The suspension of local government chairmen in Edo State by the House of Assembly, at the behest of Governor Godwin Obaseki, has ignited a fierce debate regarding the constitutional boundaries of power between state and local governments. The governor’s Chief Press Secretary, Fred Itua, maintains that the governor’s request for suspension and the subsequent action by the House of Assembly are firmly grounded in constitutional provisions and established legal precedents. This perspective emphasizes the oversight responsibilities of both the governor and the House of Assembly, along with the importance of accountability in governance, particularly given ongoing investigations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Central to this argument is the interpretation of local government autonomy. Itua argues that autonomy doesn’t preclude oversight. He asserts that just as the House of Assembly has oversight functions over the governor, the governor, in turn, has a similar responsibility regarding local government chairmen. This hierarchical oversight structure, according to Itua, is vital for ensuring responsible financial management and preventing potential misconduct within local government administrations. The ongoing EFCC investigation into the 18 suspended chairmen underscores the need for such scrutiny, suggesting potential financial improprieties that warrant further investigation.
The Edo State government’s position hinges on the principle of a two-tier federal system, as enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution. This structure, they argue, explicitly places local governments under the purview of state governments, granting states the authority to oversee their activities. Furthermore, specific Edo State laws empower the House of Assembly to investigate local government councils, a power exercised in this instance resulting in the chairmen’s suspension. Importantly, the government distinguishes between suspension and removal, emphasizing that the chairmen were not removed from office, but rather suspended to facilitate an unimpeded investigation.
The government’s justification also addresses the role of the Supreme Court. While acknowledging the apex court’s power to make policy decisions, Itua argues that this power is limited when the Constitution provides clear guidance on a matter. In this case, he contends that the Constitution explicitly grants the state government authority over local government affairs, thereby restricting the Supreme Court’s ability to intervene based on policy considerations alone. This interpretation effectively positions the Constitution as the ultimate arbiter in this dispute, superseding any potential policy arguments to the contrary.
The opposition’s critique of the suspensions is, according to Itua, based on a superficial understanding of the situation. He encourages a more nuanced analysis, which he believes would reveal the legitimacy of the actions taken by both the House of Assembly and the state government. This nuanced understanding necessitates acknowledging the constitutional provisions regarding state oversight, the specific state laws empowering the House of Assembly, and the distinction between suspension and removal from office. By emphasizing these points, Itua seeks to frame the suspensions not as an arbitrary act of power but as a necessary measure to ensure accountability and facilitate a thorough investigation.
In essence, the Edo State government’s defense of the local government chairmen suspensions revolves around several key arguments: the governor’s constitutional power to request such suspensions, the House of Assembly’s authority to act upon the request, the inherent oversight responsibilities of the state government over local governments, the legal distinction between suspension and removal, the ongoing EFCC investigation necessitating such action, and the limitations on the Supreme Court’s power when constitutional provisions are clear. This multifaceted defense attempts to portray the suspensions as a legitimate exercise of power, aimed at promoting transparency and accountability within local governance rather than a politically motivated power grab.
