Connect with us

Opinion

Local Government Autonomy: How Desirable?

Published

11 years ago

on

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.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Opinion

Bazia  EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

7 days ago

on

March 23, 2026

By

Quote: “For the first time in years, Rivers journalists are not just hearing promises—they are seeing a union that works.”
The first year in office of the Paul Bazia-led executive of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), has offered something many had almost given up on—renewed confidence in union leadership. For a body as critical as the NUJ, whose responsibility goes beyond professional coordination to include the welfare, protection, and continuous development of journalists, expectations are always high. Unfortunately, past experiences had conditioned many members to expect less—less action, less visibility, and less impact.This is why the past twelve months stand out. Within a relatively short period, the Bazia-led administration has demonstrated a level of drive that distinguishes it from its predecessors. There is a noticeable shift from inertia to activity, from routine administration to purposeful leadership. Initiatives captured in the one-year report point to an executive that understands both the urgency of its mandate and the frustrations of its members.
Particularly commendable is the renewed attention to journalists’  welfare. For too long, welfare issues have lingered without meaningful resolution, leaving many practitioners feeling unsupported. The current leadership’s efforts—through engagement, structured support, and timely interventions—signal a welcome change in priorities. Equally important is the push toward professional development. In an era where journalism is rapidly evolving, capacity building is no longer optional. The administration’s commitment to training and skill enhancement reflects an understanding that a stronger union must be built on more competent and competitive professionals. There is also something to be said about visibility and voice. A vibrant NUJ must not only serve its members internally but also stand as a credible voice in the public space—defending press freedom, promoting ethical standards, and constructively engaging critical issues.
Encouragingly, the current executive appears more present and responsive, giving the union a renewed sense of relevance. Perhaps what resonates most, however, is the sense of movement. For many members, the difference between the present and the immediate past is not subtle—it is clear. Where there was once stagnation, there is now direction. Where there was doubt, there is growing belief. Beyond the visible strides recorded within this first year, what perhaps deserves even greater applause is the restoration of institutional confidence within the Nigeria Union of Journalists. For a long time, many members had grown disenchanted, viewing the union more as a ceremonial body than an active force capable of defending their interests and advancing their welfare. That narrative, however, is gradually changing. The Bazia-led executive has not only initiated programs but has also rekindled a sense of belonging among members.
 Meetings appear more purposeful, engagements more intentional, and decisions more reflective of collective interest. This psychological shift—subtle as it may seem—is one of the most critical achievements of the past year, because a union that its members believe in is already halfway to effectiveness. It is also important to underscore the contrast with the immediate past, not as an exercise in criticism, but as a necessary context for measuring progress. Where previous administrations struggled to translate plans into action, the current leadership has shown a greater bias for execution. Projects that once lingered in discussion stages are now seeing tangible movement, and issues that were previously deferred are receiving attention. This difference in approach—moving from prolonged deliberation to decisive action—has helped reposition the union as a more responsive and relevant institution.
While no administration is without its shortcomings, the willingness to act, even in the face of constraints, marks a significant departure from what members were accustomed to. Looking ahead, the expectations of members—and indeed the wider public—will only grow stronger. With a solid first year behind it, the Bazia-led executive now carries the burden of consistency. Members will expect deeper welfare interventions that go beyond immediate relief to more sustainable support systems. They will look for expanded training opportunities that prepare journalists for the rapidly changing media landscape. They will also expect a firmer, more courageous voice on issues affecting press freedom and professional integrity. Above all, they will demand continuity—assurance that the progress recorded so far is not a fleeting phase but the beginning of a sustained transformation.
Meeting these expectations will not be easy, but it is precisely this challenge that defines enduring leadership. That said, this moment of applause must also serve as a moment of reflection. A strong first year inevitably raises expectations. Journalists in Rivers State will now look beyond initial achievements toward consolidation. Welfare interventions must become more structured and far-reaching. Training programs must be sustained and expanded. Advocacy must become more consistent and impactful. Most importantly, the unity of the union must be strengthened, ensuring that all members feel included and carried along. Transparency will also be key. Continued open communication about finances, decisions, and challenges will deepen trust and set a standard for accountable union leadership. The task ahead is clear: to convert early momentum into lasting institutional progress.
For the Bazia-led executive, the opportunity is significant. It has, within one year, reawakened belief in what the NUJ Rivers State Council can be. The next step is to ensure that this renewed energy does not fade, but instead becomes the foundation of a stronger, more responsive, and more respected union. For the members, the message is equally clear—expect more, demand more, and support what works because in the end, a vibrant union is not built by leadership alone, but by a collective commitment to progress. And for now, under Bazia, that progress has truly begun.
By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
Continue Reading

Opinion

As Service Chiefs Relocate To Borno

Published

7 days ago

on

March 23, 2026

By

Quote:”Relocation may signal urgency, but without structural reforms, it risks becoming a cycle of temporary relief and recurring crisis.”
Here we go again. We have seen this script play out before. Under the administration of Muhammadu Buhari, service chiefs were directed to relocate to security hotspots as a demonstration of urgency and resolve. Today, under Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the same approach is being repeated. Following the recent suicide bombing in Maiduguri, Borno State, which claimed scores of lives, the President ordered the immediate relocation of service chiefs to take charge of the situation. On paper, the directive appears logical and commendable. It suggests a hands-on approach aimed at enhancing coordination among security agencies, improving response time, and restoring public confidence. However, the critical question remains: has this strategy ever truly worked? Experience suggests otherwise. While such relocations often create a temporary sense of calm, the effect is usually short-lived.
The presence of high command tends to produce what may be described as “cosmetic stability”—a brief period of intensified operations and visibility. Yet, once the service chiefs return to Abuja, the underlying problems resurface. A clear example can be drawn from January 2018, when President Buhari ordered the then Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, to relocate to Benue State in response to escalating violence. At the time, the directive was widely praised. Yet years later, killings, displacement, and destruction of livelihoods persist, raising doubts about the long-term effectiveness of such measures. This recurring pattern has led many observers to describe relocation orders as political theatre—a performative gesture designed to project action rather than deliver sustainable results. While this may seem harsh, it is difficult to ignore the structural deficiencies that continue to undermine the nation’s security framework.
First is the issue of intelligence. Effective security operations depend not just on troop deployment but on timely, accurate, and actionable intelligence. Yet the nation’s intelligence-gathering mechanisms, particularly at the grassroots level, remain weak and poorly coordinated. Relocating service chiefs does little to address this fundamental gap. There is also the challenge of resources. Many security personnel on the frontlines continue to grapple with inadequate equipment, insufficient logistics, and poor welfare conditions. In such circumstances, the physical presence of top commanders cannot substitute for the systematic investment needed to strengthen operational capacity. Equally important is the issue of sustainability. Security is not achieved through sporadic interventions but through consistent, long-term strategies.
The relocation of service chiefs is, by its nature, temporary and does not build enduring institutions capable of sustained response. Beyond these concerns lies a pressing question: what criteria determine which states receive such high-level attention? While Borno has long been an epicentre of insurgency, other states such as Plateau and Benue have also experienced alarming levels of violence, including banditry and communal clashes. Why were similar measures not applied there? The truth is that the nation’s current approach to tackling insecurity is insufficient. One alternative that has gained traction is the establishment of state police. Nigeria’s policing system remains highly centralised, with command structures controlled from Abuja—a model that has proven increasingly inadequate in addressing localised security challenges.
State police would allow for more community-based policing, enabling officers familiar with local terrain and dynamics to respond more effectively. It would also improve intelligence gathering, as local officers are more likely to build trust with residents. However, the idea is not without its critics. Concerns have been raised about the potential for abuse by state governments, particularly in using the police to intimidate opponents or suppress dissent. Funding is another major challenge, as many states already struggle to meet basic financial obligations.These concerns are legitimate but not insurmountable. They can be mitigated through robust legal frameworks, effective oversight mechanisms, and a clear delineation of powers between federal and state authorities. Establishing independent State Police Service Commissions to handle recruitment, discipline, and promotions could help safeguard institutional integrity.
In addition to decentralising policing, there must be a renewed focus on intelligence reform. Investing in modern surveillance technologies, data analysis, and inter-agency coordination is essential. Security agencies must move beyond reactive strategies and adopt proactive approaches that anticipate threats. Equally important is addressing the socio-economic drivers of insecurity. Poverty, unemployment, and lack of education continue to create fertile ground for criminality and extremism. Any meaningful security strategy must therefore include efforts to improve livelihoods, expand access to education, and promote inclusive development. Furthermore, there is a need for greater accountability within the security sector. Transparent evaluation of strategies, clear performance benchmarks, and consequences for failure are necessary to ensure that policies are not just announced but effectively implemented.
Ultimately, the fight against insecurity requires more than symbolic gestures. It demands bold, innovative, and sustained reforms that address both immediate threats and their root causes. The relocation of service chiefs may offer temporary visibility, but it cannot substitute for a comprehensive national security strategy. The nation stands at a critical juncture. Continuing to rely on approaches that have yielded limited results in the past is unlikely to produce different outcomes. It is time to rethink, recalibrate, and rebuild a security architecture that is responsive, resilient, and grounded in the realities of our society.
By: Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Opinion

Beyond the Adichie Tragedy

Published

2 weeks ago

on

March 16, 2026

By

Quote:: “Justice must never depend on fame, wealth, or connections. The child of a roadside trader deserves the same standard of care as the child of a globally celebrated writer. When accountability works only for the prominent, public trust in institutions quietly erodes.”
 Public reaction to the suspension of doctors by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) following the death of the son of celebrated Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie reveals something deeper than outrage over a single tragedy.  Across social media and public commentary, a recurring sentiment stands out: many Nigerians believe justice was served only because of the prominence of the family involved. Comments such as “The doctors were punished because Chimamanda is well known,” or “If it was a poor man’s child, the case would have been swept under the carpet,” capture a troubling lack of faith in the system.
Whether these perceptions are always accurate is not the most important issue. What should concern the nation is that so many citizens instinctively believe that justice in Nigeria often depends on status, wealth, or influence.The tragedy that befell the Adichie family is heartbreaking. No parent should have to bury a child, particularly under circumstances that raise questions about professional responsibility. But beyond the grief lies a larger national concern: medical negligence in Nigeria is far more widespread than the few cases that attract public attention. Across the country, families quietly lose loved ones in hospitals and clinics under troubling circumstances. Patients are sometimes misdiagnosed. Emergency cases may be delayed. Surgical procedures may be mishandled, while basic standards of care can be compromised due to negligence, poor supervision, or systemic pressure on medical staff.
In many situations, grieving families simply accept their loss and move on, believing there is little they can do. The result is what can only be described as a silent epidemic of unreported medical negligence.In more developed healthcare systems, such incidents rarely go unexamined. Independent regulatory bodies investigate complaints, enforce professional standards, and sanction erring practitioners. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Care Quality Commission inspects hospitals, clinics, and care providers to ensure strict compliance with safety and quality standards.Nigeria does have oversight institutions, notably the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria. However, enforcement often appears inconsistent, and many cases of negligence never reach the stage where regulators can intervene. Sometimes victims are unaware of the complaint process. In other cases, fear, cost, or bureaucracy discourage families from seeking justice.
While government institutions must improve their oversight mechanisms, citizens must also confront a difficult truth: Nigerians often fail to pursue their rights when they are violated. Too frequently, when injustice occurs, people retreat into resignation. Instead of filing complaints or seeking legal remedies, many respond with the familiar phrase: “God will judge them.” Faith is important, but it should not replace civic responsibility. A society that leaves accountability solely to divine intervention risks allowing negligence and impunity to flourish. Some commentators have suggested that the Adichie family likely pursued the matter relentlessly through petitions and formal complaints before authorities acted. If that is the case, it demonstrates a path other citizens can follow. When malpractice occurs, persistence in seeking justice can make institutions respond.
If more families reported cases of medical negligence to the appropriate authorities, regulatory bodies would have stronger grounds to investigate. Public pressure would also push healthcare institutions to improve their standards. Negligence, as defined by Nigeria’s Supreme Court in Odinaka v. Moghalu, refers to the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under similar circumstances. Within medical ethics, physicians are expected to provide competent care with compassion and respect for human dignity. These principles form the foundation of the duty of care that patients rely upon. Citizens must therefore be able to recognise signs of negligence and take appropriate steps to seek redress. Patients and families should learn to document incidents, keep medical records, ask questions about treatment decisions, and report suspicious circumstances surrounding medical care.
Where necessary, formal complaints should be lodged with regulatory authorities or pursued through the courts. Civil society organisations, advocacy groups, and the media also play a crucial role. By exposing cases of negligence and demanding accountability, they help ensure such incidents do not disappear into silence. A healthcare system shielded from scrutiny cannot improve. Nevertheless, responsibility cannot rest solely on citizens. Government must take decisive steps to strengthen healthcare regulation and reduce medical negligence. Hospitals and clinics—both public and private—should undergo regular inspections to ensure compliance with professional standards, safety protocols, and ethical guidelines. Persistent violations must attract meaningful sanctions. Legal practitioner and Senior Advocate of Nigeria Olisa Agbakoba has suggested the creation of an independent health regulatory authority and the restoration of Chief Medical Officers at federal and state levels.
 In the past, these officials, alongside health inspectors, helped enforce professional standards and ensured accountability within healthcare facilities. Government must also invest more seriously in the training and continuous education of healthcare professionals. Medicine is an evolving field, and practitioners must constantly update their knowledge and skills. Mandatory professional development programmes, stricter licensing renewal requirements, and improved mentorship systems could help reduce errors arising from outdated practices or inadequate training. At the same time, systemic challenges within the healthcare system cannot be ignored. Many Nigerian doctors and nurses work under extremely difficult conditions—overcrowded hospitals, outdated equipment, staff shortages, and overwhelming patient loads. Such pressures increase the risk of mistakes and professional burnout.
Improving healthcare infrastructure, funding, and staffing is therefore not merely an administrative matter; it is a fundamental requirement for patients’ safety. Equally important is transparency when allegations of negligence arise. Investigations must be timely, credible, and accessible. Families deserve to know what happened to their loved ones and whether professional standards were breached. Regulatory bodies must ensure that findings are communicated clearly so that public confidence in the healthcare system is strengthened. The tragedy that drew national attention to medical negligence should not be treated as an isolated incident involving a prominent personality. Rather, it should serve as a wake-up call for systemic reform.
Every Nigerian life carries equal value. Justice must not depend on prominence or privilege. When citizens demand accountability and institutions respond with fairness and transparency, trust begins to grow. Nigeria’s health sector is filled with dedicated doctors, nurses, and medical workers who save lives daily despite difficult conditions. Recognising their commitment, however, should not prevent society from confronting the reality that negligence sometimes occurs—and when it does, it must be addressed firmly. If this painful moment encourages Nigerians to speak up, demand accountability, and push for stronger regulatory systems, it may yet produce meaningful reform. Citizens must refuse to accept negligence as fate, while government strengthens oversight and improves healthcare conditions. Only through this collective effort can Nigeria build a healthcare system where every patient—regardless of social status—receives safe, responsible, and dignified care.
By: Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Trending