Opinion

Local Government Autonomy: How Desirable?

Published

12 years ago

November 24, 2014

The two chambers of the National Assembly recently adopted the proposal for administrative and financial autonomy for local governments as the third tier of government in the federation. While this move was received with joy among stakeholders in the local government system, others like primary school teachers and state governors opposed it, giving the problem of executive recklessness and ineffective administration at the local level as some of their reasons.
What do Port Harcourt residents think about this burning issue? Our Chief Correspondent, Calista Ezeaku and photographer, Dele Obinna went round the city to find out.

Prince Ekong Omirsen -Protocol Officer
The local government employees have been looking for this autonomy. I think it is better that local government as a third tier of government be autonomous. That will ensure that local governments are not being toyed with. Most of the chairmen are not even sure of themselves.
They come into power almost by selection and they pay allegiance to those who selected and not those who voted them in. But if LGAs are going to be autonomous, then intending chairmen would talk to the people, the people will vote them in and they would pay allegiance to the masses and not the governors.
You see, in this country we are always looking for scape goats. The governors alleged that LGA chairmen abuse their offices and that’s why they want to control LGAs. If they say the chairmen abuse their offices, I think other segements, of the government also abuse their offices. So we cannot take the chairmen as scape goats. So I will want the local governments to be fully autonomous, where the local government chairmen will be fully incharge and they will not be answerable to any body other than the masses. They will be check-mated by the councillors. There will be proper checks and balances.

David Dakoru – Pastor
My opinion over the independence of the local government is very straight. There are three tiers of government in Nigeria – Federal, State and Local government. The Federal and State are autonomous. So I support the bill in the National Assembly that the right thing should be done. More powers should be given to the local government.
A situation where the states collect money from the national, take the bulk sum and give pea nuts to local governments cannot make the local governments to work effectively.
Some people have argued that granting autonomy to local governments will enhance corruption in the country but I disagree with that. When we talk about corruption in Nigeria, it cuts across every segment of the society. Both at the Federal, State and Local governments, there are corrupt people. In government of today, there are only a few people that are not corrupt. At least fifty percent of the people are corrupt from the federal down to the grassroots.
But why I am emphasising that the local government should be autonomous is because the greater number of the population dwell in the rural area. And these local government areas are supposed to have major infrastructure, but they are not there. In Rivers State, the governor tried to a little extent. He used the allocations collected to build the primary health centres and schools which is a welcome development. Now, the primary functions of local government are not being attended to because of inadequate fund. It might be true that some local government chairmen cannot account for the little money they collect monthly but the truth of the matter is that you cannot be 100 per cent clean.
But if you give a local government may be N100m, by the time they deduct the meney for the over head cost – salaries and so on – what will be remaining cannot even be used to build roads. I believe LGAs can make more impact if they are granted autonomous status. The control of the local governments by state governors impedes their growth and development. They can sack a local government chairman overnight and either bring him back again or put another person.
It is not supposed to be so. How many times has a governor been sacked like that? Both of them were elected.
Let us freely allow them to do their jobs. What is the essence of creating the local government areas if they will not have the funds and freedom to operate?

Bar. Chinda – Legal practitioner I think the constitutional amendment is a good development. We have been longing for this for a long time and we hope and wish that the national assembly will keep it to their word and the president will assent to the bill. Ordinarily, as a lawyer, I do not see anything wrong with local government autonomy because previously local governments had been treated as if they were nothing. But with the amendment, at least LGAs will be able to get fund directly from the federal government and no governor irrespective of his party affiliation or that of a council chairman will disband a LG. There is a Supreme Court authority which says that no governor has any right to disband a local government properly constituted. But most governors have been doing that for a very long time.
They come into power and probably the LG chairmen are not of the same party with them, they would disband the LGA leadership and appoint a care taker committee.
I think this wouldn’t come into effect again if local governments become autonomous I also think if there is proper checks and balances on local governments, autonomy will not increase corruption in the system as some people believe. Auditors are prepared to do their work. Now and again, the Federal Government has to send auditors directly from the federal government and no longer states to audit local governments. It will also be the responsibility of the Federal Government to make sure that local government chairmen actually sit in their local areas and deliver. And there has to be monitoring of projects and evaluation of projects and if they are not up to expectation, more funds will not be delivered to them. In my own opinion there has to be a local government minister, directly responsible to checkmate the activities of LGAs.
I believe the amendment will sail through depending on the discipline of the legislators because even if the governors gang up against it, our people in the Assembly will not buy into that idea.

Bar. Maxwell Oji- Legal Practitioner
I think that is the best news of the day because the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, being a grundnorm ought to be respected. The issue of the autonomy of the local government is a constitutional matter and it ought to be followed to the letter. If we have three tiers of government – the federal, the state and the local government, it follows therefore that in as much as the federal and state receive what belongs to them, then what belongs to the local government ought to be given to them. There is no point having autonomy in name but not in practice. Its wrong.
It’s obvious that autonomy of the local government will facilitate development in the grassroots because if what belongs to LGAs are given to them, it is believable that if things follow the way it should be the chairmen should be able to know the needs of those at the grass root and as provided by the constitution as their duties and responsibilities, I supposed that they should be able to do that which constitutionally is given to them as their responsibilities. And to ensure that the money allocated to the local government areas are not embezzled by the chairmen, the anti-corruption agencies should be up and doing. There should be proper checks and balances.
Recently the governors alleged that the local government chairman are hardly in their offices. That they run government areas from their hotel accommodation in the cities, that the state governments have taken away all the big projects ought to be executed by LGAs like funding of primary school education, roads, health care and all that. They argued that if these big jobs are taken away from LGAs, what is now left for them to do is to only pay workers salaries.
So if autonomy will be granted LGs, they should ensure that they take back these responsibilities specified by the constitution that these are the responsibilities meant for the LGAs. Chairman should take back these responsibilities and let the fund meant for these responsibilities be given to them.
Mr. JJ – Civil Servant
In this Nigeria what is causing confusion is that we don’t even know the type of democracy we are practicing. I don’t know where we borrowed our own type of democracy. I don’t know whether we are practicing presidential system of government, true federalism, which we are not seeing in place.’ If we say we borrowed a democracy from America, we suppose not to be arguing whether the local government should be autonomous or not. The state governments have hijack most of the revenue that the LGAs are entitled to. The states have also hijacked most of the functions of the LGAs like education. That is why there is so much decay in our educational sector. Previously, when LGAs were in charge of primary schools, inspectors on routine inspection to primary schools. Now nobody does all they are interested in is approval by the ministry. No routine checks.
The states have virtually taken all the jobs that LGAs are supposed to be doing because of the financial gains. So it is good we state the type of government we are running because they say we have the federal, state and local governments. How can the Local Government now be under the state governments. Is it still three ties of government? I don’t think so.

Mr. Dallas Olodun-NOA staff
The general view will be that it is good for democracy. But I have always been concerned about governance in Nigeria and the abuse of power by those in authority. Governors have always been criticised for mismanaging public funds and I don’t know how reliable the LGA chairmen will be in terms of managing fund, in terms of utilizing funds, in terms of properly appropriating these funds if LGAs are granted full autonomy. Besides payment of salaries what will they use this money for?
However, I believe the main aim of creating the local government area as the third tier of government is for grassroots development. The chairmen know the grassroots, they know the needs of the people. So it is a wrong allegation for governors to say that the autonomy of local government will lead to ineffectiveness and corruption. As I always say, Governors over night become billionaires, why shouldn’t chairmen become millionaires? Why are they kicking against it? They are not clean in the first place, so they shouldn’t kick against it.
I quite agree that the local governments are answerable to the states just like the states are answerable to the federal government. There should be a level of control of the local government council, LGAs should be autonomous to a large extent especially in terms of managing their funds. Even the federal government will still have hands in the running of LGAs.
But I think they should try and allow the LGAs to be autonomous for now and assess the level of development in the next four to eight years. We shouldn’t wait for NULGE to call out its members to protest at various state houses of assembly or to embark on strike before the bill is considered. Nigeria is becoming a strike action environment. It shouldn’t get to that level.

Opinion

One Attack Too Many

Published

3 days ago

August 17, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “Ogoniland does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create more opportunities, empower youths and build a better future.”

The latest attack by Chief Gani Topba on the President of KAGOTE and Chief Executive Officer of Giolee Global Resources Ltd, Chief Lesi Maol, appears to have opened another troubling chapter in the politics of leadership and influence in Ogoniland. While disagreements are inevitable, the frequency and manner of attacks directed at individuals or organisations contributing to Ogoni development should concern every stakeholder. The concluded extraordinary meeting of Ogoni stakeholders in Bori was convened to deliberate on challenges confronting the people, including insecurity, farmers-herders clashes, youth disunity, education and development. It also considered harmonising the numerous youth organisations operating across Ogoniland under a strong and representative umbrella capable of giving Ogoni youths a more coordinated voice. One would have expected such an initiative to attract constructive contributions, especially from those with reservations about it.

Instead, the gathering and its organisers have come under criticism, raising a fundamental question: what exactly is wrong with Ogoni stakeholders coming together to discuss problems affecting their people? If there are legitimate concerns about the meeting, its organisers or resolutions, such concerns should be supported by facts and subjected to constructive engagement rather than personalised attacks. Leadership is demonstrated through service, sacrifice, participation and results. If Chief Gani Topba believes the stakeholders’ meeting was unnecessary or lacked legitimacy, nothing prevents him from convening another meeting and demonstrating that he can attract traditional rulers, professionals, academics, clergy and youths. Different approaches to development should therefore be allowed to compete on their merits.

The proposal for a unified youth platform should equally not be presented as an attempt to silence Ogoni youths. Rather, it should be examined against the reality of numerous organisations claiming to represent different segments of Ogoni youths. Too many competing organisations can create confusion, weaken collective bargaining power and make it difficult for genuine concerns affecting young people to receive coordinated attention. A credible umbrella body, if properly constituted and broadly accepted, could strengthen the voice of Ogoni youths and provide an organised platform for employment, education, skills acquisition, security and governance. Ogoniland has experienced enough institutional fragmentation. Its history contains painful lessons about divisions that allow personal interests, leadership struggles and competing platforms to overshadow collective objectives. The present generation should learn that destroying institutions one does not control damages society.

The question should be: who benefits when Ogoni youths remain divided and every attempt at unity is interpreted as rivalry? Against this background, KAGOTE deserves objective scrutiny rather than blanket condemnation. Any organisation with influence must be accountable, but accountability is different from a campaign aimed at delegitimising initiatives associated with its leadership. Chief Lesi Maol’s activities through KAGOTE and Giolee Global Resources Ltd have attracted attention in areas including skills development, education, youth empowerment and community support. Such interventions should be assessed on their impact and encouraged where they serve the public good. Those who believe Chief Maol is not doing enough should not stop at criticism. They should show Ogoni what they can do better. Where are the alternative skills programmes? Where are the educational interventions? Where are the youth empowerment schemes? Where are the community development initiatives?

It is easy to criticise someone who is building; it is harder to mobilise resources and sustain programmes that benefit ordinary people. This is not to suggest that Chief Maol or KAGOTE should be immune from criticism. No leader or institution should be beyond scrutiny, and legitimate questions about accountability must be welcomed. But responsible criticism should be based on facts, evidence and alternative ideas. Personal attacks and attempts to destroy initiatives simply because their leadership is not controlled by particular interests cannot provide the solutions Ogoniland needs. What is unfolding is bigger than one meeting, one statement or even two individuals. It reflects a broader contest over influence and leadership. If anyone believes KAGOTE is taking Ogoni in the wrong direction, the response is to present a better direction. If anyone believes Lesi Maol is not doing enough, the answer is to demonstrate what more can be done. Ogoni does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create opportunities, improve education, promote security, empower youths and contribute to development.

The people are looking beyond rhetoric. They are examining records, observing programmes and measuring results. No individual owns the permanent right to speak for Ogoni or determine which organisation must survive or collapse. Ogoni must replace the politics of personal control with a culture of ideas, service, accountability and measurable achievement. Differences should produce better alternatives, not destruction. Every Ogoni leader and stakeholder should ask whether his actions are strengthening the region or deepening divisions. Ogoni needs people who can build bridges, institutions, opportunities and hope. Those who genuinely love Ogoni should support what is good, correct what is wrong and offer better alternatives. The future of Ogoni will not be secured by destroying its builders, but by encouraging more people to build.

onest people can reach different conclusions based on different experiences and information. Public debate should therefore remain respectful, evidence-based and open to correction. Truth is strengthened by honest examination, not insults, suspicion or personal attacks. The phrase “Truth has no agenda” carries a powerful message. Truth does not belong to any political party, ethnic group, religion or ideology. It cannot be permanently owned or manipulated by those in power. Governments change, institutions rise and fall, and public opinion shifts, but truth remains indifferent to popularity.The real test of character comes when speaking honestly threatens influence, privilege or personal advantage. It is easy to defend justice when there is nothing to lose. It is far more difficult when the truth may cost us something. That is when conscience must rise above convenience.

Society must therefore cultivate a culture where integrity is valued more than comfort and accountability is welcomed rather than feared. Leaders should learn to accept criticism without hostility, while citizens should express disagreement responsibly. Progress becomes difficult when honest questions are treated as acts of disloyalty. Ultimately, every society must choose the future it desires. A nation built on silence cannot sustain justice, while a community where comfort consistently outweighs conscience risks making injustice ordinary. But people committed to truth, even when inconvenient, lay the foundation for stronger institutions, trustworthy leadership and lasting progress. The call is not to condemn those who succeed or to glorify perpetual criticism. It is to remember that privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good. Truth has no hidden agenda. It seeks neither applause nor favour. It simply asks to be spoken, defended and lived. When truth is silenced by comfort, everyone eventually pays the price.

By: King Onunwor

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth

Published

3 days ago

August 17, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “Privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good.”

There is an old saying that truth does not fear investigation. Genuine truth neither depends on applause nor seeks permission to exist. It remains constant whether celebrated or rejected, defended or ignored. Yet, in today’s society, truth often competes with comfort, convenience, loyalty and personal interest. This raises an important question: Can a person remain objective after beginning to benefit from the very system he once criticised? Throughout history, reform movements have been driven by courageous individuals willing to challenge injustice despite personal risks. Their commitment to truth sometimes cost them popularity, comfort, freedom and even their lives. History has also recorded instances where influential voices became quieter after receiving appointments, promotions, contracts, political favours or other advantages.

While motivations cannot always be known, such patterns remind us that personal benefit can sometimes influence public conviction. Human beings naturally seek security, stability and opportunities for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with success or advancement. The concern arises when personal comfort replaces public responsibility, or privilege becomes a reason to ignore problems affecting others. One of the greatest dangers facing society is not only corruption or poor governance but the normalisation of silence. Systems rarely collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually when people who know better decide that speaking the truth is no longer worth the personal cost. Every society therefore depends on citizens willing to ask difficult questions, demand accountability and defend justice, regardless of who benefits or feels uncomfortable.

A person who benefits from a broken system may become less inclined to challenge it. This is not true of everyone, and individuals should not be judged without evidence. Many principled people continue to advocate reform while working within imperfect institutions. Nevertheless, personal interests can sometimes soften criticism, dilute conviction or redirect attention from uncomfortable realities.Perhaps the greatest threat to truth is not open opposition but quiet compromise. Censorship is easy to recognise; silence purchased through convenience is harder to detect. When people gradually stop asking questions, demanding transparency or defending principles they once considered important, society should ask whether something has changed. Perspectives may genuinely evolve with new information, but incentives can also influence what people say—or choose not to say.

This is why citizens should not place blind trust in personalities. Ideas, principles and actions should be examined independently. Loyalty to individuals must never exceed loyalty to truth. Political affiliation, professional status, financial success or social influence should not exempt anyone from accountability. A healthy democracy depends on independent thinking, not unquestioning allegiance.The responsibility to speak truth does not belong only to journalists, activists, judges, religious leaders or opposition politicians. It belongs to every citizen. The teacher who refuses to manipulate facts, the public servant who rejects corruption, the business owner who acts with integrity, the parent who teaches honesty and the young person who chooses principle over popularity all contribute to a more just society. However, defending truth also requires humility.

We must not assume that everyone who disagrees with us has been compromised.

By: Michael Abraham

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s Outburst

Published

2 weeks ago

August 3, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat”

The recent outburst by the lawmaker representing Edo North Senatorial District, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, over the deplorable condition of federal roads in Edo and Delta states has once again drawn national attention to one of Nigeria’s most persistent infrastructure challenges. During Senate plenary last Wednesday, Oshiomhole criticized the Minister of Works, David Umahi, accusing the Federal Ministry of Works of neglecting major federal highways in Edo and Delta while prioritizing new road projects. According to him, the government should focus on rehabilitating existing roads that have become impassable before embarking on new construction. He identified the Benin-Warri, Benin-Asaba, Benin-Auchi and Auchi-Okene highways as strategic economic corridors that have deteriorated to alarming levels, making travel difficult for commuters and motorists while increasing the cost of transporting goods and services.

The senator also alleged that road projects affecting Edo and Delta states were repeatedly omitted from budgetary provisions and that some interventions were only undertaken following directives from President Bola Tinubu. Ironically, the Federal Government has consistently reiterated its commitment to reconstructing and rehabilitating federal roads across the country. The Minister of Works has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the government is deploying reinforced concrete technology to build more durable highways capable of withstanding the country’s climatic conditions. Despite these assurances, vast sections of federal road across the country remain in deplorable condition. The consequences are enormous. Federal highways serve as the backbone of the nation’s economy, carrying more than 90 per cent of passengers and freight.

They connect ports, airports, industrial centres, state capitals and agricultural belts, facilitating the movement of food, fuel, cement and manufactured goods. When these roads fail, the entire economy suffers. Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat. The result is a recurring cycle in which newly completed roads quickly deteriorate while existing ones are left to collapse. The economic consequences are severe. Bad roads increase transportation costs, contribute to food inflation, delay the movement of goods from ports to markets, increase vehicle maintenance expenses and lead to avoidable road crashes that claim countless lives every year.

To address these challenges, the Federal Government has introduced initiatives such as the Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI), which seeks to attract private investment into road maintenance through concessions and tolling. While the initiative holds promise, public acceptance will depend largely on visible improvements in road quality and transparent management of toll revenues. Similarly, the Road Infrastructure Tax Credit Scheme is designed to encourage companies to finance the reconstruction of strategic highways in exchange for tax credits. While the scheme has shown promise, its ability to address road infrastructure challenges equitably across the country remains to be seen. Other countries facing similar infrastructure challenges have demonstrated that sustainable road management requires a different approach.

Rwanda and Morocco, for instance, have prioritized dedicated road maintenance funds, performance-based contracts that reward quality rather than kilometers constructed, and policies that allocate a significant proportion of road budgets to maintenance instead of new construction. Nigeria can draw useful lessons from these experiences. Maintenance funding should be increased and protected because preventive maintenance is far cheaper than complete reconstruction. Public-private partnerships should be expanded with adequate safeguards, transparent tolling policies and independent monitoring. Development finance institutions should support contractors with affordable financing to minimize disruptions caused by delayed government payments. Road designs should withstand heavier rainfall and flooding, while compensation and right-of-way issues must be resolved before projects begin to avoid unnecessary delays.

FERMA should also prioritize durable, high-quality road maintenance over the shoddy repairs that have become all too common. Ultimately, Nigerians are not asking for perfect roads; they simply want roads that are safe, durable and properly maintained. While new highways are desirable, a well-maintained five-kilometer stretch is often far more valuable to road users than a much longer road that quickly falls into disrepair. The media, civil society, the National Assembly and Nigerians must continue to hold the government accountable by monitoring road projects and demanding better results. Good roads are not a privilege but a right of every citizen. With tax credit schemes, concessions and other funding mechanisms already in place, what is now required is political will, transparency and consistent implementation. However, Senator Oshiomhole’s criticism also invites legitimate public reflection.

Many Nigerians have asked what the condition of these same federal roads was during his eight-year tenure as Governor of Edo State. Several governors, including those of Rivers State at different times, undertook repairs on critical federal roads within their states and subsequently sought reimbursement from the Federal Government. It is therefore fair to ask whether similar interventions were pursued during Oshiomhole’s administration. Public officials, whether serving or former, should be judged by the same standard. Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, but it carries greater weight when matched by a demonstrable record of action. Nigerians expect those entrusted with public office to address pressing challenges while they have the authority to do so, rather than becoming vocal critics only after leaving office