James Ibori’s Response to Supreme Court Ruling on Local Government Funds
Port Harcourt, Nigeria – Former Delta State Governor, James Onanefe Ibori, has expressed his strong opposition to the recent Supreme Court ruling, which he believes undermines the principles of federalism as outlined in the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The contentious ruling, which states that it is unconstitutional for state governors to hold funds allocated to local government administrations, was delivered in a lead judgment by Justice Emmanuel Agim. The judgment emphasized that the 774 local government councils in Nigeria should independently manage their funds.
Ibori’s critique centers on Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account must be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the Local Government Councils as prescribed by the National Assembly. Section 162(6) further specifies the establishment of State Joint Local Government Accounts into which all allocations to Local Government Councils from both the Federation Account and the State Government must be paid.
According to Ibori, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a significant blow to the true essence of federalism. “The federal government has no right to interfere with the administration of Local Governments under any guise whatsoever,” Ibori asserted. “There are only two tiers of government in a federal system of government.”
Ibori’s concerns about the ruling include:
- Constitutional Interpretation: Ibori argues that the ruling contradicts the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution, raising questions about judicial interpretation and the possibility of the court overstepping its bounds.
- Balance of Power: The ruling, he contends, shifts the balance of power between the federal government and the states, centralizing more power at the federal level and undermining the principles of federalism.
- State Autonomy: Ibori sees the decision as an erosion of state autonomy, diminishing states’ control over their internal affairs, including the administration of local governments.
- Financial Independence: The ruling could impact the financial independence of states and local governments, allowing federal intervention in local government finances, which could be used as a tool for political leverage.
- Precedent Setting: Ibori warns that this decision could set a precedent for further federal interventions in areas traditionally reserved for state governance, leading to a more centralized system of government over time.
Ibori acknowledges that local governments must be “democratically elected” as stipulated by the constitution. However, he argues that withholding their allocations is not the solution. “If the ruling is saying Governors cannot tamper, touch, or fiddle with the Joint Accounts, that’s fine because they shouldn’t be doing that in the first place. But asking the Federal Government to pay Local Governments allocations directly to their accounts is utter madness,” Ibori stated.
Quoting the late Justice Oputa, Ibori remarked, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” He expressed hope that the judgment would be reviewed soon, as it turns the concept of federalism on its head.
Signed: James Onanefe Ibori
