Federalism as a governance model is often rooted in historical contexts where diverse groups sought unity while maintaining regional or zonal autonomy. Thinkers like Montesquieu, the French Judge, Historian, and Political Philosopher, trace its origins to advocating for separating powers to prevent tyranny.He proclaimed with staunch conviction that where power intertwines without clear division, the breath of liberty would cease andbound in chains.
The foundational epistemology of federalism, championed by figures such as James Madison, the Father of theConstitution of the United States, rests on the clear division between the federal (national) government and the regional (state) governments. The division aims to prevent the concentration of power, ensuring that each tier operates within its clearly defined jurisdiction, thereby protecting the rights and interests of the constituent units. Any deviation from this principle could potentially jeopardise the rights and interests of the constituent units, calling for immediate protection and advocacy from all stakeholders.
Accordingly, the recent Supreme Court of Nigeria’s decision to grant financial autonomy to Local Governments, despite their non-recognition as federating units under the 1999 Constitution, represents a significant departure from the foundational principles of federalism. This ruling, while well-intentioned, introduces an absurdity into the constitutional framework and contradicts the essence of a federal system of governance. This contradiction should raise concerns and prompt immediate action among legal scholars, policymakers, and individuals interested in constitutional law, as it undermines the very essence of our governance system.
Introducing a three-tier structure, where Local Governments are accorded financial autonomy akin to that of states, undermines this balance. Under the 1999 Constitution, local governments are administrative creations of the states and not independent federating units. They lack the constitutional standing to function as separate entities within the federal system. By granting them financial autonomy, the Supreme Court’s decision effectively elevates them to a status that the Constitution does not envision, thereby distorting the federal architecture of Nigeria and disrespecting the importance of the Constitution’s vision.
This distortion raises significant concerns. It risks creating a form of hegemony where the Federal Government exerts undue influence over Local Governments to ensure financial prudence. This ruling also opens the door to further complications that may trigger a backward regression, where smaller units within Local Governments, like Wards, Quarters and Booths, start demanding similar autonomy, further fragmenting the system.Such regression to hyper-local governance would fragment the Nigerian state into a chaotic web of micro-governments, each vying for independence and resources. This fragmentation could lead to inefficiency, a practical consequence that the framers of our Constitution sought to avoid.
The notion that Local Governments should be financially autonomous while appealing on the surface, disregards the essential nature of a federating unit. In a proper federal system, the federating units are the primary constituents that form the federation. These units, typically States or Regions, possess a degree of sovereignty and have a direct relationship with the central government. Local governments, by contrast, are administrative subdivisions of such states or regions. They lack the constitutional independence that would warrant direct financial autonomy from the central government. By granting them this autonomy, the Supreme Court has effectively blurred the lines between levels of government, leading to a structure that resembles a unitary system more than a federal one.
The essence of true federalism lies in the balance of power between different levels of government, particularly between the central or federal and state governments. This balance ensures that no single entity or group can dominate the nation. However, the states have no autonomy in a three-tier system, where the federal government retains significant control over local governments. The federal government’s ability to directly influence local communities, bypassing the state governments, creates a dangerous precedent for hegemonic control.
In a diverse country like Nigeria, where ethnic and regional identities are strong, the concentration of power at the centre can lead to the marginalisation of minority groups. The dominant group, often holding sway over the federal government, can dictate policies and decisions that may not reflect the needs or aspirations of all sections. This centralisation of power risks turning local governments into mere extensions of the federal government, stripping them of influence and reducing them to instruments of the dominant group’s agenda.
Nigeria, a nation of over 250 ethnic groups, is a rich tapestry of cultures, languages, and histories. The strength of such a diverse nation lies in its ability to govern in a way that recognises and respects this diversity. However, adopting a three-tier federal system, which resembles a unitary structure, poses significant risks of hegemony and tyranny in such a complex society. The division aims to prevent the concentration of power, ensuring that each tier operates within its clearly defined jurisdiction, thereby protecting the rights and interests of the constituent units.
Moreover, the three-tier system undermines the very foundation of federalism by creating a top-down approach to governance. Instead of fostering cooperation and partnership between different levels of government, it encourages a system where the federal government holds the ultimate authority, with little room for state or local input. This lopsidedness allows a select few at the top to make decisions and impose their will on the rest of the country.
Concentrating power at the centre presents significant challenges because that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.The dominant group, controlling the centre, can use its position to entrench its power, suppress dissent, and enforce its will on all corners of the nation. Domination endangers democratic principles and risks plunging the country into a cycle of authoritarianism and instability.
For Nigeria to thrive as a diverse and democratic nation, it must return to the principles of true federalism. A two-tier federal structure, where power is shared more equitably between the federal and state governments, offers a better safeguard against the dangers of hegemony and tyranny. It ensures that all regions have a voice in the country’s governance and that local governments retain the autonomy needed to address the unique needs of their communities.
The Supreme Court should, therefore,reverseits ruling on Local governments’ financial autonomy.While it is the highest judicial authority, itis not infallible and equally not final. It is final only because there is no higher court to appeal to, but it retains the inherent power to review and reverse its decisions where necessary. In this case, the Court should exercise this power to reverse its ruling on Local Government financial autonomy. Reversing this is essential to preserving the integrity of Nigeria’s federal system and preventing the potential for tyranny. It also safeguards the carefully balanced powers between the central and state governments, averting a severe threat to the current system.
True federalism demands strict adherence to its foundational principles. The Supreme Court’s decision, while perhaps motivated by a desire for greater financial accountability, is inconsistent with these principles and threatens to undermine the very foundation of Nigeria’s federal structure. The Court must revisit this decision, restoring the balance intended by the Constitution’s framers and ensuring Nigeria’s federalism remains robust and accurate to its original design.
By Pat Onukwuli, PhD, writes from Bolton, UK, patonukwuli2003@yahoo.co.uk
Source: The SUN
