WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY CASE- PART 1

(ISSUES SUBMITTED FOR DETERMINATION)

Many people are quick to pass comments, grant press interviews or hold strong opinions on the judgment of a Court. More often than not, some go to the ridiculous extent of criticising the judgment and or Judge without reading the judgment in question. Impulsive garrulousness, untrammeled overzealousness, horrendous ignorance, acting on the spur of the moment, plain mischief or inordinate desire to attract attention can only lead to such perfidy. It is only the decision or holding of the Court as contained in the Certified True Copy of the judgment that is the judgment of the Court- not puerile effusions, angry jactitation, pseudo analysis or conjectures.

The lesson here is that before anyone analyses or criticises any Court judgment, ruling or decision, he or she should read the judgment of the Court. It is only in the Certified True Copy of the judgment that anyone can decipher and clearly understand what, loosely speaking, transpired in Court namely- the party that sued and in what capacity the plaintiff sued; the party that was sued and in what capacity the defendant was sued; the case of the party who sued or relief sought against the party that was sued; the defence of the party that was sued; objections raised (if any); evidence led and applicable laws in support or in defence or rebuttal; what the Court decided in specific terms and reasons for such decisions among other things. The judgment of a Court is not hearsay, rumour, gossip, chinwag, chitchat, and scuttlebutt. It is not an idle talk or unconfirmed report, word of mouth or Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Tiktok or other social media content creation. Judgment of any superior Court is usually reduced in writing and it is a public document accessible to members of the public upon payment of the accessed fees.

The judgment under spotlight here is that which the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered in Suit No. SC/CV/343/2024 on the 11th day of July 2024 otherwise herein called “LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY CASE”. The facts of this case and the judgment rendered therein deserve to be thoroughly analysed for public consumption because of their monumental constitutional import and relevance to Local Government Autonomy in Nigeria. It should be noted that, for assortment of reasons, judgment of the Supreme Court is not to be discussed lightly or from the point of view of speculation or assumptions.

The Supreme Court is the apex Court in the land. It is both a Court of law and policy. Judgment of the Supreme Court is final and appeals do not lie from the Supreme Court to anywhere else. The Nigerian Constitution donates both original and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Section 231(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended enacts that “The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a state or between states if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.”

The LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY CASE is a landmark judgment (locus classicus) delivered in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the apex Court. It signposts a paradigm shift in Local Government autonomy and handling of its finances. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court in that case ought to be made public for proper guidance and reference purposes by all stakeholders and the citizens at large. For ease of understanding of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY CASE, it will be painstakingly analysed in parts or series. This first part is on the preliminary points that touch on the parties, composition or quorum of the Court and issues submitted for determination.

From the Certified True Copy of the judgment in Suit SC/CV/343/2024, the suit was instituted on the 24th day of May 2024 by the Attorney-General of the Federation as Plaintiff against the Attorney- General of each of the 36 States of the Federation as Defendants. The sole Plaintiff’s suit against the 36 Defendants raised constitutional questions and being a dispute between the Federation and States, seven Justices of the Supreme Court were empanelled to adjudicate over it as required by the combined implications of sections 232 and 234 of the CFRN, 1999 as amended. For record purposes, the seven Justices that delivered the unanimous revolutionary decision in the Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday the 11th day of July 2024 were Their Lordships- Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC; Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC; Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme, JSC; Haruna Simon Tsammani, JSC; Moore Aseimo A, Adumein, JSC; Habeeb Adewale O. Abiru, JSC; Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JSC.

It may then be asked, what were the questions submitted by the Plaintiff for determination by the Supreme Court? Without verbatim incorporation of the many sections and corresponding subsections of the Constitution from where the questions were derived (as this technical legalese will confuse the reading public), the fifteen questions for determination in the originating summons are simply as follows-

1. Whether, the 36 States of Nigeria, or anyone of them, acting through their/its respective state Governors and or State House of Assembly, are/is not under obligation to ensure democratic governance at the third tier of government in Nigeria, namely, at the Local Government level? This question was tied to the combined reading of sections 1(1), (2) and (2)(a), (c) and (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
2. Whether, the 36 States of Nigeria, or anyone of them, acting through their/its respective State Governors and or State House of Assembly, can, using state power derivable from Laws enacted by the State Houses of Assembly (anyhow so called) or Executive Orders/other actions (anyhow so called) lawfully dissolve democratically elected Local government Councils within the said States/State? This question was tied to or derived from the combined reading of sections 1(1), (2) and (3), 4(7), 5(2) (a) and (b) and 3(c), 7(1) and (3) 14(1), (2)(a),(c) and (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
3. Whether, the 36 States of Nigeria, or anyone of them, acting through their/its respective State Governors and or State House of Assembly, the 1st – 36th Defendants, or anyone of them can, using state powers derivable from Laws enacted by the State Houses of Assembly (anyhow so called) or Executive Orders/other actions (anyhow so called), lawfully dissolve democratically-elected Local government Councils within the said States and replace them with Caretaker Committees (anyhow so called)? This question was tied to or derived from the combined reading of sections 1(1), (2) and (3), 4(7), 5(2)(a) and (b) and 3(c), 7(1) and (3) and 14(1), (2)(a),(c) and (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
4. Whether, the dissolution of democratically-elected Local Government Councils by the 36 States of Nigeria, or anyone of them, using state powers derivable from Laws enacted by the State Houses of Assembly (anyhow so called) or Executive Orders/other actions (anyhow so called), is lawful and constitutional? This question was tied to or derived from the combined reading of sections 1(1), (2) and (3), 4(7), 5(2)(a) and (b) and (c), 7(1) and (3) and 14(1), (2)(a), (c) and (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
5. Whether, who, through the instrumentality of either a State Law or an administrative directive/order, dissolves or causes the dissolution of democratically-elected Local Government Councils of their States has not gravely breached the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended); hence has committed gross misconduct? This question was tied to or derived from the combined reading of sections 1(1), (2) and (3), 4(7), 5(2) (a) and (b) and 3(c), 7(1) and (3) and 14(1), (2)(a), (c) and (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
6. Whether in the face of a violation of the Constitution and the unconstitutionality of a structure of administration of local government council other than a democratically elected local government council guaranteed by Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Federal government/Federation is obligated under Section 162(5) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution to pay/allocate funds standing to the credit of the local government, when no democratically elected local government guaranteed under the constitution vide Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution, is in place?
7. Whether having regard to the effect of Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 162(5) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution, a State which is in breach of Section 1(1), (2) and 7 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by failing to comply with the mandatory provision of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria is entitled to receive and spend funds meant for the local government councils by virtue of Section 162(5) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution while still in breach of the Constitution by not putting councils?
8. Whether, the 36 States of Nigeria, or any one of them, acting through any of their elected or other/its officials that dissolves democratically Local Government Councils within its domain is still entitled to the revenue allocation and operation of a Joint Account as stipulated in section 162(3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the said Constitution until such a status quo ante bellum? This question tied or derived from the combined reading of sections 1(1), (2) and (3), 4(7), 5(2) (a) and (b) and 3(c), 7(1) and (3) and 14(1), (2) (a), (c) and (4) and 162(3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended,
9. Whether the failure of the Defendants or anyone of them to put in place a democratically elected local government system mandatorily provided for in Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution is not a breach and subversion of Sections 1(1), (2) and 7(1) of the Constitution as to create an interregnum in local government system and render inoperable Section 162(5) of the 1999 Constitution regarding allocation of fund standing to the credit of local government in Federal Account to the State?
10. Whether, any elected or other official of the 36 States of Nigeria, (or anyone of them through the instrumentality of either a State Law or an administrative directive/order, dissolves or causes the dissolution of democratically-elected Local Government Councils of their/its States is liable to be arraigned during or at the end of his tenure (as the case may be) for criminal offences bordering on breach of the Constitution/contempt of court and or breach of applicable criminal and penal laws? This question was tied to or derived from the combined reading of sections 1(1), (2) and (3), 4(7), 5(2)(a) and (b) and 3(c), 7(1) and (3) and 14(1), (2)(a), (c) and (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
11. Whether, the States or anyone of them have/has unbridled and unrestricted discretion to operate the “State Joint Local Government Account” whimsically and to the disadvantage of the democratically elected Local Government Councils within those States, rather than for the greater benefit of those Councils, which are the third tier of Government in Nigeria? This question was tied or derived from the combined reading of sections 1(1), (2) and (3), 2, 7(1) and 7(3), (2)(a) (c) and (4) and 162(2), (3) (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
12. Whether by virtue of Section 162(3) and (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the amount standing to the credit of a Local Government Council in the Federation account should be distributed to it, and if so whether it can be paid directly to it?
13. Whether by virtue of Section 162(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, a state Government is not merely an agent of the Local Governments in the State to collect the amount standing to the credit of a Local Government in the Federation account and pay directly to the Local Government and as such agent has no power or right to spend or use any part of it for any purpose?
14. Whether the amount standing to the credit of a local Government Council in the Federal account and received by a State on its behalf, and paid into a State Joint Local Government Account is liable to be paid directly to each Local government without delay? This question was posed for determination by virtue of Section 162(3), (5) and (6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
15. Whether a Local government Council is not entitled to a direct payment from the Federation account of the amount standing to its credit in the said Federal account, where the State Government has persistently refused or failed to pay to it the said amount received by the State Government on its behalf?

Against the foregoing, the next other segments or parts of this exposition will disclose the fifteen declarations and four orders sought by the plaintiff, the preliminary objections raised by the defendants, the replies, responses, defences and arguments of the parties in the main cases and the final decision of the full panel of the Supreme Court. This trajectory is important in chronicling how the Supreme Court answered all the questions in the affirmative by deploying a purposive or teleological approach or criterion (instead of literal or narrow meaning) to interpret the constitution in order to breathe life to Local Government Autonomy in Nigeria.

Definitely, the next episodes promise to be exciting and enlightening as they will unveil the reasons why the Supreme Court was constrained to hold among other things that since paying Local Government allocation through states has not worked, the justice of the case demands that the Local Government Council allocations from the Federation Account should henceforth be paid directly to the Local Government Councils while restating that “The law is settled by a long line of decisions of this court that by virtue of sections 1(2) and 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution, local government must be by democratically elected local government councils and no other body and that the government or administration of a local government area by a State Government, Governor of a State, Local Government Caretaker Committee, Interim Local Government Council, Administrator, Head of Local Government or by whatever name called or by any other State agency or other body is not in accordance with the 1999 Constitution, is therefore unconstitutional, illegal and of no effect.”

A new normal is possible!

Prof Obiaraeri, N. O.

http://www.oblongmedia.net