Local Government Autonomy: Why Is Implementation Selective?

The Supreme Court judgment on local government autonomy was widely celebrated across Nigeria as a major victory for grassroots democracy, accountability, and development. Many Nigerians believed the ruling would finally end the era where local government funds pass through state-controlled joint accounts before reaching the councils.

However, months after the judgment, questions are beginning to arise. Has the federal government truly implemented the decision in a uniform and sincere manner across all states?

One of the major concerns is that, despite directing local governments to open dedicated bank accounts, allocations in many states are still being processed through the old arrangement. This has created confusion about the Federal Government’s commitment to full implementation of the judgment.

The situation in Osun State has further intensified the debate. Critics argue that allocations are being sent directly to local government accounts in Osun, while the same level of implementation is not being applied consistently in several other states. Because the governor of Osun belongs to a different political party from the party controlling the Federal Government, some observers believe the selective application of local government autonomy could be interpreted as a political strategy rather than a constitutional reform.

This raises an important question: If direct allocation is possible in Osun State, why is it not being implemented uniformly across all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory? Because the LG’s in Osun State are APC controlled, even though their tenure as elapsed.

Why Consistency Matters

Local government autonomy should not be treated as a political weapon. The Supreme Court judgment was not delivered for one state or one political party; it was delivered for the benefit of all Nigerians.

A selective approach creates several dangers:

• Erosion of public trust: Citizens may begin to see constitutional reforms as tools for political convenience rather than genuine democratic progress.
• Unequal development: Some local governments may enjoy financial independence while others remain dependent on state structures.
• Political tension: Different standards for different states can deepen partisan suspicion and weaken cooperative governance.
• Undermining the judiciary: Failure to implement a Supreme Court judgment uniformly may diminish confidence in the authority of the courts.

What Nigerians Expected

After the judgment, many Nigerians expected the Federal Government to take clear and transparent steps:

• Publish a nationwide implementation framework.
• Ensure every local government has a functional and verified account.
• Transfer allocations directly to all constitutionally recognised local governments.
• Provide regular public reports on compliance by every state.

The Real Test of Federalism

True federalism is not measured by speeches; it is measured by fairness, consistency, and respect for constitutional principles. If local government autonomy is to succeed, it must be implemented equally in APC states, PDP states, Labour Party states, APM states, Accord states and every other state regardless of political affiliation.

The issue before Nigerians is therefore not merely about Osun State. It is about whether the Federal Government is willing to uphold the Supreme Court judgment without fear, favour, or political calculation.

Local government autonomy was meant to empower the grassroots, not to become another arena for partisan contest. The Federal Government must demonstrate that the Constitution is supreme and that every state is equal before the law. Only then can Nigerians truly believe that the long-awaited era of genuine local government autonomy has begun.

By: Senator Rilwan Adesoji Akanbi.