LOCAL COUNCIL: Is this government for us?
The contests for the council seats this year are being fought with unusual passion because local governments have, in the past eight years, become uncontrolled centres of corruption. The federal government makes a huge statutory allocation of funds to local governments every month but there is nothing to show for the disbursements. Rather than spend the money on projects with direct impact on the lives of the people in their areas, as prescribed by the constitution, most local government chairmen and councilors are accused of only paying staff salaries and sharing the rest among themselves. Such was the level of corruption in the local governments in the past eight years that many chairmen and councilors who were of little means before their election became affluent within two years.
Shortly after his re-election in 2003, ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo caused panic among local government chairmanship and councillorship candidates and their patrons who were worried that the third tier of government was about to be scrapped. The candidates who had secured the ticket of their parties at great financial costs were alarmed after the president announced the indefinite postponement of local government council elections, pending the reform of local governments. Federal or state ought to explain either the source of their sudden wealth or what they did with council funds have so far, but they questioned none of them. The local governments are now regarded as easy means of acquiring wealth, hence the apparent determination by many candidates to win the elections tomorrow by whatever means. Although, the local governments are under the direct control of state governments, which also have exclusive responsibility for elections into them, but opposition parties in the various states allege that state governors are exerting all influence to have their preferred candidates win control of the local councils. This is so that they may continue, without opposition, to make illegal deductions from federal funds meant for local governments. The number of local governments in the country at present is not known.
The primary objective of our government is to ensure Security and Welfare of all of us. We own sovereignty and are the platform for this government activity, yet Welfare concerns in Nigeria remains primarily maimed to its general lack of development and the effects on the society of the economic stringency of the 1980s. Apart from the steady population growth and the decline in urban services and incomes over two decades now, it is easy to conclude that the people at the lower income level, malnutrition, poor health, and overcrowded housing would create perpetual problems to the government.
What we have witnessed is the abysmal failure of the Local Government system. It is on record that at no time in the history of the country has there been the current level of funding accruing to the Local Governments from the Federation Account, yet the hope for rapid and sustained development has been a mirage as successive Councils have grossly under-performed in almost all the areas of their mandate….The number of Local Government Areas (LGAs) had also risen steadily from 301 in 1976 to 774 currently listed in the First Schedule, Part I of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, yet the clamour for the creation of more LGAs has not abated. Indeed, as of date, a total of over 500 new LGAs are in the process of being created by various State Governments. At the same time, the number of States has tripled from twelve to thirty-six since January 1976 without addition of land area to Nigeria.
Nowadays, the constitution, which remains the crystal ball for guided people’s governance, is grafted and alternated to flaw justice. Elected officials now prefer disgruntled alternative, they look for advisers that were mischievous, they follow godfathers that were power-drunk, the compete with the opulent than to common man, the misquote the rule of law, they enrich themselves alone, they endanger the citizens, they share our common wealth and allocation among the elites, they remain misguided just because no social security system, few pensions, homeless persons living on the streets and begging, ubiquities of this tradition is left open, however, there is the possibility of real hardship.
Our government ought to provide a historical understanding of the origins of the Nigerian welfare state and a critical analysis of the contemporary welfare crises, with special reference to the areas of health and poverty. In the first place, we should search in some detail at key stages in the history of social welfare in this nation, linking policy development to wider social and economic changes, particularly the emergence of the organized working class, the nature of poverty and advancing ideologies of social welfare. The government fails to examine in particular the ordeal of Poor Nigerians and the sanitary reform modalities of the twenty-first century; the emergence of national insurance policy; unemployment and social policy; the poverty alleviation policy and its impact in the 1980s; and the development of the health service.
In the first place, the problem dripped into the changing post-military welfare state, with particular reference to the period from Murtala Mohammed to Olusegun Obasanjo. Starting with the crisis that engulfed the social democratic welfare state during the 1980s, we consider the reorganization of social welfare in the context of the rise of neo-liberal ideology and the emergence of a claimed ‘Third Way’. Particular focus is given to substantive areas of work and unemployment, poverty, social security and welfare to work, education and training, continuity and change in the NHIS, health inequalities and the impact on the nation’s social policy of increasing African integration. Social welfare, which form part of the Niger Delta agitations could be drawn from the community care boost, debt enhancement, employment generation, good housing policy and people’s welfare benefits. It enables citizens to access a full range of legal aid services in one place, rather than going to several different advisers for different problems.
Instead of bringing government and development closer to the people, local governments have produced absentee local government chairmen2 who are only seen at council headquarters when the monthly ‘Abuja Allocation’ arrives and vamoose with their standby jeeps and mobile police escorts after superintending over the sharing of the local government’s share of the national cake among the relevant stakeholders. Consequently, local government chairmanship has become one of the most attractive and lucrative elective positions, after the presidency and governorship, prompting most state governors to intervene to preside over the unbridled decentralized primitive accumulation. The state governors anxious to checkmate the emergence of countervailing local politicians have used both legal and political strategies to domesticate local governments. Most of the governors have exploited the constitutional provision for the establishment of Joint State and Local Government Account (JSLGA) to control local government funds. Moreover, most state governors orchestrate the nomination and subsequent election of their acolytes as local government chairmen. Aspirants who emerge victorious after the tortuous electioneering process are usually those who had pledged allegiance to the governor, including accepting whatever deductions the governor may make from the JSLGA. It’s hardly surprising that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alleged that 31 out of 36 state governors have tampered with local government council funds (This Day, 28/09/06).
Officials and local politicians have used to divert funds meant for provision of basic social services for the people at the grassroots. The implication of this is that local government is perceived as having brought corruption, misery and disempowerment rather than development and community empowerment closer to the people. Paradoxically, non-delivery of service to the community has not moderated the craving of Nigerians for local government areas. As successive military regimes instrumental zed creation of states and LGAs to buoy their sagging legitimacy, elites from different communal groups jostled for new LGA sand particularly the headquarters of such LGAs. It is in this context that some groups that disagreed with the outcome of such exercises resorted to violent mobilization. The article will show how this dynamic unfolded in Warri, where the location of the headquarters of a newly created LGA triggered one of the worst ethnic conflicts in post-civil war Nigeria. Before turning to the case study, the intermediate sections will provide a historical overview of the evolution of local governments in Nigeria, and the interface between the national question and the politics of creation of local government areas. Evolution of local government in Nigeria The precursor of local government was the native administration established by the colonial administration. As one of its principal authors posited, Native Administration was designed to adapt to purposes of local government the tribal institutions which the native people have evolved for themselves so that the latter may develop in a constitutional manner from their own past, guided and restrained by the traditions and sanctions which they have inherited, molded or modified as they may be on the advice of the British officers. It is an essential feature of the system, within the limitations, the British Government rules through these native institutions,which are regarded as an integral part of the machinery of Government with well defined powers and functions recognized by Government and by law and not dependent on the caprice of an executive officer.
The Native Administration was charged with the collection of taxes, maintenance of law and order, road construction and maintenance, and sanitary inspection, especially in township areas. This system of government, which was modeled after the Millsian ideal of local representation, generated two types of conflicts among the fledging ethnic groups in Nigeria. The first arose in cases where two or more ethnic groups were ‘lumped together’ in one native administration. Given what Post and Vickers (1973) have aptly called the’ differential incorporation’ of Nigerian peoples into Nigeria, some groups who had earlier access to the British and had acquired some education tended to dominate the Native Administration. If such domination could be justified, as the British did, on the grounds of the opportunity afforded the privileged group to groom others in the art of governance, the superimposition of the paramount ruler of one group as permanent native authority even when there was no pre-colonial history of dependent relations, encouraged local separatism. Most of the groups joined in such non-consensual matrimony agitated for separation and independence. The agitation was born out of fears of cultural assimilation and political domination. If the objective of native administration was to administer the native through his own culture, the agitators for separate native administrations wondered why the colonial officers whose ‘Intelligence Reports’ had sometimes documented stark cultural and physical differences between them and the other group decided to put them under the leadership of a separate customary authority.
The present Local Government system, which started with the 1976 Local Government reforms, was aimed at restructuring the Local Government administration in conformity with modern society, and at best to make Nigeria’s Local Government administration an ideal in Africa but the reverse had taken the form. A Local Government unit meant have a population range of 150, 000 to 800,000 has failed to work towards the betterment of not only the indigenes but the citizens at large. The reform focus has been tittered. The administration of the public at the grassroots level became flawed.
The 1976 Council reforms embodied :(a) The desire to extend the principle of Federalism to its logical conclusion, by bringing the government to the grassroots level. (b)Uniformity of local Government administration in all the Local Government Councils of the Federation of Nigeria. One would observe that the second phase of the Local Government reforms is the election of the 1st Executive Chairman in all the Local Government Councils of Nigeria and the granting of autonomy to each of these Local Government Councils in 1988. Thus the Local Government, which used to be an appendage of the defunct Ministry of Local Government, has now become a true 3rdtier of government in Nigeria. In this connection, one can boastfully say these days that Nigeria operates three tiers of Government; Federal, State and Local Governments. The Local Government’s lack of continuity of the programmes and projects embarked upon by a succeeding or incumbent government is posing an economic threat to all of us. This problem has created economic and mental wastage as well as the retrogression of development. Again, unemployment has confronted this Local Government. It has led to general under-feeding among the majority of our population, because the working classes are smaller than the consuming populace. An underfed population will contribute little or nothing to development. As much as the Local Government may have rich programmes for execution, the financials means of executing them is not there. Its revenue is by far lower than what is required the funds allocation avail for the executions of projects embarked upon by these Local Governments by the Federal Government, got entrapped at the state level, making everything difficult. The Local Government does not have the sufficient professional manpower needs it requires.
The Traditional rulers meant to advise the Local Government authority were among the national questions. They were originally meant to discuss common problems and make suggestions to the Local Government authority or authorities in the area, debate on matters that may not strictly be the responsibility of the Local Government authorities, resolve chieftaincy feud, guide the customary laws and practices, enhance the functions and responsibilities of the Local Government administration to maintaining order and good governance turns irresponsible, nonchalant and reluctant. But since the Federal Government attaches great importance to the Local Government as an instrument of development and a training ground for administration, one needs to pang his head to ask, who flaw his duty; the indigenes or the mayor?. To this end, the Government approved the functions which the Local Authorities to perform should be those functions which require detailed local knowledge for efficient performance, in which success depends on community responsiveness and participation, which are of a personal nature requiring the provision of amenities close to where the individuals affected live and in which the significant use of discretion and understanding of individuals is needed.
Based on the above, the Federal Government on the findings and recommendations of the Committee that reviewed Local Government Administration in Nigeria approved the Council’s responsibility to include basic environmental sanitation and other aspects of preventive health services, Administration of maternity centres, dispensaries and leprosy clinics and Health Centres, Construction and maintenance of roads and drains, excluding federal and state roads, Jurisdiction over local inland waterways not designated as international water ways, Rural water supply and extension of urban water supply, Construction, and maintenance of primary schools; Agriculture and veterinary extension services, Town Planning, Care of markets, motor parks, and gardens, Maintenance of law and order; and Afforestation.
These leaders do not have a fiscal transparency code or a budget law specifying roles for ministries and other stakeholders in the drafting of the budget. Existing laws and regulations include provisions that are contradictory and ambiguous. The Constitution provides for parliamentary approval of the annual budget. However, it is vague in many respects. For example, the Constitution does not specifically require parliamentary approval for annual revenue estimates or the financial plan of government. The legal framework does not provide any clarity on the extent of legislative powers, for example its powers to amend the budget. There is no law that specifies the budget format, what documents are to accompany the budget or how and when budget information is to be disseminated. Similarly, there is no requirement to release information on actual in-year spending, procurement, public assets and liabilities. The legal framework does not provide for public participation in the budget process and is generally inadequate to support transparency and accountability.
Most local government officials in this nation’s have squandered rising revenues that could provide basic health and education services for some of the nation's poorest people. The government’s failure to tackle local-level corruption violates her obligation to provide basic health and education services to its citizens. The misuse of public funds by local officials has harmful effects on primary education and basic health care. The effect goes round with government and donor agency officials, civil servants, health care workers, teachers, civil society groups and local residents which is not limited to analyzed state and local government budgets. Many state and local officials have squandered or stolen public money that could have gone toward providing vital health and education services. State and local budgets have expanded dramatically in recent years, but mismanagement and theft has left basic health and education services in a terrible state of decay.
All levels of government in Nigeria should enact without delay key reforms to make state and local governments more transparent and accountable to the public. The reforms should ensure the independence of anti-corruption institutions and give them the resources needed to tackle the epidemic of local-level corruption. It is vital that government at all levels publish and disseminate detailed and accurate information about its use of public resources.
Since 1999, the revenues accruing to the nation's local governments have more than quadrupled. For instance in 2006, the Rivers state government’s budget was US$1.3 billion, larger than the budgets of many countries in West Africa. But that windfall has not translated into efforts by local governments to bolster basic education and health care systems that have teetered on the edge of collapse for many years.
The federal government, guided in part by the country’s constitution, has delegated most of the responsibilities for providing primary health care and basic education services to the 774 local governments. Under international law, this nation is obliged to progressively realize, to the maximum of its available resources, Nigerians’ fundamental rights to health and education. While the federal and state governments create policy and provide other forms of support, day-to-day responsibility for ensuring services are delivered rests with local government administrations. Many local governments have completely ignored these responsibilities.
This report documents how revenues flowing into local government treasuries in recent years have been grossly misallocated or stolen outright. Many local governments have lavished funds on new government offices and other massive construction projects that dwarf spending on health care and education. One local government dedicated only 2.4 percent of its revenues to maintaining its crumbling primary school infrastructure while spending 30 percent of its budget on salaries and expenses for the offices of its chairman and legislative councilors. Some local government chairmen have set aside more money for their own travel and “miscellaneous expenses” than they allocate to the schools and health clinics they are charged with running.
As one embittered resident put it, “All they do is build their headquarters, massive things, air-condition them, and buy vehicles to drive around in.” Significant revenues are also lost to apparent theft. One local government chairman spent huge sums on a series of non-existent projects, including a “demonstration fish pond” with neither water nor fish and a “football academy” that has never been built. Another set aside funds in the local government budget to pay more than 100 “functional committees/protocol officers” whose responsibilities, if any, were entirely unclear; their total salaries exceeded those of all the local government’s health sector employees. One local government’s chairman was shown by a judicial inquiry to have illegally awarded lucrative contracts for maintenance and other work to himself, in some cases for services he then failed to deliver.
Money set aside in local government budgets for health care and education had never reached its intended destination. The salaries of many health workers are months in arrears, even though the money to pay them is included in the budget. The head teacher of one primary school complaint to local officials about his school’s lack of materials, such as chalk, was disregarded by the local government authority on the ground that there was no money for education. A visit to some local clinics reveals under-equipped institutions in place. This entire problem unsolved could demoralize staff to offer almost no services, and in some cases staff to padlock the doors and abandoned their posts altogether. Many primary schools have no desks, textbooks or other teaching materials, and classes are held in crumbling buildings without access to water or toilet facilities. We started to produce oil in 1957 here but look at the town – government has done nothing for us. Local government is supposed to help the school but they don’t. They have not given us any supports … The most important things we need are textbooks, instructional materials, and a toilet.
The State government is charged with overseeing the conduct of its local governments. But many of the problems of local-level governance are mirrored by the state government’s own conduct. For example, the office of some state governors had a travel budget of roughly US$65,000 per day , along with budgets for unspecified “grants,” “contributions” and “donations” that could total US$92,000 per day. This official extravagance moves does not give explanation to the virtual absence of state services for much of the population. Local government corruption is astonishingly brazen and has caused untold suffering, yet neither the State nor the federal government has done nearly enough to address the problem of local corruption or punish those responsible.
Public criticism of the state’s misuse of public resources is made difficult because the state government refuses to publish its budgets and conceals basic information about state government spending from the public. Some journalists and civil society actors who have publicly criticized state government actions have suffered harassment, intimidation and even violence at the hands of government security services and thugs linked to politicians.
The human impact of the government’s failure to live up to its responsibilities to provide basic health and education services is not limited to the state. One in five Nigerian children dies before the age of five, a statistic that translates into more than 1 million child deaths per year. Many are struck down by illnesses that could be easily prevented by the basic health infrastructure Nigeria’s local governments are tasked with maintaining. Public primary schools, part of a school system that was once among the best in Africa, have fallen into an appalling state of disrepair and dysfunction across much of Nigeria.
Since the end of military rule in 1999, the government of President Olusegun Obasanjo has been waging what it calls a “war on corruption.” While Nigeria’s federal government has made some efforts to combat corruption and improve the transparency of its own finances, it has failed to address rampant corruption at the state and local levels. Anti-corruption efforts have been hobbled by the government’s failure to reform a political system that often rewards politicians who use corruption and violence to subvert the democratic process, especially at the state and local levels.
In state levels, many current state and local politicians came to power in elections that were fraudulent and bloody even by the grim standards set by elections across the country. Nigeria will not see these problems fade away completely until the government tackles root causes that lie near the heart of the political system. The government must ensure that corrupt and abusive politicians do not rig the local government elections any longer to place themselves in public office. Governments should be more assertive in preventing corrupt officials from hiding the proceeds of corruption in foreign banks.
By: L.Chinedu Arizona-Ogwu.
Arizona-Ogwu, Founder,of Nigeria4Better Rule writes from Oyigbo; Rivers State 08034885337