On the 11th of July, 2024, the Supreme court in a landmark judgment in suit number: SC/CV/343/2024 gave an order that Local Government allocations be paid directly to them from the Federation Account.
Governors of the states of the Federation were used to dissolving democratically elected Local Government Councils and reinstating caretaker committees in place of the local government council. The Governors failed to put in place a democratically elected local government system. The Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi sued the 36 state Governors, who were represented by their Attorneys-General.
Sec 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as Amended states that;
The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every State shall, subject to section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.
section 7(1) of the 1999 constitution
In the Supreme court’s judgment, it barred governors from doing this stating that it is unconstitutional. The apex court in its judgment observed that the state governments’ refusal of financial autonomy for local governments has gone on for two decades and local governments have since stopped receiving money meant for them from state governors who act in their stead.
Justice Agim JSC (Justice of the Supreme Court), who read the lead judgment noted that the 774 local government councils in the country should be allowed to manage their funds themselves. He said that only democratically elected local government administrators are entitled to these funds and not caretaker committees. State Governor’s retention of monies meant for Local Government Councils truncates the latter’s activities.
Table of Contents
Legal Implication
One of the powers of the Supreme Court is to hear matters between the Federal Government and State(s) Government.
This judgment allows for the tiers of government to be independent and have autonomy without them intermingling with each other’s funds and it reiterates the supremacy of the constitution over decisions of the state government. The three tiers of government are to operate in line with the constitution. It also reiterates that the Constitution is the Grundnorm and it’s wordings must never be misconstrued as it allows for a democratically elected local government system.
Pros
This judgment prevents the State Governments’ and Governors from arbitrarily dissolving democratically elected councils. The Local Government will be able to manage their funds independently without the state government managing or transferring funds to their account and by so doing, be able to handle the responsibilities given to them by section 7(5) of the 1999 Constitution.
Cons
Since 1999 when Nigeria changed from Military Rule to a democracy, State Government have continued to mange funds and the establishments of local government and put in place caretaker committees. A lot of the functions which have expressly been stated in the 4th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution like; construction and maintenance of roads, streets, street lightings, drains and other public highways, parks, gardens, open spaces have been taken over by State Government.
It is concerning that it has taken 2 decades for the Federal Government to address an issue that concerns a clear provision of the 1999 Constitution.
Court Reinstates Lawmakers in Rivers State
The Court of Appeal, Abuja gave its judgment where it reinstated the former speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Martin Amaewhule and 24 (twenty-four) other lawmakers at the Assembly.
The court nullified the judgment given by the Rivers State High Court, who granted an interim injunction restraining the lawmakers from addressing themselves as lawmakers of the state assembly and from conducting legislative sittings anywhere including within the legislative quarters and their legislative seats were declared vacant.
The three member panel of the Court of Appeal who delivered judgment held that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the ex parte order (motions for orders that can be granted without waiting for a response from the other side) initiated against the pro-wike law makers by the Rivers State Speaker and others.
The appeal court held that Section 272 (3) of the 1999 constitution as amended gives the Federal High Court powers to determine whether the seat of a House of Assembly member has become vacant. It held that the Federal High Court has the exclusive Jurisdiction to determine the vacancy of a House of Assembly Seat. The Appeal Court ruled that the ex parte order made by the Rivers State High Court is null and void, having been made without jurisdiction.
However due to the principle of stay of execution (is directed by a court to stop some form of enforcement action) the lawmakers won’t be reinstated as every legal option has to be exhausted and this means the Rivers State Government and Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly will appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Implication
This case re-emphasizes the fact that jurisdiction goes to the crux of a matter. Jurisdiction is the power a court has to decide on a matter brought before it. Where an action is commenced or instituted in a wrong court the case may be struck out or even dismissed, except there is a provision for transfer.
Pros
This acts as a deterrent for legal practitioners to always act within the bounds of the law and within the rules of professional conduct. Lawyers are enjoined to file and prosecute cases at the appropriate courts. They are to ensure that any case or matter brought before a court must be within the jurisdiction of that court.
Cons
This emphasizes the need for transparency in the judiciary. The members of the public may conclude that the judiciary may not be the hope of the common man as it may look like there is always a loophole or inefficiencies in the judicial process.
Toyin Abraham Takes Stand Against Cyberbullying
Toyin Abraham, a renowned Nigerian actress complained that she has constantly being bullied online for supporting president Bola Ahmed Tinubu during the last elections.
The actress was accused of arresting a social media user and his mother for defamation, however, she denied these allegations stating that she had only filed a petition against cyberbullies who had defamed her on social media.
There were some social media users supported her decision to fight back against bullying while some others accused her of censorship and intimidation. Some people even went ahead to report her page to instagram and also tried to send mails and reports to Netflix so her movies will be removed on the platform stating that her movies be boycotted.
This has sparked a debate on the limits of free speech online and the responsibilities of public figures to protect their reputation.
Legal Implications
Cyber bullying and cyber stalking are offences under the Cyber Crimes Act and the Act provides for the offence, the punishment and conviction. One of such provisions is provided for in Sec 24(1) of the Cyber Crime Prohibition Prevention Act 2015;
“Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that… ; (b) he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another or causes such a message to be sent: commits an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7,000,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 3 years or to both such fine and imprisonment“.
As we wrote in our earlier posts about Legal Implications of Defamation on Social Media, it is a slippery slope between free speech and crime.
Pros
Cyber bullying is a crime under the Nigerian law and anyone who threatens another or insults by using computer systems or network is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction. Social media cannot be a tool for persons to bully an individual just because of the person’s right to support a particular candidate in election. This is what universal suffrage and franchise envisage, the right to support and vote a candidate of your choice.
Cons
Social Media has its perks and disadvantages. In the next coming elections people may be scared to post their candidate online because of the fear of being bullied. Since its inception it has been a tool for cyberstalking, cyberbullying, intimidation and threat to life.
Social media users are enjoined to act within the bounds of ethics online by maintaining & conducting themselves properly on the online space.
