Proponents of local government autonomy scored a major victory yesterday as the Supreme Court stripped governors of financial control over councils.
The highest court effectively freed the third tier from the control of the state governments by restraining governors from further managing or utilising allocations meant for it.
It held in a judgment that it was wrong for a state government to retain and utilise local governments’ statutory allocations paid through them .
A seven-member panel declared unlawful the running of local governments by non-elected and appointed officials.
The court declared as gross misconduct the dissolution of democratically elected local governments by governors, whose responsibility, under Section 7 (1) of the Constitution, is to ensure their existence.
It barred the Federal Government from releasing funds to local governments managed by undemocratically elected officials, such as caretaker committees.
The judgment was on suit SC/CV/343/2024 filed on behalf of the Federal Government by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), with all the 36 state attorneys-general as defendants.
The Supreme Court, in the lead judgment by Justice Emmanuel Agim, held that the suit had merit. It granted all the reliefs sought.
The apex court issued an order of injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their privies, agents, officials or howsoever called, from receiving, spending or tampering with funds released from the Federation Account for the benefit of local government councils when no democratically elected local government system is in place.
The court also ordered the Federal Government, through its relevant officials, to commence immediately the direct payment to local government councils the amount standing to their credit in the Federation account.
It ordered that henceforth, no state government should be paid any money standing to the credit of the local governments in the Federation account.
The apex court also issued an order of immediate compliance by the states through their elected or appointed officials and public officers with the terms of the judgment and orders.
Successive state government officials and public officers must also comply, it held.
Justice Agim faulted the contention of the states that allowing the Federal Government to pay allocations directly to the LGAs would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 162 (5) & (6) of the Constitution, requiring that such allocations must be paid through the states.
The sub-sections provide: “The amount standing to the credit of local government councils in the Federation Account shall also be allocated to the State for the benefit of their local government councils on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.
Each state shall maintain a special account to be 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 Government of the State.”
Justice Agim noted that where the literal and narrow interpretation is adopted in constructing the word “shall” in sub-section 5, it will impose a mandatory duty on the Federation to pay local governments statutory allocations from the Federation account only through the states.
Justice Agim added that where such literal and narrow interpretations will cause injustice or create an unworkable situation, a purposive or teleological interpretation should be adopted to allow for discretion on the part of the Federation in determining the most appropriate mode of paying the allocations of the LGAs to them.
