The issue of local government as appendage of the State government has continued to generate controversy. The generality of opinion has been that to ensure development at the grassroots, the local government should enjoy a high level of autonomy. As the third tier of government, the reason for this has always been due to the fact that the local government is closer to the people and is expected to ensure quick development at the grassroots. In spite of this obvious fact, it has not always been the case as the State government continues to exercise firm administrative, political and fiscal control over the local government.
This has led to problem of underdevelopment at that level of governance as the authorities at the local level depend on the state for its survival and the governor’s pleasure. We know what that implies. The problem becomes more intractable when the governor is from a different party than the party that organized the election that ushered in the local government chairmen. This is the scenario currently playing out in Oyo State.
On assumption of duty, the Peoples Democratic Party administration in Oyo State had ordered the immediate dissolution of the political leadership of the local government elected during the All Progressives Congress (APC) administration in the State. It was the same scenario in Ekiti State before the intervention of the Court.
Clearly, State governors see the local administration as appendages they can always dispense with, irrespective of the constitutional provision of tenure-ship.
That the local government authority needed to be strengthened is stating the obvious. Looking at the historical antecedent, the native authority ordinance which was the precursor of the present local government administration failed because it was unable to meet the demands of the people it was supposed to serve being an appendage of the colonial administration.
This led to agitation for greater participation by the people, leading to the first local government reform after the Second World War in 1945. The reform ushered in representative system of local government in the 50s, thus abolishing the Native Authority system and laying the foundation for a modern local government administration as we have today. It was also at that time that local governments were granted the power of taxation as a form of revenue, they were also given a semblance of financial and administrative autonomy. However, the reform did not achieve its objective, it was a negative rather than a positive development as this led to poor funding, inadequate staffing, bribery and maladministration.
With the coming of the military in 1966, there were further reforms, which also failed to achieve the needed autonomy until the introduction of another local government reform in 1976.
A report entitled, ‘Local Governmnent Autonomy and Grassroots Development’ captures the situation further when it stated that the 1976 reform marked a turning point in Local government administration in the country as it aimed to “make the Local Government more effective in their primary role of bringing development to the grassroots. It established a multi-purpose single tier system throughout the country, with the same structure and function. Local Government were recognized as a third tier of government with the federal structure. It provided for the Local Government to receive their statutory allocation from Federal Government through the State Government. They were democratized through popular or indirect election. The Local Government were given specific function to perform and enshrined in the fourth schedule of the 1979 constitution. Local Government were granted a relatively high level of autonomy.”
In spite of this high level of autonomy and recognition granted to local government, it was still unable to achieve its objective of bringing rapid development to the grassroots. The State which is the second tier of government still holds tightly unto its firm control of the local government. The continued success, existence of the leadership and survival of local government political leadership was at the continued pleasure of the governor of the State. The State has the power to emasculate the local authority and it did this by starving it of funds or determining how much could be released at any point in time. What this implies is that the local government exists at the pleasure of State government or governor, unlike the relationship between the Federal and the State government, where the state exercises a higher level of autonomy on its affairs.
For Nigeria to develop, this must change. Local government must be completely independent of the State, whether administratively or politically. The State should not continue to take arbitrary decision on local government as if that tier of government is not constitutionally recognized. Some governors, when they come into power dissolve the political leadership of the local government irrespective of the fact that their election is tenured. The only reason being that it was the other political party that conducted the election that ushered then into power. This should not continue. There should be sanction for any governor that does this irrespective of political party.
It is however gratifying that certain reforms are being proposed. The idea of the local government election being conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as being proposed is welcome. This would give the local government chairmen a little bit of independence while their fate would no longer be determined by their State governors. The idea of financial autonomy is also welcome. The only minus in the arrangement is that the anti-graft agencies would have to up its effort by extending its activities further to the local government.
That notwithstanding, the reform is essential to assure rapid development at the grassroots.