Coldie:
It’s foolish to enact LG autonomy when details on the responsiblilities of state has not been outlined.

If states can’t control LG then what’s the use of the states then?

LG autonomy would only be good if state police existed

You are getting it wrong.The LG autonomy was there long before the advent of the joint account something.
Ask yourself,how the states function when there was LG autonomy in the past.
Or were states not functioning as at then?

For your information,the constitution has already spelled out the functions of the states.The FG,SG and the LG have their different functions in the constitution.
Take for instance in the area of health,the LG is responsible for primary healthcare,the state responsible for secondary healthcare while the FG is responsible for tertiary healthcare facilities.
In terms of road construction/maintenance,there are what we called trunk A,B and C roads in this country.Trunk A is for federal,B is for state while C is for LG.
The list of functions go on and on.
So I don't understand what exactly you mean by giving functions to the state as if they didn't have any function all along apart from controlling L.G funds.
And what has state police got to do with supreme court granting financial autonomy to the L.G?

Pacesetter123:

Nobody is saying most of the Chairmen won't be corrupt.They are all politicians.An average politician in Nigeria is corrupt.But the thing is that,just like the governors,some of them perform very poorly while a few numbers of them do perform a little above average.We have seen few instances where many ex-governors were made to give account of their stewardship in EFCC custody/law court.Those found guilty were convicted like the one speaking now.

So in the same spirit,we should also allow LG Chairmen to control their funds.Those that will perform well will perform and those that won't perform are there too.But there is a law to catch up with any of them who will embezzle the money meant for the development of grassroots areas.

So for the state governor's to technically scrap out the L.G for fear that the chairman will embezzle the money or will not perform well is an affront to the constitution that created the L.G.

The question you should ask yourself is,why has the FG not technically scrap out the states whose past and present governors have not been performing well just as the governors are doing to the LG?

Nobody is saying LGs should not control their funds. What we're calling attention to is the illegality and the arbitrariness of the SC judgement. You can't use a wrong to cure another. It's like using AIDS to cure HIV.
1. One thing you guys refuse to consider is that the SC has summarily trashed section 6 of the constitution which also gives LGs the right to share from the states IGR all in favour of the federal allocation. I honestly don't understand the obsession with federal allocation. Each LG actually gets a measly 0.033% of the federal allocation. If you do the maths, each LG will get an average of 200m per month for a 1trn FAAC. That's what you guys are dancing as if it's megabucks. States like Rivers and Lagos whose IGR by far exceed their federal allocation will be smiling now with the reality that they don't need to share their IGR with LGs again since there's no joint account anymore.

2. There's a smarter, legal way to do this than this abomination of turning the SC to a legislative body. The constitution empowers NASS and state legislatures to make laws on sharing formula and transfer of funds. If Tinubu can get NASS to do something frivolous like changing national anthem, why can't he get them to do something meaningful like making genuine laws instead of this arbitrariness?

Kukutenla:

God bless you. I just read the bolded and shook my head. Agim did not quote which part of the constitution gave the SC the "responsibility of the apex court to make a law that would serve the interest of the people and the country in general."
That is what we are calling attention to that all these numbskulls forming patriots are being selectively blind to. Agim summarily trashed the legislature and added their responsibility to the judiciary. The white man must be shocked if they read this judgement!!

Exactly my point. I don't understand our Supreme Court again and many of our lower courts.

Even when they seem to be doing the right thing, their judgments are filled with political statements. From using inappropriate language to explain their verdicts to simply just adding to constitutional provisions.

I really don't understand what Justice Agim means by "it is the responsibility of the apex court to make a law that would serve the interest of the people and the country in general".
This is a very dangerous precedent.

ElevationD:



“ According to Agim, by laying claim to Section 162 (4&5), the governors were using the Constitution to perpetrate unconstitutionality, adding the Constitution should not be applied in a manner that supported its destruction.

He faulted the narrow interpretation of Section 162(4) which stipulates that funds of the state and the LGs “shall” be paid into a joint state and local government account, stressing that the governors were using it negatively.

While stating that where the narrow interpretation of the section of the Constitution would result to injustice or work against the intended meaning of the said section of the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall employ an approach that would meet the purpose of the Constitution”.


Thank you very much.

I understand that you are not against local government autonomy. I understand that you view it from the point of the constitution.

[b]There has been for years, this raging debate about amending certain aspects of our constitution which are not in tandem with current realities. This is one of them. [/b]Thankfully the Supreme Court put to rest the irresponsibility of governors and state houses of assemblies, used to strangulate local governments and made grassroots development a mirage.

I have wondered how someone like Ibori should say that the judgement was against true federalism. I then asked if what we practice presently in the country is true federalism in its sense. If we practiced true federalism, how have local government, with this joint account with the states, become mere appendages of states and their governors? The rascality over the years by the governors and the verdict of the Supreme Court brought the clapping of hands by the citizens.


Justice Agim said “the Supreme Court shall employ an approach that would meet the purpose of the constitution”.
Is this assertion of the rules of the Supreme Court correct? If it is correct, how had the verdict become an assault on the constitution as posited by Mr. Ibori? How has the Supreme Court wrongly interpreted that section of the constitution?

We are saying two things that are not far from each other as regards governors abusing local government administration and the SC giving a verdict to remedy it.

@bold
In your words, you agreed that "There has been for years, this raging debate about amending certain aspects of our constitution which are not in tandem with current realities. This is one of them". Emphasis on "amending certain aspects of our constitution" and "this is one of them"
Now the question is: is the SC a law making body to amend that aspect of the constitution that needs amendment.
What exactly does Justice Agim mean by "it is the responsibility of the apex court to make a law that would serve the interest of the people and the country in general" when he was elucidating the approach adopted by the SC. To me, the SC is arrogating to itself, the powers of the National Assembly (legislature).

I think what I said has pretty much answered the two questions in your last paragraph.
The closest thing I can say is, maybe the SC employed the doctrine of necessity drawing from their ALTHOUGHs and BUTs.
The maxim: "that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity"

The SC overstepping in this judgment is not even an argument. It is clear as daylight.

Thanks for the dialogue my brother and good evening.

ReubenE:

We are saying two things that are not far from each other as regards governors abusing local government administration and the SC giving a verdict to remedy it.

@bold
In your words, you agreed that "There has been for years, this raging debate about amending certain aspects of our constitution which are not in tandem with current realities. This is one of them". Emphasis on "amending certain aspects of our constitution" and "this is one of them"
Now the question is: is the SC a law making body to amend that aspect of the constitution that needs amendment.
What exactly does Justice Agim mean by "it is the responsibility of the apex court to make a law that would serve the interest of the people and the country in general" when he was elucidating the approach adopted by the SC. To me, the SC is arrogating to itself, the powers of the National Assembly (legislature).

I think what I said has pretty much answered the two questions in your last paragraph.
The closest thing I can say is, maybe the SC employed the doctrine of necessity drawing from their ALTHOUGHs and BUTs.
The maxim: "that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity"

The SC overstepping in this judgment is not even an argument. It is clear as daylight.

Thanks for the dialogue my brother and good evening.

Thank you very much too for the discussion.

In all, I think most of us just want a good country, as the potentials are very obvious.

Do enjoy the rest of your evening.

Kukutenla:

Nobody is saying LGs should not control their funds. What we're calling attention to is the illegality and the arbitrariness of the SC judgement. You can't use a wrong to cure another. It's like using AIDS to cure HIV.
1. One thing you guys refuse to consider is that the SC has summarily trashed section 6 of the constitution which also gives LGs the right to share from the states IGR all in favour of the federal allocation. I honestly don't understand the obsession with federal allocation. Each LG actually gets a measly 0.033% of the federal allocation. If you do the maths, each LG will get an average of 200m per month for a 1trn FAAC. That's what you guys are dancing as if it's megabucks. States like Rivers and Lagos whose IGR by far exceed their federal allocation will be smiling now with the reality that they don't need to share their IGR with LGs again since there's no joint account anymore.

2. There's a smarter, legal way to do this than this abomination of turning the SC to a legislative body. The constitution empowers NASS and state legislatures to make laws on sharing formula and transfer of funds. If Tinubu can get NASS to do something frivolous like changing national anthem, why can't he get them to do something meaningful like making genuine laws instead of this arbitrariness?

Ok

Pacesetter123:
■ You are getting it wrong. The LG autonomy was there long before the advent of the joint account something. Ask yourself,how the states function when there was LG autonomy in the past. Or were states not functioning as at then?
■ For your information,the constitution has already spelled out the functions of the states.The FG,SG and the LG have their different functions in the constitution. Take for instance in the area of health, the LG is responsible for primary healthcare,the state responsible for secondary healthcare while the FG is responsible for tertiary healthcare facilities. In terms of road construction/maintenance,there are what we called trunk A,B and C roads in this country.Trunk A is for federal,B is for state while C is for LG. The list of functions go on and on. So I don't understand what exactly you mean by giving functions to the state as if they didn't have any function all along apart from controlling L.G funds.
■ And what has state police got to do with supreme court granting financial autonomy to the L.G?

1. Whenever did the LGs have any autonomy different from the autonomy currently spelled out in Section 162 of the Constitution?

2. States NEVER had legal control over LG funds to begin with. The States have never had LEGAL control over the LGs or the LG Funds since the 1999 Constitution. The only offices prescribed this power of the LG funds in the Constitution are the National and State Houses of Assembly. These acts by state Governors in controlling LG funds were all done ILLEGALLY. These are cases that clearly violate the Constitution which is at least clear in suggesting impeachment and prosecution. Sadly, no one is calling for this because the Nigerian people have been blinded by a narrative that instead has them calling, en-masse by the way, for more illegal actions from their same government. The average Nigerian out there now reasons, not critically, but according to the script fed them by the same politicians who do not have their interest at heart.

3. State police ke! With the way Nigerians refuse to call out Governors even when their criminal acts against the people are known, do you think it makes sense to hand them State police too? Are you people for real?

Ojuntana:

LGs are not indepedent from the states. The constitution puts them under the administration of the states. Go and read section 7 very well.
That does not mean you can't hold them accountable BUT they are under the administration of the state.

Now that the law is saying something else about the funds, we should respect that too.