By JOANNA ILUSANMI

LG Autonomy: Two Years After Supreme Court Verdict, States Still Hold the Key

A Court Order Meets an Old Political Structure

NIGERIA’S debate over local government autonomy has entered another phase, with the Federal Government demanding stronger grassroots performance while questions persist over how much financial independence councils actually exercise.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu recently urged chairmen of the country’s 774 local government areas to turn autonomy into measurable improvements in their communities.

Represented by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume, at the inaugural Annual National Conference of Council Chairmen in Abuja, the President described autonomy as a means of delivering services rather than an end in itself. The administration has similarly presented local governance as central to making government policies more visible at the grassroots.

Tinubu challenged council chairmen to demonstrate results in primary healthcare, basic education infrastructure, rural feeder roads, potable water, food security and grassroots livelihoods.

Yet, that demand has reopened a fundamental question: how much control do local governments actually exercise over the money allocated to them?

The 2024 Supreme Court Intervention

On 11 July 2024, the Supreme Court ordered that allocations due to local governments from the Federation Account should be paid directly to them.

The seven-member panel also held that state governments could not retain or use funds meant for local councils. Furthermore, the court addressed the constitutional requirement for democratically elected local governments rather than caretaker arrangements.

The judgment followed a suit filed by the Federal Government against the 36 state governments.

The legal intervention was designed to address a longstanding arrangement in which local-government allocations passed through joint state and local-government accounts before reaching the councils.

However, implementation has remained contested.

The Sun’s investigation, reproduced in the source material, reports that councils in several states continue to operate under arrangements that give state governments substantial influence over their finances and projects. Those findings are particularly significant because they expose the gap between a constitutional and judicial framework on paper and the administrative practices reported at state level.

States & the Question of Financial Control

In Osun, the autonomy question has become entangled with political and legal disputes surrounding local-government administration.

Prof. Tunji Ogunyemi, a lawyer and public affairs analyst cited in the investigation, argued that constitutional provisions governing the Joint State and Local Government Account continue to complicate financial independence.

He specifically pointed to Sections 162(5), (6) and (7) of the Constitution and argued that legislative changes may be necessary to resolve the structural conflict.

Osun ALGON Chairman Hon. Abiodun Idowu, however, offered a different account, maintaining that autonomy is operational although litigation has constrained funding.

That contrast illustrates one of the central problems in the debate: stakeholders do not always describe the same institutional arrangements in the same way.

Different Experiences Across States

Evidence cited from Benue presents another picture.

Katsina-Ala Local Government Chairman and state ALGON Chairman, Hon. Justin Shaku, said autonomy was working under Governor Hyacinth Alia.

He pointed to projects including the 21-kilometre Yooyo Road and renovation of the council secretariat as evidence of activity at the local level.

Other Benue council chairmen also cited road projects, security vehicles and solar-lighting initiatives as examples of local-government spending.

Yet Shaku simultaneously called for a review of the revenue-sharing formula, arguing that councils should receive a larger share because they operate closest to citizens.

The experience reported from Abia is different.

According to officials cited anonymously, allocations still pass through the Joint State and Local Government Account, while the state government retains substantial control over salaries and projects.

One council official argued that direct access to funds would enable councils to address accumulated liabilities, including staff leave allowances and gratuities.

The same sources alleged that some locally generated revenues, including market and signage fees, had also been taken out of council control.

Because those claims came from anonymous officials, they require independent verification before being treated as established facts.

Jigawa Presents a Different Model

Jigawa emerges in the investigation as an important point of comparison.

According to Jigawa ALGON Chairman Sibu Abdullahi, the state’s 27 local government areas receive their monthly Federation Account allocations directly into independent council accounts.

That arrangement, if sustained as described, provides a practical example of how direct disbursement can operate within the existing system.

The contrast with states where joint financial arrangements remain influential has consequently become part of the wider autonomy debate.

However, the experience of one state does not by itself establish the situation across the federation.

Autonomy Is More Than Money

Financial independence represents only one part of the local-government question.

Even where councils control their allocations, elected officials still need credible elections, institutional accountability and sufficient administrative capacity to convert resources into services.

The feature’s sources therefore raise questions about State Independent Electoral Commissions, which conduct local-government elections in the states.

Critics cited in the investigation argue that governors exercise too much influence over the commissions because state governments control their funding and appointments.

Some reform advocates have proposed transferring local elections to the Independent National Electoral Commission.

Others, however, oppose that solution.

Tunji Shelle, for instance, expressed reservations about INEC and instead supported reforms that would make state electoral commissions genuinely independent.

Chief Chekwas Okorie also favoured strengthening state electoral bodies and introducing technology, including electronic voting-related systems, rather than simply transferring responsibility to INEC.

The Accountability Gap

The autonomy debate therefore extends beyond the question of who receives the money.

It also concerns who controls it, who approves projects, who conducts elections and, ultimately, who answers to citizens.

A council chairman who depends heavily on a state governor may face institutional constraints even when allocations reach the council.

Conversely, direct financial control without effective electoral accountability could create another problem: councils may possess greater resources without necessarily becoming more responsive to citizens.

That is why the debate increasingly connects fiscal autonomy with democratic oversight.

From Abuja to the Grassroots

President Tinubu’s latest directive places service delivery at the centre of the discussion.

The Federal Government says local councils must demonstrate visible results in healthcare, education, roads, water, food security and livelihoods.

Stakeholders critical of the current arrangements, however, argue that service delivery cannot be separated from the question of who controls council finances.

The Supreme Court settled a major legal question in 2024 by ordering direct payment of local-government allocations.

The continuing challenge lies in translating that legal position into consistent administrative practice across the federation.

Ultimately, the test of local-government autonomy will not rest solely on speeches, court judgments or budget figures.

It will be measured by whether councils can control lawful resources, face credible electoral competition, account to residents and deliver services in the communities they govern.