By David Onwuchekwa
The controversy sparked by Atiku Abubakar’s accusation against President Bola Tinubu goes beyond partisan politics; it exposes a deep-rooted structural problem that has plagued Nigeria’s local government system since the return to civil rule.
Despite the Supreme Court’s July 11, 2024 judgment affirming the financial autonomy of the 774 local government councils, translating that decision into reality has proven difficult, largely because the obstacles are political, constitutional in practice, and institutional in nature.
At the heart of the problem is the long-standing dominance of State governments over local councils through the State–Local Government Joint Account.
Although the Constitution recognises local governments as a tier of government, decades of practice have reduced them to administrative appendages of State Governors.
Control over local government funds has become a powerful political tool, allowing Governors to determine who gets paid, which projects are executed, and which councils survive.
Direct allocation from the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), as ordered by the Supreme Court, threatens this entrenched system and weakens the grip of Governors over grassroots politics.
This explains why implementation has been slow and contentious. Enforcing direct allocation is not merely a technical adjustment; it requires dismantling a political arrangement that benefits powerful interests across party lines.
For the federal government, pushing full compliance risks open confrontation with Governors whose cooperation is often crucial for national political stability, electoral calculations, and legislative support.
The reluctance, therefore, reflects a political cost-benefit calculation rather than an absence of legal clarity.
There is also the issue of weak local government institutions. Years of financial strangulation have left many councils without the administrative capacity, transparency frameworks, or effective oversight mechanisms needed to manage funds independently.
This reality has been used, sometimes sincerely and sometimes conveniently, as an argument against immediate direct allocation.
However, this reasoning is circular: local governments lack capacity precisely because they have been denied autonomy and resources for so long.
The consequences for democracy are severe. Local governments are meant to be the closest level of governance to the people, providing basic services and serving as a training ground for democratic participation. When councils are financially dependent on Governors, elections at that level become hollow exercises.
Councillors and Chairmen owe allegiance upward, not to their constituents. Democratic accountability is replaced by patronage, and grassroots politics is emptied of meaning.
The economic and social costs are equally damaging. As Atiku noted, the real victims are ordinary Nigerians. With funds withheld or arbitrarily released, rural roads remain impassable, primary healthcare centres decay, teachers and health workers go unpaid, and local economies stagnate.
Development failures at the grassroots are not accidental; they are the predictable outcome of a system that denies local governments both resources and authority.
More troubling is the signal this sends about constitutionalism. Supreme Court judgments are final, and selective enforcement undermines the rule of law. When a binding judgment is treated as negotiable, it weakens democratic institutions and normalises executive discretion over constitutional duty.
This erodes public trust and reinforces the belief that laws apply differently depending on political convenience.
Ultimately, the difficulty in implementing direct local government funding reflects Nigeria’s unresolved struggle between constitutional ideals and political realities.
Until the federal government decisively enforces the Supreme Court ruling, local governments will remain weak, democracy at the grassroots will remain stunted, and governance will continue to drift away from the people it is meant to serve.
The longer the delay, the deeper the damage, to development, to democracy, and to the credibility of the Nigerian State itself.
