For nearly half a century, Nigeria has wrestled with the promise and frustration of local government autonomy. Before the 1976 reforms, councils functioned largely as administrative appendages of state governments, trapped in a master–servant relationship that left them dependent and powerless. The 1976 reforms sought to break that grip by recognising local governments as the third tier of governance. Both the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions – most notably Section 7(1) – went further, guaranteeing democratically elected local government councils. Yet, almost 50 years later, genuine autonomy remains more debatable.
Successive presidents have tried, and failed, to untangle this knot. The interpretation of the constitution 1999-2003 led to the contradiction of independence of councils in a federal republic.
The import of Part II Section 4 (7) of the 1999 Constitutionstates “The House of Assembly of a State shall have power to make laws for the peace or good governance of the State or any part thereof with respect to any matter not included in the Concurrent Legislative List; included in the Concurrent List; or any other matter, which it is empowered to make laws”.
In his efforts to free them from the clutches of the state governors, Former President Muhammadu Buhari attempted to enforce financial independence through Executive Order 10, directing that funds from the Federation Account be paid directly to local councils. State governors resisted fiercely, and the Supreme Court eventually struck down the order as unconstitutional. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu took a more strategic route, asking the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution itself on two fundamental questions: whether the existence of elected local councils is guaranteed, and whether their allocations must be paid directly to them.
In a landmark judgment, the apex court delivered a double-edged verdict. It unanimously ruled that democratically elected local government councils are constitutionally guaranteed, rendering the caretaker or interim committees installed by many state governors illegal. On funding, six of the seven justices further held that federal allocations must flow directly to local councils, ending the decades-long practice of routing funds through state governments.
By stripping governors of the power to intercept federal allocations, the judgment strengthens the third tier of government and signals a decisive step toward true federalism.
This ruling is a watershed in Nigeria’s constitutional history. For over two decades, governors used the joint state–local government accounts, originally conceived as a cooperative funding mechanism, as sieves for patronage. Money intended to light rural clinics, maintain primary schools, and pave village roads often disappeared into the fog of state budgets. The Supreme Court has now shut that door, giving councils direct access to their rightful funds and, at least on paper, a fighting chance to serve their communities.
However, although the Apex Court has spoken clearly, the path to genuine autonomy remains cloudy.. The decision has drawn criticism, particularly from the pan-Yoruba group Afenifere, which insists that Nigeria operates a two-tier federation – federal and state – and that local governments are not federating units entitled to direct funding. Lawyers dismissed these arguments citing constitutional provisions. For instance, Sir James A. Kanyip, a respected legal scholar and the Commissioner of Internal Security and Home Affairs Kaduna State, points to Section 318 of the Constitution, which defines “government” to include local government councils. By this reasoning, Nigeria’s federal arrangement is in fact three-tiered, and the Court’s decision is legally sound.
Yet legal soundness is not the same as practical freedom. The judgment secures the inflow of funds but not their use. Under Section 7(1), state Houses of Assembly retain the power to legislate on the “establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions” of local councils. Governors therefore continue to influence the political process, the tenure of councils, and the laws that determine how local funds are spent. They can shorten tenures, manipulate election timetables, or pass restrictive spending laws – all without violating the Court’s ruling. Direct payment without spending autonomy is dependency by another name.
This structural imbalance explains why the dream of grassroots democracy has remained elusive. For decades, state governments have suffocated local councils, reducing them to glorified departments of state ministries. Councils are too often starved of resources, stripped of authority, and forced to rely on the goodwill of governors. Rural communities suffer most: clinics remain unstaffed, roads unpaved, schools neglected. The Supreme Court may have unlocked the vault, but governors still hold the keys to how the money is spent.
If Nigeria is serious about rebuilding governance from the bottom up, constitutional surgery is unavoidable. Section 7(1) should be amended to move local government matters from the Concurrent to the Exclusive Legislative List, giving the National Assembly sole power to legislate on their establishment, finance, and functions. Section 197(1)(b), which empowers State Independent Electoral Commissions to conduct elections at local government level, must also be repealed so that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) can conduct local elections free from state governmentsinterference. Without these amendments, governors will continue to dominate the political process and undermine the promise of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Tinubu administration must now match judicial success with political courage. Court victories, while important, cannot substitute for legislative reform. The president should spearhead a constitutional amendment campaign, mobilising the National Assembly, civil society groups, and the Nigerian public. Citizens too must rise to the moment. Civil society organisations, professional associations, and grassroots movements should press relentlessly for these changes. Constitutional reform will not come from the goodwill of governors; it will come only from sustained pressure by the governed.
Leadership believes this judgment offers Nigeria a rare chance to realign the architecture of governance. The Court has affirmed that local governments are not appendages of the states. The next move belongs to the political class and the people. If Nigerians seize this moment by demanding constitutional amendments, supporting independent local elections, and holding councils accountable, democracy can finally reach every ward and village. Local autonomy would cease to be an abstract promise and become a daily reality of better roads, cleaner markets, functioning clinics, and empowered citizens.
If, however, we falter, we will condemn another generation to the poverty and frustration that flourish when power remains distant and unaccountable. The Supreme Court has opened the door. The responsibility to walk through it rests squarely on the shoulders of the Nigerian people.
