Posted to the Web: Tuesday, September 26, 2006

TWO weeks ago, the Senate adopted a motion by Senator Fidelis Okoro, asking the Minister of Finance to withhold from the Federation Account, funds for Enugu  Local Government system, on account of the state not conducting elections into the local government administration. The Senate wants same for “such other states  that have not conducted elections into local councils and which are running development centres.”  

There are so many states of the federation that desire and deserve new local government councils as a means of reaching the grassroots but have been hampered by  constitutional limitation of listing in the First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution. Such states, through validly passed laws of the state Houses of Assembly,  settled for a sort of compromise in "development centres."

Serious minded people would dismiss the Senate motion as  pollution of the hallowed chambers of the Senate with local politics of Enugu State.  The Senate  President, Chief Ken Nnamani and Senator Fidelis Okoro (from Enugu State) are known opponents of Governor Chimaroke Nnamani of Enugu.

But where senators would use the platform of the Senate to advance unconstitutionality and rule of anarchy, all reasonable persons must oppose them. The  1999  Constitution is clear and unambiguous on local government funding and administration. Section 162 (6) provides for the establishment of the state joint local  government account “into which shall be paid all allocations to the local government councils of the state from the Federation Account and from the government of the  state.” Section 162 (8) expressly and exclusively empowers the state House of Assembly to prescribe the terms and in what manner the amount standing to the credit  of the local government councils of the state shall be distributed among the local government councils of the state. These sections of the constitution were tested during  the debacle over the 2002 Electoral Act in which the National Assembly conspired to harvest the local government councils for the Abuja central government— an  act already voided by the Supreme Court.

In passing the motion, the Senate relied on section 4 Part 11 (5) of the Constitution which states that any law by the state Assembly in conflict with that of National  Assembly automatically yields to that of the National Assembly. Such position is absent here. The Enugu State House of Assembly enacted the Local Government  Joint Account Law No 6 of 2001 (Cap 111 Revised Laws of Enugu State 2004) which caters for local government administration and funding. There is no  conflicting, constitutionally valid law of the National Assembly on local government affairs. The National Assembly has no powers to make such laws!

Again, the Supreme Court judgment (Attorney-General of Lagos State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2004) 12 SCNJ 1) on the matters of seized funds for  local governments in Lagos State,  has held that the President has no power to withhold allocations meant for local government councils in any state of the federation.  We are then at a loss as to the source of authority for the Senate to ask the Minister of Finance to willfully violate the 1999 Constitution.

 As stakeholders, we grant the Senate the prerogative to demand constitutional rule at the local governments. The EFCC and the ICPC have been working hard to  make local government chairmen accountable. The Senate can work with the state Houses of Assembly to bring about constitutional, transparent and accountable  administration at the grassroots level of government. But to invest in the Finance Minister, a tool for unconstitutionality and illegality such as seizure of funds meant to  improve the lots of the people, on the platform of cheap partisanship is evil, unconscionable and condemnable. After Enugu, we ask: whose turn is next? That ugly  motion from the Senate must not stand.