The Anambra State Government has vehemently denied circumventing the Supreme Court judgment granting autonomy to local governments across Nigeria. Following the apex court’s ruling, the state legislature enacted the Anambra Local Government Administration Law, which has sparked controversy and accusations of undermining the court’s decision. The state government, however, maintains that the law is not a defiance of the Supreme Court but rather a framework to implement the judgment effectively within the state’s constitutional purview. This enactment has occurred amidst a broader national context where the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, has cautioned state governors against bypassing the Supreme Court’s ruling, threatening contempt of court proceedings against those who persist in such actions.
The contentions surrounding the Anambra Local Government Administration Law stem primarily from provisions related to the management of local government funds. Section 13(1) of the law establishes a “State Joint Local Government Account” as the repository for all federal allocations disbursed to local governments. This provision raises concerns about potential interference by the state government in the financial autonomy of local governments. Furthermore, Section 14(3) mandates that local governments remit a state-determined percentage of their federal allocations to the consolidated account within two working days of receipt, regardless of whether the funds are received directly from the Federation Account. This requirement has been interpreted by critics as a mechanism for the state to exert control over local government finances, potentially undermining the intended autonomy. Section 14(4) reinforces this control by stipulating that if the state receives the local government allocation on their behalf, it will deduct the specified percentage before disbursing the remaining funds to the local government.
The Anambra State Government, through its Commissioner for Information, Law Mefor, has defended the law, asserting its constitutionality and its alignment with the Supreme Court judgment. Mefor argues that the Constitution empowers state assemblies to legislate on local government administration and that the Anambra Local Government Administration Law is merely an exercise of this power. He emphasizes that the law aims to provide a legal framework for the operationalization of the Supreme Court judgment and ensures the smooth functioning of local governments within the state. The state government’s position is that the law does not conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling but rather complements it by providing a structured approach to local government administration, including financial management.
The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment and the extent of autonomy it grants to local governments. While the judgment affirms the principle of local government autonomy, particularly in financial matters, it also acknowledges the role of state governments in overseeing local government administration. The Anambra State Government contends that the law is within the bounds of this oversight function, providing a mechanism for efficient and transparent financial management within local governments. Critics, however, argue that the provisions of the law, particularly those relating to the State Joint Local Government Account and the mandatory remittance of a percentage of federal allocations, effectively erode the financial autonomy granted by the Supreme Court.
The situation in Anambra State reflects a broader tension between the principle of local government autonomy and the practicalities of its implementation within the existing federal structure. The state government’s insistence on its constitutional right to legislate on local government matters clashes with the Supreme Court’s affirmation of local government autonomy. The debate centers on the balance between state oversight and local government independence, with the Anambra Local Government Administration Law serving as a focal point for this ongoing debate. The Attorney General’s warning underscores the national significance of this issue and the potential for further legal challenges if state governments are perceived to be undermining the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The resolution of this issue will likely require further clarification from the courts on the precise scope of local government autonomy and the permissible extent of state government involvement in local government finances. The Anambra State Government’s defense of its law rests on the argument that it is merely exercising its constitutional powers to regulate local government administration. The counter-argument is that these regulations, in practice, negate the financial autonomy intended by the Supreme Court judgment. The ongoing debate highlights the complexities of implementing judicial decisions within a federal system and the need for ongoing dialogue between different levels of government to ensure that the principles of autonomy and accountability are effectively balanced.
