What This Tinubu ‘Mischief’ Will Do To Nigeria

To dub the Supreme Court judgment granting full autonomy to the Local Governments as a reset of Nigeria’s democratic order may not be far-fetched and the role of President Bola Tinubu in the affair

Nigeria’s Fourth Republic era was set on course with the Local Government election of December 5, 1998, which was used to set the benchmark for the parties to be registered by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

Using the local government election to benchmark the popularity of the political parties was understandably in line with the commission’s determination to deepen democracy at the grassroots.

It is worthy noting that the local government election of that time and indeed, the elections into the other elective offices in the country viz; state houses of Assembly, governorship, National Assembly, and presidential that were held between 1998 and 1999 were about the most credible that have been held since the advent of the Fourth Republic.

Men of independent means who were not beholden to other political office holders used the credibility they had within their constituencies to achieve their political goals.

Everyone was focused on their own aspirations and not waiting on a list of favoured aspirants churned out from Government House. 

In that first election, the PDP won 59% or 3,342 seats out of 5,629 council seats, putting the then All People’s Party (APP) to second place with 1,456 seats (25.8 percent), while the Alliance for Democracy (AD) came third with 744 seats (13.2 percent).

Across the country the outcome of the elections showed that no single party could claim the dominance of any political geopolitical zone. The only region that appeared to have voted as a bloc was to certain degree the Southwest which mostly voted for the AD.

The outcome of the local government election showed that the PDP which was reportedly favoured by the top-echelons of the outgoing military regime proved itself to be the dominant party forcing some political movements.

One significant movement was by then Alhaji Ibrahim Mantu who had sought to rival Chief Solomon Lar for political relevance on the plateau. The gist that emerged following the local government election of December 1998 was that Mantu went to prostrate before Lar and immediately reinvented himself before persuading Lar for the Plateau Central Senatorial ticket leading to his ascendancy.

Suffice to say that the 1998 local government election appeared to be the last time that a proper contest for political power was held at the local government level.

Two major developments that diminished democratic franchise at the local governments were the bastardisation of elections by the State Independent Electoral Commissions, SIECs and the financial emasculations of that level of government by governors.

Where they did not manipulate the elections to favour their surrogates, the governors were accused of upturning democratic tenets as enshrined in Section 7 of the constitution by appointing local government caretaker chairmen.

Remarkably, the only time that a president tried to appoint a caretaker governor, that was during emergency rule in Plateau State, it was met with vociferous opposition.

So, if there are no caretaker governors, why caretaker local government chairmen?

SIECs were constitutional bodies charged with the role of conducting local government elections. Many of their officials have almost always appeared to use their offices to prove their partisanship to the ruling party. They have almost without exception returned the parties of the government in power in the state by 100%.

By cutting off funding to illegally constituted local governments, governors would now be more adept in ensuring that democracy gets a new vibe at the grassroots.

The second evil was the failure of the states to faithfully enthrone transparency in the management of the State and Local Government Joint Account as constitutionally provided for in Section 162(6).

The Supreme Court’s decision of July 11 was primarily directed at freeing the funds of the local governments from governors.

By voiding this provision of the constitution, the Supreme Court looked beyond the letter of the constitution to the spirit in annulling what was clearly provided for in the constitution.

That President Bola Tinubu unlike his immediate predecessor, President Muhammadu Buhari, did not flinch at the fightback of the governors is a commendable gesture that must win him a resounding applause among all right-thinking men.

Some lawyers say that the Supreme Court was influenced by what has been described as the Mischief Rule which allows judges to look beyond the letter of the law to envisage the spirit that may have framed the wordings of the law.

It is clear to all that the Supreme Court looked beyond the provisions and the letter of the Constitution as in Section 162(6) that clearly allowed for a sharing of funds between the local governments and the states.

By directing the Federal Government to directly channel the local government funds to the local governments as against the wordings of the Constitution the apex court has acted like a doctor cutting off a cancerous limb to address the imminent death of a human body.

This audacious move, unconstitutional as some may see it, will inevitably draw more attention to the local governments as it will draw more funds, that is seen as the primary facilitator of development.

In the perceptive of this correspondent, the Supreme Court has acted like God. It is what God says is sin that is sin. It is not what you and I think as such.

President Tinubu must be commended for this good mischief.

Send Us A Press Statement Advertise With Us Contact

 And For More Nigerian News Visit GWG.NG