‘It’s an Assault on True Federalism’ — James Ibori Criticizes Supreme Court Ruling on LGA Financial Autonomy

James Ibori, former governor of Delta State, has expressed strong disapproval of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the financial autonomy of Nigeria’s 774 Local Government Areas (LGAs). The court’s decision mandates that the federal government directly disburse allocations to local government councils from the federation account, bypassing state governments.

The seven-member panel of justices determined that state governments have consistently misused funds intended for LGAs. Additionally, the Supreme Court ordered that allocations be withheld from LGAs led by unelected officials appointed by governors.

Reacting to the judgment on his X page, Ibori labeled the ruling as an “assault” on true federalism and a significant setback. He argued that the decision contradicts section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which outlines the financial distribution framework among federal, state, and local governments.

“The federal government has no right to interfere with the administration of LGAs under any guise whatsoever,” Ibori stated. He further warned that the ruling could have “far-reaching” implications, including the erosion of state autonomy and the centralization of power at the federal level.

Ibori highlighted several concerns regarding the ruling:

• Constitutional Interpretation: He questioned whether the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by contradicting the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution.
• Balance of Power: The ruling potentially shifts the balance of power towards the federal government, undermining the principles of federalism.
• State Autonomy: The decision could erode state autonomy, diminishing states’ control over their internal affairs, including local government administration.
• Financial Independence: Direct federal intervention in local government finances may impact the financial independence of states and LGAs, potentially serving as a tool for political leverage.
• Precedent-setting: This ruling could set a precedent for further federal interventions in state governance, leading to a more centralized government system over time.

Ibori concluded by expressing hope that the ruling would be reviewed promptly, asserting that it upends the fundamental concept of federalism.