Asaba, Delta – James Ibori, the former governor of Delta state, has said the Supreme Court’s judgment granting full autonomy to local government operations in Nigeria was against the 1999 constitution as amended.>>>CONTINUE FULL READING HERE....CONTINUE READING THE ARTICLE FROM THE SOURCE
Ibori maintained that the Supreme Court’s ruling has dealt a significant blow to the principle of federalism in Nigeria, as outlined in Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution. According to Ibori, this section states that funds in the Federation Account should be distributed among federal, state, and local governments in a manner prescribed by the National Assembly.
The former governor of Delta state James Ibori has said there are only two tiers of government which are federal and state and that the judgment of the Supreme Court granting autonomy to local government was wrong.James Ibori reacts to Supreme Court judgment granting autonomy to local government
The former governor added that in Section 6, each state should maintain a “State Joint Local Government Account” to receive allocations from the Federation Account and the state government. The Supreme Court’s ruling undermines true federalism and allows the federal government to interfere with local government administration, which is not permitted in a federal system.
Only two tiers of government exist – Ibori
He maintained that there are only two tiers of government: federal and state. The federal government’s interference with local governments violates the Constitution. While he disagrees with altering allocations to Joint LG Accounts at the state level, he believes the Supreme Court’s ruling goes too far and contradicts the clear provisions of Section 162.
He then highlighted five key points as the judgment’s implications: a wrong interpretation of the Constitution, a potential shift in the balance of power, and the erosion of states’ autonomy.
The two others are the possibility of becoming political leverage for the federal government to impact the financial independence of state and local governments. The last defect he pointed out in the judgment set a precedent for the federal government to continue interfering in what was traditionally set for state governments.>>>CONTINUE FULL READING HERE
