|
The Role Of Local Government In Federal Systems
By Gbemiga Bamidele
Newsdiaryonline
Sat Oct 29,20111
Bamidele
Introduction:
Social Scientists hardly ever agree on a common definition of
any concept. The
nebulous (not at all clear or exact) nature of the concept of
local government further exacerbates the problem of its
definition.
Nonetheless, a number of attempts have been made by many
scholars to define the concept.
First, the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA) the
World Wide Association of Local Government during its 27th
World Congress in 1985 defined Local Government as “that level
of government with constitutionally defined rights and duties to
regulate and manage public affairs which are also
constitutionally defined for the exclusive interest of the local
population. These
rights and duties shall be exercised by individuals that are
freely elected on periodical basis by equal, universal suffrage
while its chief executive shall be so elected or appointed with
the full participation of the elected body”.
Secondly, the federal Republic of Nigeria has defined local
government as: “Government at local level exercised through
councils established by law to exercise specific powers within
defined areas.
These powers should give the councils substantial control over
local affairs as well
as the staff and institutional and financial powers to
initiate and direct the provision of services and to determine
and implement projects so as to complement the activities of the
state and federal governments in their areas, and to ensure,
through devolution of functions to these councils and through
the active participation of the people and their traditional
institutions, that local initiatives and response to local needs
and conditions are maximised” -
(FRN,1976).
Thirdly and finally, the constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999, in its forth schedule, section 7 sub-section 2
enumerated the functions of local government council to include
participation in the Government of a state as respects the
following matters:
(a)
The provision and maintainance of primary, adult and vocational
education;
(b)
The development of agriculture and national resources; other
than the exploitation of minerals.
(c)
The provision and maintainance of health services; and
(d)
Such other functions as may be conferred on a local government
council by the House of Assembly of the State”.
It can be deduced from above definitions that local government
is a unit of administration with defined powers and authority
imbued with relative autonomy while its decision – making organ
as well as its Chief Executive could be elected or nominated.
PRE – 1976 REFORMS
Before 1976, local government in Nigeria had no common
denominator as each region and later states designed and
structured its local administration the way and manner it
thought most appropriate.
In the words of Oyediran and Gboyega (1979), “in the
South, the governments of the East and West conceived of local
government in extremely liberal terms which led to a rapid and
unrestrained adoption of what they considered to be the essence
of the British Model of local government with its emphasis on
popular participation, whilst in the north, a more conservative
approach led to the adoption of a reform which emphasised
functional effectiveness rather than popular participation”.
The restructuring of Nigeria into twelve states provided
opportunities particularly after the civil war ended, for a
variety of experiments across the nation.
In most of the northern states, the emphasis was on
increasing popular representation and the weakening of the
traditional leadership hold on the functioning of local
political institutions.
In the Eastern states and the Mid-West, state
governments’ in different styles took over the running of local
political institutions.
In the West, a new experiment was embarked upon by the
adoption of a North American model of council manager System.
Throughout this period, state government total
responsibility for the system of local government in their areas
of jurisdiction was left intact by the Federal Military
Government under General Gowon.
The 1976 reforms changed all this.
But the reforms had their antecedents in the
recommendation of the Public Service Review Commission of 1974
popularly known as Udoji Commission Report.
OBJECTIVES OF THE 1976 REFORMS:
The 1976 Reforms marked the first attempt to introduce
nationwide, uniform reform measures.
The objectives of the reforms were clear enough.
The first was the realization of the fact that a strong,
representative local government system was considered to be a
pre-condition for the democratic system at the national level.
The government itself admitted that local government
reforms were “the next important exercise in the process of
building a sound foundation for the return to civil rule”, after
dealing with the vexed question of the imbalance in the
structure of the federation.
Secondly, there was also the desire of the military
regime to decentralize power.
The government realized the hazards of
over-centralization
Thirdly, there was also the need to reap the benefit concomitant
with a decentralized system of administration such as
sensitivity to local needs, effective local control, greater
efficiency and the lessening of the load of administration at
the state level. To
these identified objectives may be added those of “stability and
development”. The high degree of instability that characterised
the machinery of local government before 1976 was legendary.
The reforms were intended to redress this situation by
standardising the basic structure, functions and powers of local
government.
The foreword to the guidelines for Local Government Reforms
conveys the fundamental nature of the re-organization, which is
to recognize the local Government as the third-tier of
govern-mental activities in the nation that is governing at the
grass roots or local level.
It is important to note that the reforms of 1976 had the widest
consultation possible under military administration which by its
very nature is authoritarian.
Each state government was asked to set up a commission to
appraise the problems of local government in its area of
Jurisdiction and submit proposals that would increase
responsibilities as well as encourage participation.
The objective was to discover a common approach.
Local Government intergovernmental Relation: 1979 – 1983
The 1979 Constitution took the reforms one step further.
Not only did it endorsed the functions the various state
edicts assigned to local government in its Forth schedule, it
also guaranteed democratically elected local government councils
all over the country as stated in its section 7 (1) thus:
“The system of local government by democratically elected
local government councils is under this constitution
guaranteed...” It
also made provision for the inclusion of local government in the
distribution of federation Account while at the same time
prescribing that state should also provide funds for local
governments in their area as enshrined in section 149.
In 1981, the Revenue Allocation Act entitling local governments
to 10 percent of the Federal Accounts was passed and became a
law. However, the
allocation was not passed to the local government directly but
through the state government.
This made the transfer of the allocation to the local
governments a mere paper transaction in many cases.
This was buttressed by a report (1984) which stated that
“The whole business appears to be more a matter of paper
transactions than of material assistance.
The funds were not actually transferred to the coffers of
local governments; they were instead, credited to the account of
local governments in the book and then used by state governments
to reimburse themselves for expenditure made on behalf of local
governments”.
In addition to all these, some state governments deprived their
local governments of principal sources of their revenues.
It must also be emphasized that local government finance
has since 1976 relied heavily on statutory allocation.
Very few local governments are able to collect taxes from
their citizens because very little or no services are provided.
Except for few urban areas, externally generated revenue
in local government is as high as 80 percent or more of total
revenue.
Unless the more stable internal sources of revenue are seriously
exploited, the objective of strengthening local government in
terms of its relationship with state and federal governments
will not be realised.
THE BABANGIDA REFORMS
An examination of Babangida’s local government’s reforms must
begin with the report of the 21-member committee appointed by
the Buhari military administration of 1983-85, otherwise known
as Dasuki report.
This report was submitted in 1985, but the Buhari administration
could do very little with it before it was overthrown.
The political bureau which Babangida administration
appointed in January 1986 “to search for a viable political
future” for Nigeria, among other things, endorsed many of the
recommendations of the Dasuki report, including retaining the
301 local government one – tier system of 1976-79.
While government accepted to retain the 301 local
government areas and to establish within each a maximum of five
development area councils in 1987, by May 1989, 149 new local
government areas were created, thereby increasing the number of
local government to 453.
Two years later, 140 additional local government areas
were added, bringing the total to 589.
Thus contrary to its initial stand, the regime virtually
doubled the number of local government units.
Even as at March 1993, five months before he stepped
aside, Babangida announced his intention to create more local
government units.
Yet, the regime had inserted into the 1989 constitution a
provision which would make it difficult, practically impossible
for new local government units to be created under a civilian
administration.
With this provision, states lost their power under the 1979
constitution to adjust the number and boundaries of local
government areas.
This power was now vested in the National Assembly which is a
hectic as stipulated in section 9 (30 of the 1989 Constitution.
However, certain reforms introduced by the administration
were designed to strengthen local government autonomy.
Acting on the recommendation of the Political Bureau, Government
put in place a machinery that eliminated the intermediary role
of the state government in the remittance of the local
government share of the fund from the federation account as from
1988. This was
enshrine in section 160 (4) of the 1989 constitution.
The local government share from the federation account
was also increased from 10% - 15% (1991) and then to 20% (1992)
at the expense of state governments.
Similarly, states were mandated to contribute 10% of
their internally generated revenue into the purse of local
governments or else have the amount deducted at source from the
state allocation from the federation account.
The Ministry of local Government at the state level was
abolished in 1988.
State governments were required to establish Departments of
local government in the State Governor’s office to assist,
advice and guide, but not to control, local governments in the
performance of their constitutional functions.
Probably, the most debatable re-organization was the
introduction of the presidential system of government at the
local government level in 1990 and 1991.
The office of the Secretary to the local government
became political.
Heads of departments were re-designated as supervisors.
A supervisor could be appointed from either within or
outside the elected councillors.
In the spirit of the separation of powers obtaining in
higher levels, an elected Councillor would have to give up is
position on being appointed a supervisor.
The Chairman and his team of supervisors now constituted
the executive arm of government at the level.
Decree No 23 of 1991 provided for a legislature at the local
government level known as the Local Government Council.
The geo-political area, hitherto known as the local
government council became the local government area.
The legislative assembly at the local government level
was to be presided over by the Leader and Deputy Leader, who
exercised powers parallel to those of Speaker and Deputy Speaker
of a State House of assembly.
The procedure of appointment and tenure were similar to
what obtained at the state level.
The Executive (Chairman, Supervisors and Secretary) were now
referred to as the Local Government.
The separation of powers provided that local government
council performs the roles corresponding to those performs by
the legislature at higher levels of government, while the local
government did the same in respect of the executive council.
IS LOCAL GOVERNMENT REALLY A THIRD – TIER GOVERNMENT?
Local Government as a third-tier government in Nigeria; Is it a
Myth, fable, fiction, or figment?
According to Ladipo Adamolekun (1979), “What
distinguishes the 1976 local government reforms from all
previous reform exercises in the country is the formal and
unequivocal
recognition of local government as constituting a distinct level
of government with defined boundaries, clearly stated functions
and provisions for ensuring adequate human and financial
resources”. He said
further “All the other aspects of the reform flow from this
fundamental innovation and the success or failure of the entire
reform exercise will depend on the extent to which the new local
governments succeed in becoming an effective level of government
after the Federal and state levels.
To buttress Adamolekun’s assertion, the Political Bureau in its
report admitted as much when it averred that “despite the
strategic importance of local government to the national
development process, its contribution has been minimal”.
The next logical question then is why should this be the
case in view of a lot of resources that have been committed to
turning around the local government system, especially its
structure?
In Nigeria organizing elections into local government councils
had been function vested in extra-local government authorities,
until the second republic when the 1979 constitution guaranteed
wholly elected local government councils, giving no room for
nominated members.
Between 1979 and 1983, local government elections were anything
but democratic. The
civilian governors dissolved all the elected local government
councils they inherited and went ahead to constitute Management
Committee for them.
Throughout the second republic, no elections into local
government councils were held. It continued that way with the
return of the military at the end of 1983 when the hope for any
popular leadership of local government councils was sealed.
It was not until 1987 that another election into local
government councils was held.
This was followed by another one in 1990 at the
expiration of the tenure of those elected in 1987.
In 1993, these councils were dissolved.
The import of all these is that local government has not
been able to perform its political functions adequately.
Secondly, local government in Nigeria have never had much,
positive impact on the lives of the populace.
This cannot be divorced from the very weak revenue base
of local governments.
Another dimension to the problem is that of mismanagement of the
available meagre resources.
On a general note, public office is seen as a place to
feather one’s nest.
The people who hold offices in the local government are not of
higher species from those who hold public offices in higher
levels of government.
Corruption is rife with the consequence that resources
that should be used to provide infrastructures for the people
are misappropriated.
A VIRILE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local Government Constitutes the most critical level of
government at which the momentum to sustain national development
can be created. It
is also an indispensable and inevitable tier of government in
Nigeria’s federal structure as stipulated in section 7 (1) and
7(6a) of the 1999 constitution.
So, if local government must achieve and sustain its functions
for good governance, there are fundamental steps to be taken.
There is need for restructuring of the local government and
assigning it with specific functions that are sufficiently local
and personal to the entire country it is designed for.
Such local government should have adequate financial
arrangement for them to discharge their assigned functions which
should be matched with an adequate administrative structure to
deliver the services.
The States and federal Governments should also resist the
temptation of allocating ad-hoc functions and responsibilities
to local governments without adequate financial resources to
execute same.
Nigeria’s half-hearted commitment to grassroots democracy should
be stopped if democracy must ever grow and be perpetually
sustained in Nigeria.
Consequently, the perennial problem of abrogating the
elected local government councils and substituting them with
Care-taker Committee members who are usually appointed by the
State Chief Executives should be stopped with due respect to
both the spirit and letter of section 7(1) of the 1999
constitution which guarantees democratically elected local
governments in Nigeria.
CONCLUSION
If Nigeria must continue as one indivisible sovereign nation
state with a federal structure, it must promote good democratic
governances at all levels of government.
All levels of government must be accountable, responsible
and responsive to the communities’ needs, to all its citizens
with deep-rooted respect for due process as well as the rule of
law. It is only
thence we can have a local government as a distinct third tier
of government in Nigeria’s federal arrangement.
Bamidele, the Assistant National Secretary 1, of NUJ can be
reached on
liftmeahed@yahoo.co
or +234 (0) 8053000100
REFERENCES:
1
International Union of Local Authorities (IULA):27th
World Congress, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1985.
2
Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN): Guideline for Local
Government Reform, Kaduna, Government printer, 1976.
3
FRN Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1990.
4
Local Government and Administration in Leading Issues in
Nigerian Public Service, Oyeleye Oyediran and Alex Gboyega,
1979.
5
Localism and Nation Building Spectrum, Ibadan, Mac C. King,
1988.
6
Report on the performance of Local Government in Nigeria
1980-82. Lagos:
Federal Government Printer, 1984.
7
The idea of local Government as Third Level of Government in
Nigeria. Ladipo
Adamolekun. Ibadan, Heireman: 1979
|
