much longer road that quickly falls into disrepair. The media, civil society, the National Assembly and Nigerians must continue to hold the government accountable by monitoring road projects and demanding better results. Good roads are not a privilege but a right of every citizen. With tax credit schemes, concessions and other funding mechanisms already in place, what is now required is political will, transparency and consistent implementation. However, Senator Oshiomhole’s criticism also invites legitimate public reflection. 

Many Nigerians have asked what the condition of these same federal roads was during his eight-year tenure as Governor of Edo State. Several governors, including those of Rivers State at different times, undertook repairs on critical federal roads within their states and subsequently sought reimbursement from the Federal Government. It is therefore fair to ask whether similar interventions were pursued during Oshiomhole’s administration. Public officials, whether serving or former, should be judged by the same standard. Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, but it carries greater weight when matched by a demonstrable record of action. Nigerians expect those entrusted with public office to address pressing challenges while they have the authority to do so, rather than becoming vocal critics only after leaving office

By:  Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Trending