The Controversial Cross River State Local Government Amendment Law of 2025: A Clash Between the Ruling APC and the Opposition PDP
The political landscape of Cross River State has been ignited by a contentious piece of legislation, the Local Government Amendment Law of 2025. Passed swiftly by the State House of Assembly and signed into law by Governor Bassey Otu, the law has drawn sharp criticism from the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which alleges it undermines local government autonomy, facilitates financial exploitation, and serves as a tool for political patronage ahead of the 2027 elections. This clash between the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the PDP highlights a fundamental disagreement over the management of local government resources and the balance of power between the state and local levels of government.
At the heart of the PDP’s critique is the assertion that the new law violates a Supreme Court judgment upholding local government autonomy. The party contends that the amendment strips local governments of their financial independence and subjects them to undue control by the state government. This, they argue, is a dangerous precedent that erodes the principles of democratic governance and concentrates power in the hands of the state executive. The PDP has vowed to challenge the law through all legal and democratic means, framing the conflict as a fight to protect democracy and ensure grassroots development.
The PDP identifies several specific provisions within the amendment as particularly egregious. One such provision expands the number of statutory political appointees under each Local Government Chairman from 25 to 50. This, the PDP argues, will significantly increase the financial burden on local governments, diverting scarce resources away from essential services and development projects. They see this move as a blatant attempt to create patronage positions and solidify the ruling party’s political base at the expense of local communities.
Further fueling the PDP’s outrage are several mandatory deductions imposed on local government funds. These include a 1% deduction for House of Assembly oversight functions, a 0.5% deduction for the State Community and Social Development Agency, a 1% deduction for funding the University of Cross River State, a 0.5% deduction for the Office of the State Auditor General, a mandatory N1 million monthly contribution from each local government area to the Cross River State Reserve Fund, and a 4% deduction for the Cross River State Road Maintenance Agency. The PDP argues that many of these responsibilities, such as higher education and road maintenance, should be funded by the state government, not by already strained local government budgets.
The PDP portrays these deductions as a systematic scheme to siphon local government funds for the benefit of the state government and its political allies. They accuse Governor Otu and the APC of prioritizing political enrichment over the needs of local communities. This narrative frames the conflict as a battle between a self-serving political elite and the ordinary citizens who rely on local government services.
Governor Otu, however, defends the amended law as a necessary measure to enhance grassroots development. He argues that the changes will streamline local government administration and improve service delivery. This opposing viewpoint suggests that the increased oversight and resource pooling facilitated by the amendment will ultimately benefit local communities. The clashing narratives underscore the complexity of the issue and the divergent interpretations of the law’s potential impact.
The controversy surrounding the Local Government Amendment Law of 2025 has significant implications for the future of Cross River State. The outcome of this legal and political battle will not only determine the financial autonomy of local governments but also shape the relationship between the state and local levels of government. The PDP’s strong opposition and its pledge to challenge the law through legal channels suggest a protracted struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the state’s political landscape. The dispute highlights the ongoing tension between centralized and decentralized governance in Nigeria, a debate that has significant implications for resource allocation, development planning, and political representation. The case of Cross River State serves as a microcosm of this broader national conversation about the optimal balance of power between different levels of government. The resolution of this conflict will likely set a precedent for similar debates in other states and contribute to the ongoing evolution of Nigeria’s federal system.
