Over the past decades, this nation has suffered backwardness in the hands of greedy, self-centred, and inept leaders. At the risk of sounding bombastic and pedantic, Nigeria has witnessed the bungling of the most reductive incrementalism in policy-making, growth and development. If the word Incrementalism appears high-sounding and somewhat academic, I honestly crave your indulgence. Incrementalism is only a fancy terminology that describes one of the approaches to policy-making and nation-building. Put straightforwardly, it is the approach to nation-building that entails envisioning long-term developmental goals and accomplishing those goals in gradual stages. It is simply a term used to describe step-by-step growth and development through small additions to a long-term project, instead of attempting a few extensively and intricately planned gigantic leaps. 

 

Sadly, it’s sixty-three years after independence and the cumulative effort of our leaders on the Nigerian project has yet to produce an appreciable result, even when indisputable facts and evidence abound at every step of the way telling us that all we require to succeed is visionary leadership and an intelligent mix of skillful planning, integrity, discipline, focus, and continuity. In the absence of the aforementioned, our many rolling and development plans have failed to yield meaningful results and here we are today. It is important to note that we started our journey in development around the same time as the four ‘Asian Tigers’ – Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Today, they have all left us behind. 

 

Speaking about the bungling of plans, it might interest one to know that some individuals and interest groups have been railing against the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria granting autonomy to the 774 Local Governments within the federation. If you have not heard, the SC’s judgement prohibited the governors from receiving, retaining, or spending Local Government allocations. The Court held that states receiving Local Government funds violate Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution. According to the apex court, the Constitution provides that any money leaving the Federation Account must be allocated to the three tiers of government. 

 

Notable among the critics was the Punch Newspaper Editorial Board which in its editorial of July 16th, 2024 titled “The Supreme Court Got It Wrong” took a direct swipe at the apex court’s judgement. In the same vein, the popular Yoruba socio-cultural group known as Afenifere shared the same view with the Punch Newspaper’s editorial. All these were the aftermath of the suit filed by the Tinubu Administration through its Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi at the apex court. The Supreme Court’s judgement has also led to a groundswell of discontent among some state governments. These are the same state governments that had successfully eviscerated the administrative and developmental capacities that give essence to Local Government existence, thereby, reducing them to a complete travesty of government at the local level. 

 

According to the United Nations Development Program, Local governments remain the most accessible level of government. It is the most direct way for people to access basic services, participate in public processes, and exercise their rights and obligations. It is an important tier of government the UNDP relies upon to achieve its Sustainable Development Goals.

It would, however, be almost impossible for Local Governments to fulfill these objectives at the grassroots without first establishing them on the cornerstones of democracy and allowing them financial autonomy. It was given these that in 1976, the Murtala-Obasanjo military administration embarked on a journey to reform Local Government administration in Nigeria, a reform that eventually granted Local Governments financial autonomy and democratic rights. Without any doubt, the effectiveness and efficiency of local governments after the 1976 reform significantly improved. Besides bringing uniformity to local administration across the country through a single-tier system, it made them more responsive to local needs, closer to the people they serve, and better positioned to understand and address their needs. Their functional capacities also enabled efficient use of resources and they were able to provide services more efficiently than larger, centralized governments because they had a better understanding of local needs and could adapt their services to meet their specific needs.

 

It is, however, important to note that despite the positive impacts of the 1976 Local government reforms, pervasive corruption within the country impeded their optimal performance. Besides, successive state governments with vested interests continued to meddle in their political and administrative affairs, sometimes whittling down their authorities and usurping their functions. Many of them appointed caretaker committees that are filled with their lackeys to administer the Local governments, in the process, precluding them from elections in violation of section 7 of the 1999 constitution. Yet, when compared and rated in terms of functionality, the Local Governments of post-1976 reforms fared better than the Local Governments of today. Then came the ultimate blow to the Local Governments in 1999. It was a constitutional tsunami that was the result of a complex web of intrigues and shenanigans of the federating states. In a jiffy, it swept away the financial autonomy of the Local Governments through the enactment of Section 162 of the 1999 constitution. This legislative action in my humble opinion was counterproductive, antagonistic, and undermining. It practically stagnated the incremental growth and development at the grassroots. It was a legislative action that completely negated the principle of Incrementalism in policy-making and nation-building. 

 

Dragging the federating states before the Supreme Courts and inflicting on them a crushing defeat in my opinion is one of the greatest achievements of the Tinubu administration so far. The Supreme Court’s judgement was tantamount to condemnation and nullification of the self-centred intrigues and shenanigans of the 1999 constitutional Drafting Committee and their sponsors in the federating states. The smartest move the Tinubu government made in the course of achieving this victory was to opt for a judicial resolution of the conflict at the Supreme Court – the first and final arbiter in constitutional issues arising between tiers of government. This is because taking an optional legislative route might not only be too time-consuming, but it might also pitch the Tinubu government against a National Assembly whose integrity and patriotism have already been called into question as a result of its recent notorious exhibition of some anti-people materialistic and hedonistic tendencies.  

 

Finally, some critics of the Supreme Court’s judgement have argued that it violated the principles of Federalism by creating a third-tier government. For instance, the Punch Newspaper’s Editorial opinion is that “ ….. in federalism, there are only two units of government – the centre and the federating units”. Similarly, the Afenifere views the SC’s judgement as a sheer judicial conspiracy in cahoots with the Tinubu administration against the Nigerian state and its foundational principles of federalism”. However, there is nothing sacrosanct in life just as there is nothing sacrosanct about political theories and their inherent Principles to the end-user. Afenifere and all those who share its view about Federalism must be told that system models are concepts not constitutions. They are political concepts the end-users should be free to modify and adapt to suit their unique characteristics or situations when discovered not working efficiently. In this light, the new Local Government autonomy can also be considered as a customization of federalism in furtherance of the pursuit of the goal of an autochthonous governmental system. Canada, The US, India, Australia, Switzerland and a host of other countries operate the federal system of government, but with slight variations engendered by the uniqueness of their situations. If the essence of the central government is to ensure the provision of law and order as well as the promotion of the happiness of every citizen of the federation through good governance, it should be vested with the constitutional authority to intervene and rein in the federating states when their activities run counter to the fulfilment of those objectives. More so, a federal system of government unlike a confederation or a union, in terms of power-sharing avails the central government the authority that is sufficient to ensure good governance for the entire federation, but with a caveat – not to the extent of the authority that could enable it to compromise the unique identities of its coordinate units. Against this backdrop, I am very much convinced that in this case, the Supreme Court has carefully considered all the facts before delivering its final judgement.