President Bola Tinubu has accused former President Olusegun Obasanjo of aborting grassroots development by opposing the creation of Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) in Lagos State many years ago.
Tinubu disclosed this during his first Presidential Media Chat (PMC) in Lagos on Monday night.
Reflecting on his tenure as governor of Lagos State in the early 2000s, Tinubu highlighted the challenges he faced in his bid to enhance local governance through the creation of 37 LCDAs in the State but was met with stiff opposition by the government at the centre under Obasanjo.
“Today, we have autonomy for local government. Some of you will remember my lamentation and my argument with Obasanjo about the need for grassroots development when I created 37 local council development areas for Lagos State,” Tinubu said.
The president defended the initiative, citing its transformative impact. “Go there now, you will see development, you will see rapid contact with the people at the grassroots. That is where people live; they are not living with me in Abuja, except bureaucrats,” he added.
Tinubu also took the opportunity to emphasise his administration’s commitment to moving Nigeria forward despite challenges. “Well, I will say I am drawing water from a dry well, and Nigeria is moving forward,” he remarked.
LEADERSHIP recalls that during Tinubu’s tenure as Lagos State governor, the creation of LCDAs was a response to the state’s growing population and the need for more efficient local governance. However, the initiative sparked a major conflict with the federal government under the then President Obasanjo, which questioned the legality of the new administrative units outside the constitutionally recognised 774 LGAs.
In retaliation, the federal government withheld funds earmarked for local governments in Lagos State, causing financial strain on grassroots development. The dispute became a litmust test for Nigeria’s federalism as it escalated to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of Lagos State, ordering the release of the withheld funds.
Despite the court’s verdict, the federal government delayed the disbursement, further compounding the challenges faced by local governments in the State at the time.
