The federal government (FG) of Nigeria recently sent a strongly worded letter, dated 14th July 2009, to Lagos State government to the effect that the state should immediately revert to the 'original 20 local councils'' and that "the operations of the 37 'Local Council Development Areas' should equally be stopped forthwith within the same period by the state government". Failing this, the Nigerian federal government threatened that "necessary actions be taken by the relevant organs of State to defend the Constitution and preserve the authority of the Federal Government."
Strong stuff. But let's take a deep breath and recap the story before this letter: The Lagos state government had created, several years ago, 37 new local governments in addition to the existing 20 for the purpose of efficient administration and execution of its development programmes. The FG then responded by refusing to acknowledge the new LGAs and withholding federal funds for the state. The matter went to the courts, up to the supreme court which eventually ruled that the new LGAs were legal but inchoate (inchoate: sort of 'not yet effective') until they are formally recognized by the national assembly. In the interim (which turns out to be a very long 'interim) before this 'formal recognition', the state government stuck with the old 20 LGs, whilst using 37 development areas for its administrative purposes. This is the backdrop against which the FG has threatened fire and brimstone
Now I am in complete agreement with the submission that we need to have better debate on this issue. For that debate to be truly productive, we should not scratch around the surface. Rather, we should approach the issue from a total perspective, devoid of all sentiments. Now, the big issue at stake is, infact, the pseudo-federalism of the Nigerian State. This is root of all evils, the cumulative evils of several decades that now threatens the continued survival of the federal republic of Nigeria.
The thrust of the pro-FG argument put forward is that states do not have the rights to determine their internal administrative structures because they get the bulk of their revenues from the 'federal purse'. There are many problems with this line of reasoning, the immediate one being the idea of a 'federal purse'. In a true federation, it is the states that contribute, by means of various taxes, to the federal purse- to take care of such common interests like defense and national infrastructures, among others. As things stand now, this 'federal fund' of the Nigerian government consists mainly of 'stolen funds' from the Niger Delta. I will not, at this point, stay too long on the Niger Delta issue, it suffice to say that until it is resolved, we will continue to have problems with the general workings of the entity called Nigeria.
Let us return now to the fundamental question of 'what are the constituent 'federating' units in a federation? If, as we all know, it is the states, it can not at the same time be the local governments. The local governments are the administrative instruments of the state to manage its resources and structure its development. It is no business of the federal government, as long as the state transparently declares its revenue and contributes the agreed portion as taxes to the federal government.
This truth must have been all too obvious to the learned judges of the supreme court, and in saying the LGAs are legal but ‘inchoate’ until ratified by the national assembly, they spoke in a similar manner as they would of a president elect before he is sworn in as effective president. In the latter case, as in the former, the ratifying authority has no power to debate whether or not to validate the mandate, except to the extent that there is doubt as regards the authenticity of respective electoral mandates. To put it more clearly, if the electoral mandate of a president is not in doubt, the chief justice has no reason to refuse to swear him in. In similar vein, if the mandate of a state governor is not in doubt, the national assembly has no excuse to refuse recognition of the state's administrative structure. To that extent, the idea of political opposition using the federal government to bully or destabilize rivals in state government is not merely irrelevant but infact axiomatic of the malady of pseudo-federalism.
But let us assume for a moment that the national assembly has good reasons to delay 'formal recognition' of the LGAs. The state government now uses development areas whilst keeping intact the old LGAs. How's that the business of the federal government? We return to the claim that 'well, it's the FG money'. The truth is that, Infact, it's not the FG money! It's money from the Niger Delta. This is why we have to resolve this problem comprehensively, and the great de-service we can do is use our intellectual energy for the defense of the status quo that is neither productive nor sustainable in the long (or even short) term. It is clear to me at least, that if it is the Lagos state contributing money to the federal purse and not the other way round, the issue of illegality of the LGAs would not arise in the first place.
I'll just bring in this portion from wikipedia for your careful consideration (the emphases are all mine:
"County governments (in the USA) are organized local governments authorized in state constitutions and statutes and established to provide general government in an area generally defined as a first-tier geographic division of a state. The category includes those governments designated as boroughs in Alaska, as parishes in Louisiana, and as counties in other states. All the states are divided into counties or county-equivalents (referred to as boroughs in Alaska and parishes in Louisiana), though only a portion of Alaska is so divided. Connecticut and Rhode Island have completely eliminated county government, and Massachusetts has partially eliminated it. The locality which houses the county's main offices is known as the county seat. In areas lacking a municipal or township government, the county government is generally responsible for providing all services".
Using this example of the United States that practises federalism, the points I want you to note are this:
1. Local governments are created according to 'state constitutions and statues'
2. Different states chose different names for their local councils as they see fit. Some call them 'boroughs', some say 'parishes', and others use counties.
3. Infact, some have 'completely eliminated county government'
4. In all this, we never heard the central US government threatening fire and brimstone, saying to Connecticut for example "how dare you eliminate county governments?", or to Alaska, "it is illegal for you to call your LGs 'boroughs' "
Unless the matter of federal structure (and resource control) is resolved very soon, the prognosis is ominous for Nigeria, to put it mildly.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });