The local government reforms of 1976 can be said to have marked a new beginning for grassroots political administration in Nigeria. Local authorities were, in that exercise, redefined, restructured and awarded more powers just as it also served as an early pointer to the seriousness of the then General Olusegun Obasanjo-led Federal Military Government to hand over the reins of power to a democratically elected civilian administration in 1979.
Prior to these reforms, government at the local level was said to be a blend of what obtained under the native authority system of the colonial era, especially in the feudal North, and the county council variant of the largely provincial South. In fact, and particularly in the early post-Nigerian Civil War years, what constituted a semblance of local councils were said to have been run mostly by sole administrators in the newly liberated states.
The new reforms gave local governments some powers to function independent of state and federal authorities, even though the three tiers exist to complement each other in serving the overall interest of the people. With the reforms, the main reason for the existence of grassroots government, therefore, shifted from mere ease of political and administrative control by the superior tiers to that of allowing the local people participate in administering their own affairs.
Under normal circumstances, local government administration is overseen by an elected executive chairman, a deputy chairman, councillors (each representing a ward) and political appointees called supervisors and special assistants. A variant of this was under military regimes when merging the jobs of a councillor and supervisor under a ‘supervisory councillor’ became the vogue. In other situations, a sole administrator or caretaker committee is usually appointed by the state chief executive to take charge of council affairs until the next election.
A bill seeking to embed local government autonomy in the Nigerian Constitution was recently passed by the National Assembly and is currently on its cross country journey to the various state legislatures for ratification. But, so far, only nine of Nigeria’s 36 states have endorsed it. This was disclosed by Obasanjo while hosting a group, Friends of Democracy, at his presidential library in Abeokuta, Ogun State, last week.
The former president was reported to have berated governors and state lawmakers who are opposed to the enactment of a law in support of local government autonomy. According to him, “When in 1976 we brought in local government reforms, it was meant to be the third tier of government and not meant to be subjected to the whims and caprices of any other government, just the same way that the state governments are autonomous from the federal government.”
Obasanjo was disappointed that after more than four decades, the aim of the local government reforms was yet to be realised. “Rather, most of the state governments are virtually stealing local government funds that the federal government appropriates to them monthly.
“Local government is to be autonomous from the state government. But from what we know, by design, most states have incapacitated the local governments’ money in what they called Joint Account. They are to contribute 10 per cent but they never contribute anything.
“So, what we have across the country are local government areas that have functions but cannot pay the staff and we keep getting excuses upon excuses,” the elder statesman concluded.
Except for the one or two states where the legislature is at loggerheads with the executive, mainly on account of suspected short-changes in the recent party primaries, state Assemblies are mostly regarded as mere rubber stamps of the executive arm. Even where there is no express ‘order from above,’ they are known to read the executive’s body language very carefully and vote accordingly on any issue or bill brought before the honourable House. So, for the nine states alluded to by ex-President Obasanjo, it goes without saying that their Assemblies acted in tandem with their respective governors.
Whereas the states have acted swiftly to jointly and severally challenge the federal government over any suspected financial short payments, they have rather turned round to behave like leeches while feeding on the statutory accruals of their local government councils. Some have even assumed some exclusive functions of the grassroots authorities in order to justify their actions. Pray!
Besides its monthly federal allocation, some of the major functions of a local government from which it also generates revenue include: establishment and maintenance of markets, motor parks, abattoirs and cemeteries; collection of levies, rates and licences like vehicle permit, tenement rate, radio, television, bicycle, cart, canoe and wheel barrow licences; street naming and house numbering; birth, marriage and death registration; building plan approval; and operation of subsidised transportation system.
From these revenue sources, the local council constructs and maintains roads, bridges, street lights, leisure parks, public toilets and undertakes rural electrification. It also establishes and maintains homes for the elderly, orphans, persons with disabilities while also contributing to emergency relief funding.
Unfortunately, these internal revenue sources have become easy targets of political investors who see them as worthy collaterals for whatever financial inputs they make toward the emergence of a chairmanship aspirant. Hence, it has become fashionable for a council chairman to award revenue collection contracts to his political benefactors who, in most cases, end up remitting little or nothing to the council’s treasury in an entire tenure.
The local government’s statutory allocation fares no better, certainly not after the chairman’s inescapable emasculation at the Joint Accounts Allocation Committee (JAAC) meeting as the major political stakeholders or king makers of his LGA are wont to immediately summon him to yet another gathering at an already agreed rendezvous (usually a choice hotel owned by one of them) for the final onslaught on the left-over figure, after setting aside any pending litigation costs and, maybe, just maybe, staff salaries.
Just as is obtainable at the higher political rungs, submission to political sponsorship is the bane of the local government system in Nigeria. Its expulsion will ensure the selection of better and more acceptable grassroots politicians as party candidates for local council offices. A good council boss may not necessarily be a ‘garrison commander’ or ‘area father’ who is adept at directing thugs on election day; if he is God-fearing, resourceful, prudent, approachable and of good chair, he will surely be happy and at peace with himself. And his people will have every cause to also be of good cheer.

By: Ibelema Jumbo