Why Supreme Court Financial Autonomy Ruling For Local Govt Is Defective – James Ibori Reveals

“James Ibori, former Delta State Governor, has condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling granting financial autonomy to local governments, arguing it undermines state autonomy and contradicts Nigeria’s federal principles.”

 

Former Delta State Governor, Chief James Ibori, has described the Supreme Court ruling granting financial autonomy to the 774 local government councils in Nigeria as defective. In a post on his X handle, Ibori expressed concerns that the decision could be seen as an erosion of state autonomy.

 

Ibori argued that in a federal system, states should have significant control over their internal affairs, including the administration of local governments. He asserted that the federal government has no right to interfere with the administration of local governments under any guise whatsoever.

 

According to Ibori, “There are only two tiers of government in a federal system of government. The ruling stands the concept of federalism on its head. If the ruling is saying governors cannot tamper 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 governments’ allocations directly is utter madness.”

 

Ibori further elaborated that he opposes the tampering with allocations to the Joint LG Accounts at the state level, but this does not justify undermining Section 162 of the Constitution. He highlighted that the ruling has far-reaching implications and contradicts the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution, which outlines the distribution of funds among federal, state, and local governments.

 

He explained, “The Supreme Court has dealt a severe setback to the principle of federalism as defined by Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The section expressly provides that 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. Section 6 further clarifies that each state shall maintain a special account 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 from the state government.”

 

Ibori asserted that the Supreme Court’s ruling appears to contradict these explicit provisions, raising questions about judicial interpretation and whether the court has overstepped its bounds. He warned that the ruling has potentially shifted the balance of power between the federal government and states, centralizing more power at the federal level, contrary to the principles of federalism.

 

He also cautioned that the ruling may impact the financial independence of states and local governments, allowing the federal government to use direct intervention in local government finances as a tool for political leverage. Ibori opined that this decision could set a precedent for further federal interventions in areas traditionally reserved for state governance, potentially leading to a more centralized system of government over time.