Opinion

Should LGAs Be Financially Autonomous?

Published

14 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

Agony In Ivory Tower

Published

6 hours ago

March 9, 2026

The Tide

Quote: A university that tolerates missing scripts, result manipulation and ‘sorting’ is not merely failing students—it is quietly destroying the moral foundation of education itself.”

The sad cases of missing scripts, compulsory Sorting, inputting of wrong results and other obnoxious practices in some public universities, leave much to be desired. One cannot imagine how a student will be compelled to suffer consequences of the flagrant negligence of a Head of Department, a lecturer, Department staff or an ICT staff.Many academic and non academic staff in several public universities seem to be performing far below standard, thus unproductive to the university system. The unacceptable cases of sorting, missing scripts, missing results, inputting of wrong grades to students, should not be mentioned in a university, not even in any academic community. This is because people who are employed to work in various positions should have cognate work experience and unquestionable competence. They should not be seen as certificate welding illiterates but people who have been proven to be worthy in learning and character, diligent and competent to carry out assigned responsibilities with minimal or no supervision.

The university as a citadel of learning should boast of men of integrity, people who are repositories of applied knowledge and competence to drive the much desired holistic development in a nation that functions on quality teaching and learning. A situation where a student having gone through the crucibles of learning and written a prescribed semester examination or class-based evaluation test, is told that his or her script is missing or that he or she did not participate in that academic exercise, or must sort to pass, is an unpardonable error and a height of callousness. In fact some lecturers and staff of Departments are using the seeming systemic defect (which is their architecture) as an opportunity to extort students. Sometimes it is discovered much to students chagrin that the supposed missing script was later discovered when a ransom was paid.

Since a lecturer, or Head of Department has in their disposal both Yam and the knife and determines who takes what (if they wish to give without strings), students have no alternative but to submit to their importunate demands in order to graduate at record time.Such practices should be unheard of in an institution that should be a vanguard of moral and ethical values and conduct. What people learn in school constitute their behavioural patterns in the society. Where the school as an agency of socialisation cannot drive positive change first in its immediate environment, then the objective of education as a bedrock for the development of society, is inevitably compromised and counter-productive. The German Reformer, Dr. Martins Luther was quoted as saying, “I advise parents not to put their wards or children in any school where the Bible is not being used as a rule of life because such institutions will unnecessarily be corrupt”.

Gleaning from Luther’s sentiment one can deduce that the lack of respect and regard for values as well as the absence of the fear of God is the greatest undoing of most public schools. Another major challenge is that lack of Information, Communication and Technology literacy or compliance on the part of some lecturers and heads of department, may have informed the decision to give students’ scripts to secretaries to compile and input students results thereby making the secretaries the determinants of students’ fate. It is not saying a new thing that some of the secretaries in the process of compiling results have inputted wrong results, omitted names or down graded some students or given unmerited grades to others.Society today is ICT-driven and ICT-literacy enhances efficiency, speed and a reasonable degree of accuracy if the person behind the computer is level headed, articulate, competent, alive to responsibilities and is aware that negligence on his or her part is not only tantamount to a disservice to the university but to the students who may not graduate at record time because of his or her (computer operator’s) gross ineptitude or carelessness.

The ICT era makes the carrying of hard copy of results obsolete as lecturers through the Heads of Department can log on to the central server of the Exams and Records (if any) or ICT unit and input students’ results directly. By so doing the incessant cases where result on spread sheet is different from the one published online, more often than not, caused by abject negligence, will be avoided. The process will also end the intermediary services of some staff in the universities’ Information, Communication and Technology Department which has become a money spinner-a lucrative source of income to many of them. In fact some ICT staff reserved the power to award grades to students depending on students’ degree of compliance to terms and conditions. They can dubiously make or unmake a student. The university community should be considered too lofty to have careless, negligent, immoral and academic or professionally deficient people as academic or non-academic staff.

The Governing Councils and Senates of universities should be proactive in addressing the menace of missing Script, inputting of wrong results and sorting. This is necessary to end the slogan “Education is scam” so the system can produce quality students who are truly found worthy in learning and in character by operators who exemplify diligence, moral and ethical values. The much-needed reform must begin within the institutions themselves, because the future of any society is shaped in its classrooms.

By: Igbiki Benibo

Opinion

Strength of Emotional Equality

Published

6 hours ago

March 9, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “Love thrives not when one gives more, but when both give fully — not in competition, not in performance, but in partnership.”

In every healthy relationship, there exists an invisible balance. It is not measured in grand gestures, expensive gifts, or public displays of affection. It is measured in something quieter and far more significant: emotional equality. When couples stand on equal emotional grounds, love becomes less of a negotiation and more of a partnership. Emotional equality does not mean both individuals express love in identical ways. It does not require matching personalities or mirroring temperaments. Rather, it speaks to balance — a shared willingness to invest, to communicate, to be vulnerable, and to grow. It is the difference between two people walking side by side and one person constantly trying to catch up.

In many relationships, imbalance begins subtly. One partner initiates most conversations. One apologizes more frequently. One carries the emotional labor — remembering important dates, managing conflicts, sensing tension, and attempting reconciliation. Over time, this uneven distribution of emotional effort breeds exhaustion. The partner who gives more begins to feel unseen. The one who gives less may grow comfortable in emotional passivity. Love, in such a space, starts to tilt — slowly at first, then significantly. Resentment can creep in quietly, disguising itself as patience. Silence may replace honest dialogue. What once felt effortless begins to feel heavy.

When couples stand on equal emotional grounds, responsibility is shared. Both people are accountable for the health of the relationship. If conflict arises, neither hides behind silence nor dominates through control. Instead, they engage. They listen. They speak honestly without weaponizing words. Equality creates safety — and safety strengthens intimacy. It allows both individuals to express needs without fear of ridicule or rejection. One of the most overlooked aspects of emotional equality is vulnerability. True connection requires courage. It demands that both partners risk being misunderstood. But when vulnerability is one-sided, it becomes exposure rather than intimacy. If one person consistently opens up while the other remains guarded, trust cannot fully deepen.

Equality ensures that emotional risks are mutual. Where one shares fears, the other shares too. Where one admits weakness, the other responds with openness rather than judgment. In such a space, authenticity flourishes. Another crucial element is validation. In emotionally balanced relationships, both partners feel heard. Their concerns are not dismissed as “overreactions.” Their feelings are not minimized or compared. When couples operate on equal emotional ground, they acknowledge each other’s experiences as legitimate. They may not always agree, but they always respect. Validation does not mean surrendering one’s viewpoint; it means recognizing that another’s emotional reality matters.

Equality also protects individuality. Contrary to popular belief, healthy love does not erase personal identity — it enhances it. When both partners are emotionally secure, they do not feel threatened by each other’s independence. Personal ambitions are encouraged, not resented. Friendships are respected, not restricted. Growth is celebrated, not feared. Standing on equal emotional grounds means neither person shrinks to accommodate the other. Instead, both expand, knowing the relationship is strong enough to hold their evolution. Power dynamics often expose emotional inequality. When one partner controls communication — appearing and disappearing unpredictably, withholding affection, or using silence as leverage — imbalance emerges.

Emotional dominance weakens intimacy. It creates anxiety instead of assurance. But when couples share emotional power, there is consistency. There is clarity. There is no need to decode affection because it is offered freely and intentionally. It is important to understand that equality does not imply perfection. Couples will still disagree. They will face stress, miscommunication, and moments of frustration. However, when emotional footing is equal, conflict does not threaten the foundation. Instead, it becomes an opportunity for understanding. Both partners approach challenges as teammates rather than opponents. They choose resolution over ego and repair over pride.

Time often reveals whether emotional equality truly exists. In the early stages of love, intensity can disguise imbalance. Enthusiasm feels mutual. Effort appears equal. But as routine settles in and novelty fades, the structure of the relationship becomes clearer. Who still initiates? Who still invests? Who still shows up consistently? Sustainable love requires sustained balance. It is built not merely on attraction, but on deliberate reciprocity. Standing on equal emotional grounds requires intentionality. It demands honest conversations about needs and expectations. It requires both partners to examine their habits — whether they withdraw during tension, avoid accountability, or rely on the other to carry the emotional weight. Emotional maturity is not about avoiding conflict; it is about handling it responsibly and returning, again and again, to shared ground.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of emotional equality is peace. There is no constant anxiety about where one stands. No guessing games about commitment. No fear that affection may suddenly disappear. Instead, there is stability. There is reassurance. There is mutual effort. In a world where relationships often blur the lines between attention and commitment, equality offers clarity. It reminds us that love should not feel like competition or performance. It should feel like partnership. When couples stand on equal emotional grounds, they build something resilient. They build trust that does not fracture easily. They build respect that does not depend on mood. They build a connection rooted not only in passion but in balance. And in that balance, love finds its strength — not in who gives more, but in how both give fully.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

NDDC: Time To Illuminate Homes

Published

1 week ago

March 2, 2026

The Tide

Quote:“Twenty-five years on, the Niger Delta cannot celebrate illuminated streets while families sit in darkness. Development must begin inside the home — where children study, businesses grow, and lives are built — before it glows on the roadside.”

The Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) was established in 2000 with a clear and urgent mandate: to facilitate the rapid, even, and sustainable development of Nigeria’s oil-producing Niger Delta region. The creation of the Commission followed decades of agitation over environmental degradation, infrastructural neglect, and socio-economic marginalization in the region. Its core mandate included the development of roads, bridges, electricity, water supply, health facilities, education, housing, environmental remediation, and economic empowerment initiatives. At inception, expectations were high that the Commission would transform the Niger Delta into a model of regional development. Over the years, the NDDC has indeed implemented numerous projects across the nine Niger Delta states. Roads have been constructed and rehabilitated in several communities, easing transportation challenges.

Schools have been renovated, and new classroom blocks have been provided in underserved areas. Health centres have been built or upgraded, improving access to primary healthcare services. The Commission has also awarded scholarships to students, including foreign postgraduate scholarships, empowering thousands of youths academically.Skills acquisition and youth empowerment programmes have helped many young people gain vocational competencies.Through various interventions, the NDDC has contributed to job creation and local economic stimulation.Solar-powered street lighting projects have been widely implemented in urban and semi-urban communities. These streetlights have improved visibility at night and contributed to enhanced security in some areas. Markets, highways, and public spaces illuminated by solar lights have experienced extended business hours.

For these efforts, the Commission deserves acknowledgment and commendation. However, development must always align with foundational mandates and pressing grassroots realities. A growing concern among residents is that while streets are illuminated, many homes remain in darkness. Rural electrification and household power access remain inconsistent and inadequate across large parts of the region. In riverine and remote communities, families still rely on generators, kerosene lamps, or complete darkness after sunset. The irony of brightly lit streets juxtaposed with powerless homes cannot be ignored. Electricity at the household level directly impacts education, health, and small-scale enterprise. Students cannot effectively study at night without reliable indoor lighting.Families cannot preserve food or power essential appliances without stable electricity.

Micro and small businesses struggle to grow without dependable energy access. While street lighting enhances public aesthetics and security, it does not substitute for domestic electrification. The proverb “charity begins at home” is especially relevant in this context. True community development must first empower households before beautifying public spaces. The Commission’s original mandate emphasizes integrated and sustainable development, not isolated infrastructural gestures. Balanced development requires that energy interventions prioritize homes alongside streets. Solar technology presents a unique opportunity for decentralized household electrification in off-grid communities. Extending solar solutions to individual homes would have a transformative social impact. Home-based solar systems could power lights, fans, small appliances, and communication devices.

Such interventions would reduce poverty, improve living standards, and stimulate grassroots productivity. By broadening its energy focus, the Commission would better reflect the spirit of its founding legislation. This is not a call to abandon street lighting projects, which have their merits. Rather, it is an appeal for balance, inclusivity, and alignment with core developmental objectives. Strategic planning should ensure that rural electrification and household access form a central pillar of ongoing interventions. Community engagement and needs assessments can help determine priority areas for household solar deployment. Twenty-five years after its establishment, the NDDC stands at a reflective moment in its institutional journey. The people of the Niger Delta say: thank you for the efforts so far—but not very much—because true appreciation will come when development begins at home and radiates outward, not merely when streets shine while houses remain in darkness.

By: King Onunwor