Opinion

Should LGAs Be Financially Autonomous?

Published

13 years ago

August 20, 2012

Chike Nmerukini

– Lawyer

I think the funds for local governments should come directly
from the Federal Government to the local governments, because according to the
constitution, the local government is supposed to be autonomous. But because of
what happened in the past, the idea of joint account between the States and
LGAs was introduced so that States can check how local government funds are
used.

Incidentally, the States now take that as an opportunity to,
most times, deduct or delay the release of the local governments funds.

So, I think if the Federal Government does it directly, all
the local governments will improve. The States will be there to check them. Nobody stops them from
checking them. But I believe the local governments should be funded directly
from the Federal allocation.

I think the local governments’ joint account with the State
governments which they call JAC is a problem because when they get this money
from the Federal Government, the States decide on their own when to release
this money, which is not supposed to be. Local governments should have their
autonomy. If the local governments are not allowed to run their affairs or they
are under the States, the State governments influence them. Most times the
State governments under this situation do not give the local governments the
chance to carry out their projects effectively, because they believe that they,
at the States, are doing more than the local governments.

There has been this argument that if the local governments
are financially autonomous, if their monies come directly from the Federal
Government, it leads to the proliferation of local governments as some States
may decide to create more local governments to attract more fund from the
Federal Government.

But in that case, I think a body should be set up by the
Federal Government to look into it even though we know it is the right of the
State assembly exclusively, to do that. But the Federal Government can set up a
body to check territorial boundaries and population through the census, so that
the States don’t just jump into creating unnecessary LGAs because they want to
get more money from the Federal Government.

So I believe local governments bring government to the
people at the grassroot, so they should not be killed through any means
whatsoever.

Dike Prince Obinna:

– Civil Engineering Consultant

In my opinion, I think the State government should control
the finance of the local government and monitor how the money is being used.
State governments are closer to the local governments and can monitor whatever
projects the local government chairmen are carrying out. Federal Governments
cannot do that.

So, for me, I don’t see the Federal Government releasing
fund to the local governments directly as being reasonable. State government
should be allowed to control the LGA funds. Unfortunately, most of our
governors are very dubious. Most of them don’t even have focus. Some of them
are just there to loot our treasury and get away.

Inspite of that, I still believe it is most idle for State
governments to monitor the finances of the local governments and ensure they
are put into proper use for the benefit of the people at the grassroot.

Victor Ali

– Public Affairs Practitioner

I think the local governments, funds should come directly
from the Federal Government. The idea of Federal Government releasing the LG
fund to the State, then the State to the LGAs is not good because atimes the
States starve the local governments of fund. So since the Federal Government
releases the State government ‘s fund direct to the state, they should also
release straight to the local governments because the local government is
autonomous just like the State. Because the LGAs funds are transferred from the
federal to the State, that is why the States have power to trap the funds of
the local governments.

Really, the local governments are not doing much, but there
should be a constitutional means of checking their excesses, especially the
chairmen. If they (federal and State governments) have a constitutional way of
doing that, then the local governments will perform.

However, a situation where the State governments control and
almost run the affairs of the local governments is not good. Because people are
feeling that since the States have upper hand on the local governments, any
local government chairman that does not tow the line of the state authority,
can be suspended not minding that the chairman was elected just like the
governors. All these people – governor, President, Vice President, local
government chairmen were all elected and for any of them to be removed from the
office, due process must be followed according to the constitution.

So I think that anything that should be done in the on-going
constitution review should be done properly, so that the local government as an
arm of government, should be truly autonomous. Any fund released by the Federal
Government should go to them directly.

I will also advocate that for us to be able to check the excesses
of those in authority both at the states and local government levels, the
people should know their rights. Let them know what the State and local
governments are supposed to do for them. If we are paying our taxes to the
local governments, we should be able to ask questions how the money is being
used. If the people stand up and know their rights, those in government will
sit up.

Dio Anamachree

– Graudate Student

I am of the opinion that the funds of the LGAs should come
direct from the Federal Government to the local governments.

We all know that the local government monies used to come to
them directly from the Federal Government but because the State governments
wanted to secure more powers for themselves, they negotiated with the Federal
Government and gained the control of LGAs’ funds. The reason for the joint
account between State governments and LGAs, to me, is just for governors to
control the revenue of the local governments and that is why they are
clamouring that they should have a constitutional backing to do so.

But my opinion remains that Federal Government should
release LGAs fund directly into LGA accounts and not through the State
governments. That will enhance project execution in the local governments.

For instance, for some chairmen of LGAs to carry out certain
developmental projects in the local government areas, they have to obtain
permission from the State government. So if you are not a well articulated
chairman, if you are not focused, at the end of the day, you will not be able
to have any project on ground. The State government can still monitor the local
government but should not be receiving the monies meant for the local
governments. That is not ideal in a democratic government. Governors should
allow local government chairmen to control the fund of the LGAs. Sending their
monies through the state governments means denying them of their political
rights. Some LGAs, once they pay salaries, the money is gone. So, they are just
there to pay workers’ salaries. Some of them cannot sink ordinary borehole for
their people because the money is not there. But another issue is the Federal
Government monitoring the state governments to know how far they use their
money.

Kenneth Ibekwe

– Public Servant

I believe that the Federal Government should fund LGAs
directly, not through states, because the LG chairmen are elected officers just
like governors.

So, the local governments are supposed to have autonomy so
that they will be able to reach the grassroot. LGAs are very close to the grassroot,
they deal with us directly, not governors. So LGAs are supposed to be funded
very well.

Some governors make use of LGs money and the chairmen can’t
work with empty lands. And that is why you see nothing happening in many LGAs.
They use the little money they receive in paying salaries and that is the end
of it.

The masses are supposed to come out and demand for full
financial autonomy for LGAs so that they will be able to perform. We cannot
elect somebody and somebody somewhere is claiming to be his godfather,
siphoning the money meant for the LGA, it cannot work.

Miss Favour

– Student

I don’t think the problem is who controls the LGAs funds, or
not.

Our problem is corruption, selfishness and greed and unless
we deal with these vices, all we are doing will account to waste of time.

The monies meant for LGAs used to be paid directly to their
accounts, but instead of developing the LGAs with the money, the chairmen were
enriching themselves with it. Workers
were being owed for months, there was nothing on ground to account for the huge
allocations they receive.

That was how the idea of joint account with the State
governments came up, believing that State governors would be able to control
the funds effectively. Unfortunately, we all know what the governors are doing
with the money, enriching themselves and starving the LGA chairmen of funds.
This has hindered development at the grassroot.

So which everway you look at it, the people are suffering,
while the monies meant for them are being spent by some individuals.

But what is the assurance that if the situation is reversed
to status quo, it would result to the the development of our LGAs?

So, I don’t know, whoever wants to control the local
governments fund whether States or LGAs, should go ahead.

Opinion

Wike VS Soldier’s Altercation: Matters Arising

Published

1 day ago

December 8, 2025

The Tide

The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.

Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.

The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.

It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.

Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.

On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.

It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.

*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.

In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.

Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.

One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.

Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.

The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.

The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.

Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.

The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.

The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.

Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.

If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?

As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.

Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.

Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.

Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.

We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.

The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.

It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.

No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.

By; King Onunwor

Opinion

Ndifon’s Verdict and University Power Reform

Published

2 weeks ago

November 24, 2025

The Tide

Quote:”But beyond the courtroom victory lies a pressing question: What next? How do we ensure that Nigerian universities no longer serve as hunting grounds for predatory academics? How do we guarantee that students—especially young women—can pursue education without fear of victimization?”

The conviction of Professor Cyril Ndifon, suspended Dean of Law at the University of Calabar, to five years in prison by the Federal High Court Abuja, provided a rare moment of relief amid the week’s troubling national events. Beyond punishing one individual, the judgment signaled that accountability—especially regarding sexual harassment and abuse of power in Nigerian higher institutions—may finally be gaining traction. For years, many students, especially young women, have quietly endured intimidation, coercion, and the misuse of academic privilege. Reports and surveys have consistently shown the depth of this problem. A 2018 World Bank survey estimated that 70% of female graduates had faced some form of sexual harassment in school, while a Nigerian study recorded sexual violence as the most common form of gender-based violence on campuses.

Ndifon’s case has therefore become symbolic—challenging the belief that powerful academics can act with impunity. Justice James Omotosho’s ruling went beyond the conviction; it exposed the systemic rot that enables abuse. His description of Ndifon as a predator highlighted how institutions fail when they lack strong, independent structures for accountability. Although the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, many similar cases never reach court because victims remain afraid, discouraged, or convinced that the system will not protect them. A major difference in this case was that a government agency fulfilled its responsibility rather than letting the matter fade, as often happens with campus scandals. Too often, allegations arise but internal committees stall, victims lose hope, and the accused quietly escape consequences.

This time, however, the judiciary refused to allow such evasion. The court’s decision to center the victims and dismiss attempts to discredit them set an important precedent at a time when survivors are often blamed or pressured into silence. Yet the bigger question remains: What next? How can Nigerian universities become safe spaces where students, particularly young women, can pursue education without fear? First, reporting systems must be overhauled. Traditional structures—where complaints pass through heads of departments or deans—are inadequate, especially when senior officers are the accused. Independent, gender-sensitive complaint bodies are essential. Some institutions, such as the University of Ibadan and Godfrey Okoye University, have already taken steps by establishing gender-mainstreaming units. Other universities must follow suit, ensuring confidentiality, protection from backlash, and transparent investigations.

Second, proven cases of harassment must attract real consequences—not quiet transfers or administrative warnings. Sexual exploitation is not a mere disciplinary issue; it is a crime and should be promptly escalated to law-enforcement agencies. Treating criminal behaviour as an internal matter only emboldens perpetrators. Third, students must feel safe to speak up. As a senior lecturer at the University of Abuja advised, silence fuels impunity. Students need to believe that justice is attainable and that they will be supported. This requires consistent sensitization efforts by student unions, civil society groups, gender advocacy organizations, and ministries of women affairs. New students, in particular, need early guidance to understand their rights and available support systems. The recent approval of the Sexual Harassment of Students (Prevention and Prohibition) Bill, 2025, prescribing up to 14 years imprisonment for educators convicted of harassment, is a step in the right direction.

Quick presidential assent and domestication by states will strengthen legal protection. As Nelson Mandela said, “A society that fails to protect its women cannot claim to be civilized.” This principle must guide Nigeria’s legislative and institutional reforms. The legal profession has its own soul-searching to do. Law faculties are expected to model ethics and justice. When a senior law academic betrays these values, the damage extends beyond the victims—it undermines confidence in both higher education and the justice system. The judiciary’s firm stance in this case therefore reinforces the idea that the law exists to protect the vulnerable, not shield the powerful. Yet, this moment should not end with celebration alone; it must ignite a broader institutional awakening. Universities must begin to review their staff appraisal systems to include behavioural ethics, not just academic output.

Governing councils should strengthen oversight mechanisms and ensure that disciplinary processes are free from internal politics. Alumni associations and parents’ forums can also play a monitoring role, demanding higher standards of conduct from staff and administrators. Importantly, the government must provide universities with the financial and technical support needed to establish functional gender desks, counselling units, and digital reporting platforms. Only when all stakeholders take ownership of the problem can lasting reform be achieved. Professor Ndifon’s sentencing represents justice for one victim, but it must inspire justice for many more. It should mark the beginning of a nationwide resolve to reclaim Nigerian universities from those who misuse authority. The future of education in this country must be shaped by knowledge, dignity, and integrity—not fear or manipulation. The judgment is a call to action: to build campuses where students are safe, where lecturers are held accountable, and where power is exercised with responsibility. Only then can Nigeria truly claim to be nurturing the leaders of tomorrow.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

As Nigeria’s Insecurity Rings Alarm

Published

2 weeks ago

November 24, 2025

The Tide

Quote:”President Donald Trump’s designation of Nigeria a Country of Special Concern and further threats to intervene in countries experiencing religious persecution reflect a growing international concern regarding Nigeria’s deteriorating security situation.”

In recent years, Nigeria has witnessed an alarming evolution of insecurity that threatens not only the stability of the nation but also the broader West African region. Bandit attacks on schools, farms, mosques, and Christian worship centers have become distressingly commonplace, painting a grim picture of a country under siege from multiple fronts. The rise of kidnappings for ransom, coupled with the persistent threat of terrorism from groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP, has ignited fears among communities and hampered economic activities. As neighboring Sahel countries grapple with coups and the spread of extremist ideologies, Nigeria finds itself at a precarious crossroads that demands urgent attention and action.

According to media tally, about 2,496 students have been abducted in 92 school attacks since the Chibok saga of 2014. And prompted by recent incidents in Kwara, Kebbi and Niger states, where hundreds of pupils were abducted, state governments across northern Nigeria are shutting down, or relocating schools. Even the federal government last week, via the Federal Ministry of Education hastily ordered principals of 41 unity schools across northern Nigeria, to shut-down.The increasing frequency and audacity of bandit attacks highlight a troubling trend in Nigeria’s security landscape. Schools, once seen as sanctuaries for learning, have become targets for kidnappers seeking to exploit vulnerable students. These attacks not only disrupt education but also instill fear in families, leading to mass withdrawals from schools. Should we raise a generation of children deprived of their right to education?

Similarly, farms and places of worship have not been spared. Communities that once thrived on agriculture and faith, now live in constant dread of violent incursions. The targeted killings of Christians and attacks on mosques further exacerbate religious tensions, threatening to disrupt the social fabric that holds Nigeria together.The situation is compounded by the unsettling developments in the Sahel region, where coups and the rise of jihadist groups have created a volatile environment. The spillover effects of this instability are palpable in Nigeria, as extremist ideologies proliferate and armed groups gain confidence. The porous borders of the region facilitate the movement of militants and weapons, making it increasingly difficult for Nigerian authorities to contain the threats. As Nigeria struggles to secure its territory, the consequences of failure become more pronounced, with the potential for a broader regional crisis looming on the horizon.

President Donald Trump’s designation of Nigeria a Country of Special Concern and further threats to intervene in countries experiencing religious persecution reflect a growing international concern regarding Nigeria’s deteriorating security situation.

While such attention can bring much-needed awareness to the plight of affected communities, it also underscores a significant truth: the responsibility for addressing these challenges ultimately lies with the Nigerian government. The inaction and apparent inability to protect citizens from violence and ensure justice for victims send a troubling message about the state’s commitment to safeguarding its populace. The economic ramifications of this evolving insecurity are dire. Foreign investment, a critical driver of economic growth, is deterred by the pervasive violence and instability.

Investors are wary of committing resources to a country where the risk of loss is heightened by kidnappings and attacks on businesses.Additionally, agricultural production suffers as farmers abandon their lands, fearing for their safety. The recent upsurge in insecurity coincides with a crucial harvest season, when farmers need to recoup investment to finance the next round. A decline in harvests this year would reverse recent gains of recovery in food production and exacerbate poverty, further straining the nation’s resources. Socially, the implications of failing to tackle insecurity are profound. Mistrust in government institutions grows as citizens witness a lack of effective response to violence and crime. This erosion of faith can lead to civil unrests, as frustrated populations demand accountability and action.

Moreover, the vulnerability of young people in conflict-affected areas increases the risk of radicalization, as they seek identity and purpose in extremist movements that exploit their disillusionment. The South-East crisis is peculiar in this regard. The evolving insecurity in Nigeria is not merely a national crisis; it poses a significant threat to regional stability and international interests. The convergence of banditry, terrorism, and political instability in the Sahel creates a complex security environment that requires a coordinated response. The Nigerian government, in partnership with regional allies and international partners, must adopt a comprehensive strategy that addresses the root causes of insecurity, strengthens law enforcement, and fosters community resilience.

It’s time Nigerians address all regional grievances with reconciliation and empathy, rather than with coercion. As citizens, civil society, and international stakeholders, it is crucial to advocate for effective policies that prioritize security, justice, development and inclusiveness. A collective effort is needed to ensure a safer, more stable future for Nigeria and the West African region. Ultimately, Nigeria stands at a critical juncture. The path forward demands decisive action to restore security, rebuild trust, and ensure that all citizens can live without fear. The time for complacency has passed; the stakes are too high, and the consequences of inaction are too grave. A collective effort is essential to navigate this challenging landscape and forge a safer, more stable future for Nigeria and the West African region.

By: Joseph Nwankwor