Abstract
Devolution
or decentralization of power as discussed in this research paper involves the
sharing of powers to the three tiers of the federal system of government in Nigeria.
Devolution, it has been argued, encourages national development.
Despite
its provision in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) through the allocation of
responsibilities to the Federal Government, States and Local Governments, the
effect of devolution (which includes bringing governance closer to the people
and enabling sovereign organs of government to participate adequately in
contributing to national development) has hardly been felt in Nigeria.
The
library research method has been used to posit, corroborate and expand the
opinion and the position taken by the writer on the subject matter. The
research paper is divided into five chapters. For this reason also, Chapter Two
of the paper puts forward a conceptual framework and literature review that emphasizes
the rationale and need for devolution, including its global trend to support
the issues discussed in the work. In the course of the work also, secondary
sources of information were employed and citations for referencing include
footnotes and a bibliography.
This
paper therefore affirms that the manner to which power and responsibilities are
shared in Nigeria, especially to local governments has not encouraged the third
tier of government to perform optimally and contribute evenly to national development.
The states have inhibited their participation in governance, and as such, for
devolution of powers to work effectively in Nigeria, fiscal federalism must be
encouraged for local governments to gain their deserved autonomy.
CHAPTER ONE
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Countries all over the world
have developed and used different strategies of governance, including ways of
distributing resources in their respective polities. None, however, can be said
to be the best method or strategy of administering good governance.
In Nigeria, the federal system
of government was adopted long ago and is presently still in use. This system ensures
that the country is divided into governmental organs or federating units for
the purpose of good governance. However, regardless of this fragmentation of
the country into various governmental organs which is expected to bring
governance closer to the grassroots or locals, it is observed that the expected
gains have not contributed optimally to national development.
History has it that, at the
beginning of formal British indirect rule in 1901, Nigeria was divided into two
regions namely, Northern and Southern protectorates, both of which were divided
into provinces. It also acknowledges that Sir Bernard Bourdillon laid the
foundation for constitutional proposals and federalism in Nigeria in 1939. He
created three provinces at that time. It was his effort that orchestrated the
Richards Constitution of 1946 and subsequent constitutions, as his successor,
Sir Arthur Richards had brought to fore his initiatives as proposal for
ratification as constitution in 1944.
Accordingly, from 1901 to
1958, Nigeria had three regions increased through both acquisition of
territories and partition from existing provinces. While the local chiefs and
clerks were appointed to govern the provinces, the regions were governed by the
British-appointed colonial authorities, and such regions were made to depend on
the colonial authorities for martial law, manpower and management of resources.
As Nigeria approached
independence, power over the regions was relinquished to Nigerians, and
regional legislatures were established. By 1960, the country had replaced the
post of Governor-General with the President, a national bicameral legislature
was established and the country assumed a federation of three regions. The
Mid-Western Region was also formed from the Western Region in 1966, and Lagos,
the capital, was effectively governed as an unofficial fourth region outside
the bounds of the Eastern Region.
During this period, governance
was more of a down-to-top approach. Regions, province and later, states were
allowed to tap their resources and contribute a percentage to the center
(federal government). Fifty percent of regional revenues were remitted to the
federal government which in-turn distributed twenty-five percent of such
remittance to states in order to balance revenue sharing and perhaps overall
development, mostly in the disadvantaged regions, provinces, states or local
government as the case may be.
Most recently, the 1999
Constitution (as amended) pronounces Nigeria as a federation and divides the
country into states and local governments.
In the ensuing federal state
of Nigeria, where the country is first of all characterized by bountiful rich
natural resources as well as a large land mass and people, governance and
indeed good governance require that all sections of the country benefit from
government decisions and actions. With the central government operated by a
federal state wielding enormous political power, in order to strengthen its
power and grip on government administration, it is of course necessary to state
however, that most of these issues originate from the rural or local areas.
While it can be agreed that governance in Nigeria is besieged by several local
issues, hardly can these issues of governance, no matter how irrelevant they
seem, be resolved without reference to the federal government. Unnecessary meddling
in or handling of these problems of local concerns by the national government
may prevent it from dealing adequately with these problems. As such, it is
imperative for an appropriate mechanism for dispersal and conservation of
political power. The above assertion brought to the fore-front the reason for
decentralization and on this basis, the justification for the existence of
local government. The confusion had been on the form of decentralization in which
the local government system in Nigeria was based. Is it decentralization by
de-concentration or decentralization by devolution?
In view of the above, this
paper seeks to determine if devolution of powers in Nigeria has occasioned
national development, with particular reference to the status of local
governments in the decentralized Nigerian federation.
The
library research method has been used to posit, corroborate and expand the
opinion and the position taken by the writer on the subject matter. The
research paper is divided into five chapters. For this reason also, Chapter Two
of the paper puts forward a conceptual framework and literature review that
emphasizes the rationale and need for devolution, including its global trend, to
support the issues discussed in the work. In the course of the work also, secondary
sources of information were employed and citations for referencing include
footnotes and a bibliography.
1.1
Statement of Problem
According to Dacks (1990) in Simiyu,
R., Mweru, J. and Omete F. (2014), large governments cannot make suitable
policies or provide effective services to distant communities with special
climates, geographical, economic systems and cultures. They affirm that only
governments closer to the people can make and supply better services.
Devolution of powers or
decentralization is expected to ensure that the various divisions or smaller federating
units (i.e. states and local governments) created by the 1999 Constitution (as
amended) are also allocated responsibilities. Like division of labour, the
sharing of power and responsibilities amongst these federating units is
expected to bring about a healthy competition necessary to enhance growth and
national development. In fact decentralization is being ascertained by some
scholars to be the basis for local government, since it is assumed to encourage
the active participation of citizens in the running of their own affairs.
In the last three decades,
Nigerians have contended with not only vanishing real incomes but also unbearable levels of
unemployment and inflation, decay in social amenities and failure to maintain,
not to talk of improving, the nation’s infrastructures. This dismal performance
of the public sector has prevented the creation of opportunities for a
resilient and sustainable growth and development of the Nigerian economy, which
should be the object of rational and functional fiscal federalism Ewetan O.
(2012).
The above situation goes to
show that devolution or decentralization goes beyond statutory provisions, its
practice or operation must command the kind of development expected in a
federal devolved state like Nigeria.
1.2
Purpose/Objective of the study
The goal of this research work
is to establish what devolution of powers is, and how it works in Nigeria.
While the ineffectiveness of devolution of powers in Nigeria includes the low
participation of the local government as the smallest and last devolved unit in
governance, the study helps to identify ways of improving the participation of
local governments in the present state of devolution of powers.
1.3
Significance of the study
The contributions of this work
will be of interest and benefit to students of government and researchers in
this field of study; since it contributes to the literature on devolution of
powers in Nigeria and brings to fore, the responsibilities of the different organs
of government in Nigeria. It will also serve to guide policy/decision makers
and political office appointees in defining a more appropriate way of taking
governance to the grassroots.
This work will definitely add
to the lots of already existing research work and literature in this area of
endeavor especially as the paper identifies and analyzes the practice of devolution
of powers in other selected countries as posited by the conceptual framework.
From governance point of view,
this study is timely, given the current clamor for local government autonomy in
Nigeria; just as the period coincides with a new era of government where the
opposition political party in Nigeria has taken over the reins of government and
a change in governance style is anticipated.
Nonetheless, the contributions
of this study are not expected to be exclusive to governance context alone, and
should be of value to organizations, institutions or sectors aiming to achieve better
goals through the adequate distribution of power and resources within their
context.
1.4
Research Questions
The research questions for
this research work include;
1. What
is devolution of powers?
2. How is
devolution of powers practiced in Nigeria?
3. Does devolution
of powers lead to national development?
4. Has devolution
of powers, particularly to local governments led to national development in
Nigeria?
5. What
can be done to attract the expected gains of devolution of powers?
CHAPTER TWO
2.0
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Conceptual Framework
In order to buttress the need
for devolution of powers as a means of attracting national development, this
study shall be examining the popularity of the concept in selected countries of
the world.
Throughout history, there has
been a tendency for governments to centralize power. During the late 20th
century, however, groups in both federal and unitary systems increasingly
sought to reduce the power of central governments by devolving power to local
or regional governments. For example, supporters of states’ rights in the
United States favoured diffusing power away from Washington, D.C., toward state
and local governments. This trend was also experienced throughout the world,
though perhaps the two most notable instances of devolution occurred in France
in the 1980s and the United Kingdom in the late 1990s.
Prior to the 1980s France was
one of the most centralized states in the world. The national government in
Paris had to give prior approval for all major decisions made by the régions, départements, and communes, ranging from their annual
budget to the names of new schools or streets. As the size and responsibilities
of subnational governments grew, however, most mayors objected to the
centralization of power, known as the tutelle
(“supervision”). To somewhat reduce the scope of power exercised by the central
government, the socialist government of Pres. François Mitterrand (1981–95),
through one of its first major pieces of legislation, dramatically expanded the
authority of the three layers of subnational government and removed the tutelle from almost all aspects of
policy making.
Devolution became a major
political issue in the United Kingdom beginning in the early 1970s. Many people
in Scotland and Wales began demanding greater control over their own affairs, a
trend reflected in a rise in support for the Scottish National Party (SNP) and
Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales). In 1979 the Labour Party government, supported by
the SNP and Plaid Cymru as well as the Liberal Party, held referenda that would
have devolved power, but they were rejected by voters in both Wales and
Scotland (a majority of voters in Scotland actually favoured devolution, but
the proportion did not exceed the two-fifths of the electorate required for
passage). During the 1980s and ’90s, however, support for devolution increased
in both countries, particularly because, despite the fact that voters in both
Scotland and Wales elected Labour candidates to the House of Commons by an
overwhelming majority, the national government in London was dominated
continuously for more than 18 years by the Conservative Party (1979–97). When
the Labour government of Tony Blair won power in 1997, it pledged to introduce
another set of devolution proposals. Support for the scope of devolution
differed in both Scotland and Wales and affected the proposals; Scotland was
offered a parliament that would have the ability to pass legislation and set
some of its own taxation rates, while the Welsh Assembly would have neither
power and instead would be primarily vested with the ability to determine how
legislation passed in London was implemented in Wales. On Sept. 11, 1997,
voters in Scotland overwhelmingly backed the creation of a Scottish Parliament
with tax-raising authority, and one week later Welsh voters narrowly approved
the creation of the Welsh Assembly; both bodies began sittings in 1999. The
1998 Belfast Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement) granted
Northern Ireland its own parliament, restoring the political autonomy it had
lost when direct rule from London was imposed in the 1970s. There were also
proposals to introduce regional assemblies in England.
Devolution is viewed in many
countries as a way to dampen regional, racial, ethnic, or religious cleavages,
particularly in multiethnic societies, such as Sri Lanka and Indonesia.
Devolution has also occurred in Finland, where the government has granted
significant autonomy to the largely Swedish-speaking population of the Åland
Islands; in Spain, where regional governments (particularly the Basque Country,
Catalonia, Galicia, and Andalusia) have enjoyed extensive powers; and in Italy,
where several regions have been granted “special autonomy” by the central
government.
2.2
Federalism and Devolution of Powers
According to the Encyclopedia
Britannica online, a federation or a federal state is a type of sovereign state
composed of states or regions that are self-governed (to some extent) and are
united by a central (federal) government. Under federalism, each
level of government has sovereignty in some areas and shares powers in other
areas. For instance, in Nigeria and other countries of the world, the federal,
state and local governments have constitutional powers to tax, however, only
the federal government has the power to declare war. The components of a
federal state are not recognized with an independent status under international
law because they usually have no powers in relation to foreign policy.
On
the other hand, devolution is the transfer of certain powers from
one entity to another. It's an effort to reduce federal government powers by
transferring some responsibilities to the state governments. Through
devolution, the states gain responsibility for matters that were previously
handled at the federal level.
Wikipedia online also defines devolution
to mean the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a
sovereign state to government at a sub-national level, such as a regional,
local, or state level. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation
relevant to the area. It is a form of decentralization.
Akin to devolution, Dalhatu
(2006) is quoted in Asuji K. (2010) to suggest that decentralization is an
arrangement by which the management of the public affairs of a country is
shared by the central/ state/province and local government in a manner that the
local government is given reasonable scope to raise funds and to use its
resources to provide a range of socio-economic services and establish
programmes to enhance the welfare of those resident in its area of authority.
Given the similar nature of devolution
of powers and decentralization with both meaning sharing of responsibilities
between the centre and other units, it is not out of place to use the two words
inter-changeably. Thus, according to Asaju K. (2010) decentralization
constitutes the basic and principle basis for the establishment of local
government.
Devolution is related to
federalism but differs from federalism in that, the devolved powers of the sub-national
authority may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus
the state remains, de jure unitary.
Devolution has no constitutional basis and such devolved powers may be altered
by the central government, whereas under federalism, the self-governing status
of its components or regions is typically spelt out in the constitution and may
not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government.
2.3
Effects of Devolution of Powers
In as much as devolution of
powers has its gains, there are also arguments against it. This section briefly
highlights some of the advantages and disadvantages of devolution of powers as
presented by different authors.
Mwabu et al., (2001) maintain
that efficient delivery of public services in Africa and other developing
regions has for a long time been hindered by highly centralized government
bureaucracies. Thus, decentralization permits governments to match services
with variations in demand. Greater overall citizen satisfaction can be achieved
with multiple governments offering different packages of public services at
different prices. Competition forces governments to become more efficient in
their allocative activities, providing better services at lower costs.
Competition forces government to be more responsive to citizens’ preferences
than monopoly government.
Putman (1993) observes that pro-devolution
arguments indicate that inter-territorial competition can generate efficiency
and innovation. Moreover they say devolution will enhance the combination of
greater political participation, transparency and accountability, resulting in
economically advantageous institutions. The net effect of this will be creative
ways of addressing the national’s welfare.
Furthermore, Simiyu, R., Mweru,
J. and Omete F. (2014) posit that economic efficiency through devolution are founded
on Musgrave’s (1959) contention that lower levels of government have a greater
capacity to tailor policies and the provision of services to the preferences of
the population, thereby maximizing individual and collective welfare and making
the supply of public goods and services more efficient. This tenet is, based on
assumptions that individual preferences for public goods differ, and that
individuals chose to live in a place that best corresponds with their
preferences.
On the other hand, arguments
against devolution opine that the lack of any experience of decision-making at
the level of regional self-government could also lead to delays in the making
and implementation of decisions – central government has decades of
decision-making experience and could do a much better job for the regions
without any delay.
Another layer of government
could also cause problems with decisions that are wanted by the regions but are
not supported by central government. If there is a problem, who do the people
in that particular region complain to? If it is central authority, why have
regional governments in the first place?
2.4
The Local Government as a devolved organ of government
The term local government has
been defined in so many ways. The Business Dictionary online defines the local
government as an administrative body for a small geographic area, such as a
city, town, county, or state. A local government will typically only have
control over their specific geographical region, and cannot pass or enforce
laws that will affect a wider area. Local governments can elect officials,
enact taxes, and do many other things that a national government would do, just
on a smaller scale.
Awa (1981) sees local
government as “a political authority set up by a nation or state as a
subordinate authority for the purpose of dispersing or decentralising political
power”. In the same vein, Wraith (1984) defines local government as the act of
decentralising power, which may take the form of deconcentration or devolution.
Deconcentration involves delegation of authority to field units of the same
department and devolution on the other hand refers to a transfer of authority
to local government units or special statutory bodies such as school boards for
instance. From this perceptive, one can see local government as a lesser power
in the national polity. It is an administrative agency through which control
and authority relates to the people at the grassroots or periphery. Akpan
(1972) sees local government as the breaking down of a country into small units
or localities for the purpose of administration on which the inhabitants of the
different units or localities concerned play a direct and full part through
their elected representatives who exercise power or undertake functions under
the general authority of the national government. The 1976 local government
reform defines local government as: “government at local level exercised
through representative council established by law to exercise specific powers
within defined areas. These powers should give the council substantial control
over local affairs as well as the staff and institutional and financial powers
to initiate and direct the provision of services and to determine and implement
projects so as to complement the activities of the State and federal
governments in their areas, and to ensure, through devolution of these
functions to these councils and through the active participation of the people
and their traditional institutions, that local initiative and response to local
needs and conditions are maximised.”
CHAPTER THREE
3.0
DEVOLUTION OF POWERS IN NIGERIA
The
federal state of Nigeria is stipulated in Sections 2 and 3 of the 1999
Constitution of Nigeria (as amended). These Sections pronounce Nigeria as one
indivisible sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, and expressly depict the components of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
to comprise of States and Local Governments provided in same.
Accordingly,
government responsibility in Nigeria is shared amongst these federating units.
Under
the current federal system of government in the country, the central (federal) government
has the power to enforce the 68 items listed on the Exclusive Legislative List
of the Nigerian Constitution.
The
state governments have the responsibilities to also enforce the items on the Concurrent
Legislative List, which has 30 items. However, even on this Concurrent Legislative
List, the state governments cannot exercise power on most items except with the
permission of the federal government.
While the Federal and State governments are
responsible for the provisions of the items on the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative
Lists of Part I & II of the Second Schedule of the Constitution, local governments
have been established to perform the functions spelt out in the Fourth Schedule
of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The functions of the Local Governments include:
a) Consideration and making of recommendations to the
State commission on economic planning or any similar body on economic development
of the State, particularly in so far as the area of authority of the Council
and of the State are affected;
b) Collection of rates, and radio and television
licenses;
c) Establishment and maintenance of cemeteries, burial
grounds and homes for the destitute or infirm;
d) Licensing of bicycles, trucks (other than
mechanically propelled trucks), canoes, wheel barrows and carts;
e) Establishment, maintenance and regulation of
markets, motor parks and public conveniences;
f) Construction and maintenance of roads, streets,
drains and other public
highways, parks, open spaces, or such public facilities as may be
prescribed from time to time by the House of Assembly of a State;
g) Naming of roads and streets and numbering of
houses;
h) Provision and maintenance Of public conveniences
and refuse disposal;
i) Registration of births, deaths and marriages;
j) Assessment of privately-owned houses or tenements
for the purpose of levying such rates as may be prescribed by the House of
Assembly of a State; and,
k) Control and regulation of:
i.
out-door advertising
and hoarding
ii.
movement and keeping
of pets of ail descriptions
iii.
shops and kiosks
iv.
restaurants and
other places for sale of food to the public, and
v.
laundries
The local government councils also work
hand-in-hand with State governments on issues such as:
a) the provision and maintenance of primary education;
b) the development of agriculture and natural
resources, other than the exploitation of minerals, and
c) the provision and maintenance of health services.
Even though the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
creates and shares government responsibility amongst these federating units and
declares them autonomous, in actual practise, the self-governance status of the
local government especially, as an organ of government is being questioned.
Consequently, how independent,
these federating units are, remains one of the current contending issues in the
country.
3.1
Phases of Devolution of Powers in Nigeria
According to Dr. Ogban
Ogban-Iyam, the issue of devolution of powers in Nigeria can be usefully
studied under three major historical phases:
1914 to 1960
This is a period of colonial
rule and can again be subdivided into sub phases. From 1914 to the inception of
Hugh Clifford constitution, Nigeria was ruled by a military officer, Lord
Lugard, on behalf of Britain. Although there were no military decrees,
Nigerians had virtually no say in rule-making, rule adjudication and
rule-application in Nigeria. However, the governor consulted with British
colonial officials and commercial interests and ruled with their help.
From the time of Hugh
Clifford’s Constitution to the end of colonial British rule, colonial officials
from the centre (Lagos) to districts in the country side were given reasonable
discretion in the exercise of power. This can also be said of court messengers
and clerks.
Towards the end of colonial
rule, the Governor-General of Nigeria was assisted by lieutenant governors in
the regions, secretaries in the ministries, district commissioners in the
provinces and other subordinate officials across the country. The point is that
most of the powers exercised by these officials were devolved powers yet there
were stable mutual perceptions among these officials on their various powers
and roles. By 1954, the regions came into being with their constitutionally
allocated powers. In addition to these powers, Nigerian politicians and
administrative officials and British officials were allowed more devolved
powers which were not whimsically recalled or interfered with. Even native
courts decided cases which were subjected to the review of district officers
and later on, magistrate courts.
October 1960 to January 14,
1966
By October 1960 Nigerians not
only took over government on the basis of constitutionally specified powers but
also devolved powers had increased and permeated to the lowest rungs of
government. Ministers exercised considerable devolved power in their
ministries. The same applied to other government officials. In fact, they were
expected to take responsibility for their ministries even though they performed
their duties on behalf of the Premier of the region or the Prime minister of
the federation.
January 1966 to Date
With the advent of military
rule, governance became more of the prerogative of the Supreme Commander or the
head of the military government. Powers hitherto exercised by local
governments, parastatals, universities, states and even federal ministries and
officials had been withdrawn and were exercised by the head of state, governor,
sole administrator, permanent secretary, etc. as the case may be. The brief
period of the second republic did not and could not change much.
With successive military
regimes which the present democratic dispensation is hung over, all states and
local governments have become uniform in practice and must wait for resources
from Abuja. The federal government reserves the power to enforce a wide range
of statutory provisions, making it and the nation too central in the
administration of governance in Nigeria.
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0
DEVOLUTION OF POWERS AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA
As earlier deduced from
discussions above, devolution of powers (if managed properly) will lead to more
rapid and balanced socio-economic and national development, through the
effective management and provision of services as well as the healthy
competition that would exist between the components of the federation. This
means that the success of Nigeria’s federal system for effective governance
depends on an appropriate division of responsibilities and resources between
federal, state and local authorities supported by a sufficient institutional
capacity at each of these levels to carry out its assigned functions. Barkan J.,
Gboyega A. & Stevens M, (2001).
Unlike most federal systems,
the Nigerian federal structure is seen to be one that enables a very powerful
centre (federal government) that acquires all government responsibilities,
including those that could be discharged better by the states and local
governments in view of their relative closeness to the people and their
problems.
The highly centralized Nigeria
federal system, with the concentration of all federal government institutions
and decision making in Abuja, leads to the concentration of economic activities
in the capital city. It influences uneven development and growing disparities
of economic opportunities. This results in the neglect and lack of development
experienced by many regions and communities; and the consequent urban
migration, particularly to Abuja. This also explains why the President who
hails from another section of the country, would first introduce the light rail
project in the capital city of Abuja, at the expense of agricultural and high
commercial cities in the country or even his region.
With the fragmentation of
Nigeria into states and local governments, there should be greater incentives
and opportunities for socio-economic development outside Abuja, as these federating
units are expected to take responsibility for the welfare and development of
their citizens. New centers of growth in which people have opportunities of
investment and employment are expected to emerge in the country.
However, by virtue of its
enormous powers, including the allocation of huge resources, the federal
government is considered very attractive by the political class at the expense
of the states and a mediocre local government system. Most of the struggle is
about who controls Abuja. The inadequate allocation of powers and resources to
the states and local governments make the presidency a prize objective of
politics. In contrast, most of the country’s problems abound in the rural
societies, where the local governments are established within the precincts of
the States.
It is not just the political
class that finds the centre very attractive, professionals and bureaucrats have
also avoided the states and concentrated more on the federal government because
the states cannot effectively carry out responsibilities at the local
government level.
Furthermore, the concentration
of resources at the centre evolves a situation of over dependence of the states
on the federal government; eroding their independence and the presumed healthy
competition necessary to spur development from the grassroots up to the
national level.
Out
of the 68 items on the Exclusive Legislative List, the federal government’s
powers include, among others, maintenance of federal roads, prisons, police,
trade, marriage, issuing driver’s license and controlling traffic on federal
roads. Added to these are 30 items contained in the concurrent list on which it
shares power with the states. In effect, the federal government cumulatively
has within its sphere of influence of about 90 items while allowing the states
to share out of the 30 items contained on the concurrent list.
With the current constitutional arrangement and
practice, it is claimed that the concentration of enormous power and resources
at the centre has made limited impact in service delivery and infrastructural
development. According to Egbosiuba M. (2011), if you evaluate federal government management of postal service,
power, healthcare, education, security, natural resources and infrastructure,
you can decide for yourself if they have performed above or below expectation
since our independence.
The
believe is that water,
education, healthcare, natural resources, good roads and electricity can be
best delivered at the state and local government levels. Whatever, the federal
government decides to establish in any part of the country in this regard, it
is expected that the states and local governments will do a better job, since
they know their localities better and will be in the best position to know what
and where it is needed. Put simply, people in each locality know their area far
better than a Minister or President residing in Abuja.
Using the 1999 Constitution as
a basis for discussion, those who
canvass the view that states control their resources claim to be doing so in
the spirit of devolution of powers which allows the states to only pay or make
appropriate financial contributions to the Federal Government.
On
the other hand, those who argue against it, propose that mineral resources in
Nigeria are owned in law by the Federal Government as contained in Section
44(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as such, it is a violation of the
Constitution to allow the states and local governments perform certain
responsibilities.
Section
44(3) states that: “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section,
the entire property in and control of all minerals, mineral oil and natural gas
in, under or upon any land in Nigeria or in, under or upon the territorial
waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone of Nigeria shall vest in the Government
of the Federation and shall be managed in such manner as may be prescribed by
the National Assembly.”
It
is for this reason of improper devolution of powers that Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, sent a private
member bill to the National Assembly to amend the Constitution for proper devolution
of powers in the country. According to him, the Bill proposes that the way to go is
to devolve power; to take those items on the Exclusive List that the federal
government, obviously, does not need, and give to the states.
Take for instance, the issue of issuance of
driver’s license. One would agree with Agbakoba that the federal government
does not have any business in the issuance of Driver’s License. It should be a
form of data management and revenue generation for the respective states
issuing them.
He further opines that power can also be devolved
to the states in respect of all natural resources – except petroleum for now,
because of the unique role it has played in the Nigerian economy.
With abundant resources like gold, uranium, bauxite, lime stone and
sulphur-filled coal etc, only the states can do enough to exploit them. The
abandonment and non-exploitation of these abundant resources means that the federal
government will continue to share revenue from oil sales with states and local
governments who then spend much of their allocation on recurrent expenditures
instead of capital expenditures. Whereas, capital expenditure
create jobs, infrastructure and above all, provides the much needed development
at the same time.
4.1 The Local Government Perspective
The local government is supposed to be a sovereign
federating organ of government, with democratically elected executive
chairpersons expected to act in consonance with the aspirations of the people.
More so, a legislative arm supposedly in place to oversight those activities
performed by the executive arm. Thus, the local government must comply with the
fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy which include
the political, social and economic objectives set out in Chapter 2 of the
Constitution.
It is important to state at this juncture, that the closest we got a picture of local
governments performing their statutory roles as prescribed by devolution of
powers and state resources in Nigeria could be ascribed to the military era of
Gen Ibrahim Babangida. The Fourth Republic which began with elections into
local government councils ensured that local government council officials were
elected and funds were released directly into the accounts of the third tier of
government. Relatively, remarkable developments were witnessed during this
period indeed.
In recent times, while the local government
chairperson may be held accountable for development issues in their area of
authority, Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) allows state
governments to guarantee the existence of local governments, contradicting the
sovereign and devolution of powers status of these administrative units of
government, as pronounced by true federalism.
Is
it not vague that a sovereign federating unit exercising executive and
legislative powers receives directives from the states especially with regards
to allocation of funds that have been explicitly appropriated at the national
level? This middle level status of states depicts a major challenge to
enhancing sustainable development in the local governments. The executive arm
of the local government is faced with a dilemma of responsibility. Should they
act in conformity with the aspirations of those who elected them or in
conformity with the directives of the state governor?
Grassroots
and national development is affected when the executive chairmen of a local
government which before election had a manifesto upon which he was voted, but is
upon election expected to receive directives from the state governor directly.
If we agree that the local government is saddled
with all the earlier mentioned constitutional responsibilities (that aim at
maintaining law and order as well as drive socio-economic development) and
makes it the only organ of government closest to the grassroots, then we must
accept that the Constitution also completely gives the states the powers to
usurp the tasks of a supposedly sovereign unit of the federation.
Going by this development, there is no gainsaying
the fact that the states have not allowed this important tier of government to
properly perform its duties.
According to Wada E. & Aminu I. (2014), the
local governments are of the view that the existing mechanism for
intergovernmental relationship is ineffective. The overwhelming majority of local
government areas reported that they did not enjoy the autonomy conferred on
them by the Constitution, and that almost a master-servant relationship is kept
with the two upper tiers of government. This feeling was in the recent past
demonstrated by the action of the federal government to interfere with the
decisions of electoral tribunals on the eligibility of persons elected as local
government Chairpersons. This was an unnecessary “potty-training” of the local
communities, an action that could be interpreted as public incitement. In a similar
fashion, the federal government directed that 5% of the LGA’s revenue should be
set aside for paying remuneration to the traditional authorities. This does not
indicate that LGA’s are free to act as the third tier of government as they
were designed to be.
Furthermore, it was observed that most of the power
conflict result from areas of overlapping functions (Concurrent) particularly
those relating to the provision of adult and vocational education, development
of agriculture, provision and maintenance of health services. This usually
engineer tension and conflict particularly where the issue of funding is
concerned.
Despite the fact that the 1999 Constitution (as
amended) provides that local governments constitute the third tier of
government thereby providing opportunities for greater democratic participation
both in government and in those areas, it is alleged that they have mainly
operated as appendages of the state governments/governors who sometimes run
them by appointing caretaker committees to head the affairs of this tier of
government. In most cases they are no democratically elected executives of the
local government much at the expense of democracy and development as well as a
negation of Section 7(1) of the Constitution which guarantees democratically
elected officials of the local government councils.
The impact of governance has
not been felt at the local government level in terms of changing the lives of
the people because funds meant for the councils are usually withheld by states.
It is this lack of adequate funds and the redundant
state of local governments in Nigeria that reduces the ability of local
governments to perform effectively, hence the call for proper devolution of
powers in the country.
This practice negates the provision of the 1999
Constitution which stipulates the functions of the local government. Also, the Constitution appears to be self
destruct as it further attempts to upset the implementation (through funding)
of this enormous mandate of the local government by providing a special account
called the Joint Account in Section 162(6) supervised by the state governors.
Public perception especially local government
executives opine that apart from the fact that governors interfere in the
running of local government councils, the State/Local Government Joint Account
has resulted in local governments being starved of funds meant for development
projects.
The Chairman, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and
Fiscal Commission, Engr. Elias Mbam, expressed his support for local government
autonomy in Nigeria when he stated that “the local government joint accounts
should be abolished because some state chief executives have decided to be
smarter than the Constitution. The local governments are beneficiaries of the
Federation Account, and they should be entitled to their allocation directly,
as there is no need to pass their share through the state governments”.
This perhaps informed the decision of the 7th
National Assembly to propose amendment to Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution
(as amended) to provide for local government autonomy (even though it never got
the two-third majority of state assembly votes to guarantee its passage) in the
just concluded Constitutional Amendment Process. The House and Senate Bills had
proposed to grant financial autonomy to local government councils in the
country as a way of ensuring their autonomy and placing them on the path of
grassroots and national development.
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 RECOMMENDATION/WAYFORWARD
Some
school of thought proposing better devolution of powers in Nigeria feel that
the current constitutional provision that outlines the legislative lists ought
to be reviewed, and the powers given to the federal government drastically
pruned down to allow the remaining powers lie with the states. This, it is
argued to be the convention in the United States where the Country’s Constitution
emphasizes state rights, just as it was with the Macpherson Constitution for
Nigeria.
This
can easily be justified since most of the issues and concerns for development
in Nigeria can be found in the federating units of states and local governments.
This proposes that all matters concerning education, health, social welfare,
public works, agriculture, water resources, marriage, driver’s license, trade,
prisons be reserved for the states while basic and fundamental subjects which
are normally handled by federations such as defence, currency, immigration,
customs and excise, posts and telegraphs be left for the federal government to
handle. Responsibilities of the federal government on matters reserved for the
states should be on general policy and coordination only. Where concurrent
jurisdiction is allowed, the federal government should use mandate system to
enable states discharge some of their responsibilities on its behalf. This
indeed is the basis for development, as well as strengthening of cooperative
federalism in the future as opposed to the lopsided pattern of relationship
which the present arrangement portends.
The
availability of large amounts of untapped mineral resources in the country also
suggests that given the mandate by the federal government, states can be
encouraged to look inwards in order to develop other centers of growth in the
country; since they will be allowed to harness their peculiar resources, enough
to command substantial revenue and employment. This could be ensured through
proper monitoring and evaluation of such activities from the center (where such
power and responsibility have been devolved). For this reason also, an agency
for the exploitation and development of non-oil resources may be established by
the federal government to regulate and monitor the exploitation of these
resources by other devolved units of government.
Going
further, there must be that political will to fundamentally devolve
power from the states to the local governments, being the tier of government
closest to the people. National development begins from the grassroots i.e. local
government. Hence, the powers of local governments as enshrined in the
Constitution must not remain merely on paper but enforced in practice, to allow
local governments, substantial control over local affairs and their staff. They
require institutional and financial powers to initiate, develop and maintain services
as well as determine and implement projects to complement the activities of the
state and federal governments in their areas. It is the duty of local
governments to also ensure, through the active participation of the people and
their traditional institutions that local programs and response to local needs
and conditions are maximized. All of these have been addressed by the 1999 Constitution
(as amended). Regrettably, the local governments are hardly ever allowed to enforce
these constitutional roles nor allowed to justify their sovereign nature.
Although no rigid rules can be laid down as to exactly what is to be devolved
to local governments, matters bordering on markets, motor parks, sanitary
inspection, refuse, slaughter houses, burial grounds, registration of births,
death and marriages, parks, gardens and public open spaces, control of
hoardings, advertisements, use of loud speakers in or near public places,
naming of roads and streets and numbering of plots/buildings, should be the
exclusive responsibility of local governments.
Such responsibilities can be
effectively carried out under democratically elected local government officials
and not the present caretaker executives established by most state governors.
The consequence of having a working or effective local government system is
that, competent hands will be employed and retained, while states and local
governments become the pivot of politics and development. The federal character
syndrome will also be less pronounced. On the other hand, it would have done
enough to attract professionals and competent personnel to ensure that
resources and services are effectively and efficiently distributed at that
level.
Since the local
government is seen as the arm of government closest to the people, it is
expected that its function of advancing development in the country is
inevitable. For instance, if the Child Rights policy is been enforced at the
federal level and collaborated by the State governments, why won’t the local
government also work together with the other organs in ensuring that the law is
also being observed at the grassroots where the problem is more evident? In the
same vein, it is more of a local government issue, if Nigeria decides to do
away with child hawking especially as the local governments oversee our car
parks and public primary schools.
This and many more
can only be achieved by the local government councils in particular and Nigeria
at large when the local governments have financial autonomy. It is from such
basis that issues of capacity and guaranteeing implementation may be possible.
Under true federalism, it is a
notable universal trend that the local government system ought to be operated
as autonomous in other to deliver services to the grass root people. This means
that financial autonomy or fiscal devolution must be ensured to guarantee this
kind of self-sustaining status. The argument portraying the local government as
not being ripe enough to determine their existence contradicts its sovereign
nature as provided by the 1999 Constitution and limits its contribution to the development
of the nation. Besides, only a working system can attract quality and value
dispensation.
Like in Brazil (which operates
a federal state like ours) a certain degree of autonomy for investment and expenditure
decisions allows sub – national units to pursue policies for economic
development tailored to their own local needs and endowments. With this kind of
freedom, and being responsible for their own welfare, the regions are more
likely to embark on creative attempts to raise their own revenues and provide
public goods and services.
5.1
CONCLUSION
Devolution of powers or
sharing of responsibilities amongst the federating units in Nigeria is expected
to make the provision of public amenities and services more efficient, create
opportunities for local governments to exploit sustainable development
strategies and contribute to a better coordination between various sectors
(public and private) of a federating unit. Most importantly, devolution is
expected to bring about competition and provide each organ of government, the
autonomy to pursue a development strategy tailored to its own peculiar economic
potential that is necessary to contribute to overall national development.
However, devolution of powers
in Nigeria has not been adequate enough to ensure the deserved impact. While devolution
of powers should literally posit national development, the way and manner,
power and resources are being shared amongst federating units could hamper the
much desired development. For this reason, efforts must be made to liberate
local governments from over reliance on states especially for funds. There is
absolutely no power without the capacity to exert such power, this time not the
enabling law but the physical and fiscal resources necessary to carry out the
constitutional functions of the local governments spelt out in the Fourth
Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The success of a federal
system of government can be amongst other factors determined greatly by how
power is shared between the central or federal government and the other
federating units. If there is a high concentration of power at the centre, the
states and local governments will remain mere organs of such government, unable
to impact positively on the society. This is the disadvantage of a highly
centralized state. Therefore, a middle point must be sought in such a manner
that the centre (or federal government) will not be too strong and overbearing
enough to weaken the other organs of the state or too weak to the point of
threatening the unity of Nigeria.
Bibliography:
1.
Akpan, N.U. (1972). Epitaphh to Indirect Rule. Frank
Case, London.
2.
Asaju, K. (2010). Local Government Autonomy in Nigeria:
Politics and Challenges of the 1999 Constitution.
International Journal of Advanced Legal Studies and Governance Vol. 1 No.1.
3.
Awa, E.O. (1981). The
Theory of Local Government. Quarterly Journal of Administration. Vol XV No. 1 & II October/January
4.
Barkan, J Gboyega A., Stevens M, (2001). State and Local Governance in Nigeria. A
publication of the Public Sector and Capacity Building Program, Africa Region.
The World Bank.
5.
Gill et al., (2004)
in Gathu J. N. (2014). Analyzing the
Impact of Devolution on Economic Development
Potentialities in Kenya. International Affairs and Global Strategy
www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-574X
(Paper) ISSN 2224-8951 (Online) Vol.26, 2014. assessed
on 8/05/2015
7.
Hirnyam,
M. (2014); Bill analysis on the Bill for an Act to Alter the Provision of Sections
7 and 162 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999
(as Amended) to Provide for Independence
and Financial Autonomy of Local Government Councils in Nigeria and for Related Matters. Article published in
House of Representatives Bill Analysis Section of the National Assembly Legislative Digest Vol.1 No. 7.
8.
Mwabu, G., Cecilia Ugaz and Gordon White (eds.)
(2001). Social Provision in Low- Income Countries.
Oxford University Press.
9.
Putnam, R. J, (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
10.
Rodriguez – Pose and
Gill, (2005) in Gathu J. N. (2014). Ibid.
11.
Stifling
Lg Administration through Jac. Article published on Nigeria Best Forum on May 31 2013 and
assessed online on 7/05/2015.
12. Simiyu,
R., Mweru, J. and Omete F. (2014). The
Effects of Devolved Funding on Socio- Economic
Welfare of Kenyans: A Case of Constituency Development Fund in Kimilili,
(Kenya). European Journal of
Accounting Auditing and Faineance ResearchVol.2, No.7, pp.31-51, September.
13. Wraith
R. (1984). Local Administration in West Africa. London: Leonge Allen and Unwin.
15. 1999
Nigerian Constitution (as amended)
For the Nigerian youth watching his brother’s back, the
Whistleblower Policy is snitching at its highest level; for the old and optimists,
it is a policy largely overdue; Wikipedia online describes a whistleblower
(also known as a whistle-blower or whistle blower) as a person who exposes any
kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not
correct within an organization that is either private or public. ... Because of
this, a number of laws exist to protect whistleblowers. In Nigeria, the
federal government defines a whistleblower as a person who voluntarily
discloses to the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of
Finance, a possible misconduct or violation that has occurred, is ongoing, or
is about to occur with specific concerns which are in the public interest. 
