by Uchechukwu Okoroafor, Abuja
The recent suspension of local government chairmen and vice-chairmen in Edo State by the state House of Assembly, at the behest of Governor Monday Okpebholo, has generated significant public discourse.
Grow your business with us
The controversy stems largely from the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi’s, assertion that the Assembly lacked the authority to suspend the chairmen.
However, a closer examination of the relevant legal frameworks and the context of this action reveals that the suspension was not only justifiable but also necessary to uphold accountability and transparency in governance.
Local government administration in Nigeria operates under a dual framework: the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and state-specific laws enacted by Houses of Assembly.
Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the existence of democratically elected local government councils, but it also vests the power to regulate their operations in state governments through laws passed by state legislatures.
In Edo State, the Local Government Law of 2000 (as amended) serves as the primary statute governing the administration of local councils. This law explicitly outlines the responsibilities, expectations, and consequences for the actions or inactions of local government officials. Section 20 of the law empowers the governor, in consultation with the state House of Assembly, to act decisively when there are concerns about the conduct or performance of local government officials.
The suspension of the chairmen and vice-chairmen was therefore executed within the bounds of this law, following due process and consultation.
A critical distinction that must be made in this discourse is the difference between “suspension” and “removal.” The AGF’s statement, suggesting that the Assembly’s action contravenes the constitutional guarantee of local government autonomy, is based on a mischaracterization of the action taken. The chairmen were not removed from office but were suspended for two months to allow for an investigation into their financial activities. This distinction is not merely semantic; it reflects a deliberate effort by the Edo State government to ensure transparency and accountability while adhering to the rule of law.
The suspension is a temporary measure designed to create an environment conducive to an impartial investigation by the Administrative Panel of Inquiry. The legislative action does not infringe on the autonomy of the local government but rather enforces the oversight function of the state Assembly, which acts as a check on local government administration. This process ensures that officials are held accountable without prejudicing the outcome of the investigation.
Governor Monday Okpebholo’s directive for local government chairmen to submit their financial reports was a proactive measure aimed at promoting transparency and good governance. The refusal of the chairmen to comply with this directive—citing local government autonomy—raised legitimate concerns about their commitment to accountability. Local government autonomy, particularly financial autonomy, does not exempt local councils from oversight by state authorities. The Supreme Court has affirmed that state Houses of Assembly retain the power to legislate on matters concerning local government administration. By ignoring the governor’s directive, the chairmen not only violated the spirit of accountability but also acted in defiance of the law that governs their operations. The suspension was, therefore, a necessary response to this defiance.
It signals to public officials at all levels that accountability is non-negotiable and that no arm of government operates in isolation from oversight.
The Edo State House of Assembly’s decision to suspend the chairmen was the culmination of a thorough debate and majority vote at its plenary session. This action is consistent with the Assembly’s mandate under the Local Government Law of 2000 to serve as a check on the activities of local government officials. The suspension ensures that the investigation into the financial activities of the chairmen is conducted without interference or undue influence. It is important to note that the Speakers of the Legislative Houses within the affected local councils have been appointed to act in an interim capacity during the suspension period. This arrangement preserves the continuity of governance while the investigation is ongoing.
The AGF’s criticism of the suspension as a violation of local government autonomy is both premature and misplaced. By focusing on the term “removal,” the AGF conflates two distinct actions and overlooks the procedural safeguards embedded in the Edo State Local Government Law. The law explicitly provides for suspension as a tool for ensuring accountability without prematurely determining the outcome of allegations against officials. The AGF’s remarks also fail to acknowledge the broader implications of unchecked defiance by local government officials. Without the possibility of suspension or other corrective measures, the principles of accountability and good governance would be undermined, leaving local councils vulnerable to corruption and inefficiency.
The suspension of the local government chairmen highlights the critical importance of accountability in governance. Public officials, regardless of their level of autonomy, must operate transparently and be held accountable for their actions. The refusal of the chairmen to submit their financial reports raises serious questions about the management of public funds and the prioritization of the public interest. By taking decisive action, the Edo State government has sent a strong message that accountability is not optional. This stance aligns with the broader principles of democratic governance, which prioritize the public good over individual or sectional interests.
The suspension of local government chairmen and vice-chairmen in Edo State by the state House of Assembly, following the governor’s concerns, was a lawful and justified action aimed at upholding transparency and accountability. The decision was made in accordance with the Edo State Local Government Law of 2000 and reflects the Assembly’s oversight responsibilities.
While the AGF’s concerns about local government autonomy are valid in principle, they do not apply in this instance, as the suspension was a temporary measure designed to facilitate an impartial investigation. It is imperative to distinguish between suspension and removal, as the former allows for due process while preserving the autonomy of local councils. The Edo State government’s actions serve as a reminder that accountability is a cornerstone of good governance. By enforcing the law and prioritizing transparency, the state has demonstrated its commitment to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. This approach should serve as a model for other states in Nigeria, reinforcing the importance of accountability at all levels of government.