Nineteen months after Nigeria’s Supreme Court delivered what many described as a watershed judgment on local government financial autonomy, the constitutional promise of empowered grassroots governance remains largely unfulfilled across the federation, with state governors continuing to exercise iron-grip control over council finances through constitutional loopholes and administrative manoeuvres.
The apex court’s July 11, 2024 ruling declared the long-standing practice of channelling local government allocations through state-controlled Joint Accounts unconstitutional, mandating instead that funds from the Federation Account be paid directly to the 774 local government areas. The judgment was received with widespread optimism by governance advocates who had long argued that decades of state interference had reduced councils to mere appendages of state governments, stripped of their constitutional mandate to drive development at the grassroots.
In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, more than 30 of Nigeria’s 36 states hastily organised local government elections, responding to the Supreme Court’s warning that allocations would be withheld from states still operating caretaker committees. Yet despite this flurry of electoral activity and public declarations of compliance, investigations reveal that the fundamental architecture of financial control has remained virtually unchanged in most states.
Delta State has emerged among a handful claiming to have begun releasing funds directly to elected council chairmen, but independent verification of such compliance across the federation remains limited and inconclusive. What is clear, however, is that the overwhelming majority of states continue to operate variants of the discredited Joint Allocation Accounts Committee system, effectively maintaining gubernatorial oversight over council finances despite the Supreme Court’s unambiguous directive.
The Central Bank of Nigeria outlined clear procedures for councils to access direct allocations, requiring each of the 774 local governments to open dedicated accounts with the apex bank and submit verified banking details to the Federation Accounts Allocation Committee. Under the framework, FAAC would then credit allocations directly to individual councils, bypassing state government control entirely. The Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit was tasked with monitoring fund utilisation to prevent diversion and corrupt practices.
Yet there is no publicly available evidence that any significant number of local governments have opened the required CBN accounts or begun receiving allocations directly from FAAC. Instead, the State-Local Government Joint Account structure, which the Supreme Court sought to dismantle, persists across the country in various guises.
In Enugu State, none of the local governments maintains a CBN account for receiving monthly federal allocations. Although council chairmen insist they receive their statutory shares, these funds continue to flow through the state’s Joint Allocation Accounts Committee, where representatives of both state and local governments jointly determine disbursement. Governor Peter Mbah recently declared during a visit by members of the Achi Community in Oji River Local Government Area that he does not remove “a kobo from the allocations coming to local governments in the state.”
A serving local government chairman in Enugu, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described it as “an honour to serve under Mbah,” adding that the governor had “allowed us to apply our resources in the best way possible for the overall development of the state.” The chairman said “individual management of resources has boosted development and empowered our people.”
However, these assertions of autonomy are contradicted by recent developments. The 17 local government chairmen in Enugu State reportedly granted a power of attorney to the state government, through the Board of Internal Revenue, authorising it to collect and manage both tax and non-tax revenues of the councils. These include taxes, levies, fees, charges and penalties, with the board expected to remit an agreed percentage of revenue into designated local government accounts at specified intervals.
The situation in Imo State follows a similar pattern. Findings indicate that local government allocations from the Federation Account are paid directly to the governor, who then disburses only funds for salaries and minimal running costs to the 27 council chairmen. Sources revealed that the councils have not dealt with the CBN directly, and that rural road contracts in the state are still awarded by the governor, further demonstrating the concentration of power and resources at the state level.
In Kwara State, a resident of Irepodun Local Government disclosed that allocations are still paid into the JAAC account, where councils deliberate on disbursement after salaries are settled. Lagos State operates a similar arrangement, with allocations for the 20 local governments paid through JAAC, and a joint committee of state and council representatives determining how funds are shared among the 20 local government areas and 37 Local Council Development Areas. However, a credible source suggested that the Lagos State government rarely interferes with council allocations, distinguishing its approach from more heavy-handed interventions observed elsewhere.
A serving commissioner in Kaduna State confirmed that the government releases full allocations to local governments but could not verify whether councils have opened the required CBN accounts. Cross River State continues to operate a joint account with its local government councils and has yet to commence direct payment of allocations to councils.
In Osun State, sources disclosed that local governments have not opened CBN accounts or received allocations directly from FAAC. One source explained that Governor Ademola Adeleke is still sourcing funds to pay councils, pending resolution of a lingering local government crisis between the state and the Federal Government. Similarly, investigations in Ondo, Ogun and Ekiti states show that councils remain under the JAAC system, largely due to the existence of LCDAs, with none of the councils receiving allocations autonomously.
When contacted on the matter, a local government chairman in Bauchi State declined to comment, dismissing the inquiry as “disrespectful,” a response that underscores the sensitivity surrounding the issue and the reluctance of some officials to engage with public scrutiny on council autonomy.
The persistent resistance to full implementation stems in large part from unresolved contradictions embedded in Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, which governors have exploited to justify their continued dominance over local government affairs. At the centre of this constitutional quagmire is Section 7(1), which simultaneously guarantees “a system of local government by democratically elected local government councils” while empowering state governments to legislate on the structure, composition, finance, and functions of those same councils. This internal contradiction has provided governors with the legal basis to argue that local governments, despite their constitutional recognition, remain subject to state control.
Financial control represents the most contentious battleground. Section 162(6) establishes the State Joint Local Government Account, while Sections 162(7) and (8) grant state governments and Houses of Assembly authority to determine how council funds are distributed. Although the Supreme Court ruled that allocations must now flow directly to councils, governors maintain that the Constitution still recognises the joint account system, creating a legal ambiguity that has slowed compliance.
This constitutional loophole explains why several governors have delayed implementation. For decades, governors have used local government funds to finance state projects and maintain political structures. Direct allocation threatens to strip them of this leverage, fundamentally altering the balance of power and patronage that has characterised Nigerian politics since the return to civilian rule in 1999.
The Constitution further undermines local autonomy by providing inadequate protection for council functions. The Fourth Schedule assigns responsibilities including primary education, markets, waste disposal, and local roads to local governments. Yet the same Constitution provides no sanction when states encroach on these functions. In numerous states across the federation, governors have assumed control over primary education and local revenue sources, effectively reducing councils to little more than salary-paying units with minimal developmental impact.
Another contentious grey area concerns the constitutional status of local governments themselves. While councils are listed in the First Schedule, Section 8 allows states to initiate the creation of new local governments, subject to federal ratification. This provision has fuelled arguments that councils are creations of the states rather than constitutionally guaranteed entities, enabling governors to dissolve elected councils or restructure them through state legislation.
Gubernatorial control is further reinforced through the conduct of council elections. Section 197 establishes State Independent Electoral Commissions to conduct local government polls. In practice, however, SIECs are appointed and funded by state governments, making them answerable to governors rather than independent arbiters of electoral integrity. The result has been one-party sweeps in council elections across most states, with chairmen owing primary loyalty to governors rather than the residents they purport to represent.
A former local government chairman in Lagos, who requested anonymity, told The Guardian that council autonomy remains cosmetic. “Even if funds come directly, governors still decide who becomes chairman. Once you control the election, you control the council,” he said, articulating a view widely shared among observers of local government affairs.
The Constitution’s silence on caretaker committees has further empowered governors. Although Section 7 guarantees elected councils, it does not expressly prohibit the appointment of caretakers, allowing governors to rule councils through appointed loyalists for prolonged periods without constitutional sanction.
While the National Assembly has vowed to enforce the Supreme Court ruling and President Bola Tinubu has warned of possible executive action, observers argue that constitutional reform remains the only sustainable solution. Until Sections 7, 162, and 197 are amended to clearly define local governments as an autonomous tier with independent elections and finances, governors’ resistance is likely to persist, leaving council autonomy trapped between judicial pronouncements and constitutional contradictions.
Implementation of the judgment was scheduled to begin in January 2025, yet by December of that year, compliance remained largely stalled nationwide. As of December 2025, there is no verified number of local governments currently enjoying full autonomy in practice. Across most states, council funds remain under gubernatorial control, with administrative bottlenecks, resistance from state executives, and new conditions reportedly introduced by financial regulators slowing progress. While isolated claims of partial compliance have emerged from a handful of states, there is no official confirmation of direct allocation to councils on a broad scale.
Verified data from FAAC showed that a total of N4.9 trillion was disbursed from the Federation Account to the 774 local governments between January and November of last year. Yet there is no concrete evidence that those allocations reached councils directly, raising serious questions about transparency and accountability in the management of public resources meant for grassroots development.
Another grey area, yet to be independently verified, is whether most councils have had the institutional capacity and political courage to open the direct accounts required for receiving allocations, or whether informal pressures from state governments have discouraged such steps.
Stakeholders across the political spectrum have expressed alarm at the continued non-implementation. President Bola Tinubu, whose administration approached the Supreme Court through the Attorney General to seek the landmark judgment, recently threatened to enforce council autonomy by directing that allocations be paid directly to local governments, bypassing the states entirely.
Addressing governors, the President said: “Now that you have the local government elections and you know those elected, you must be responsible for their survival. The Supreme Court has capped it for you; give them their allocation directly. If you wait for my Executive Order, I have the knives and the yam. I will cut it before FAAC does the arithmetic. We know the percentage, and I will send it directly to the local governments.”
The President warned that he was exercising restraint and showing understanding with the governors, but made clear that he retained the authority to begin implementing the apex court judgment unilaterally if voluntary compliance was not forthcoming.
A stalwart of the ruling All Progressives Congress, Jamiu Ekungba, identified the capacity and preparedness of council managers as a major challenge facing implementation. While expressing confidence in President Tinubu’s determination to push the policy through, Ekungba said: “The argument of some state governors that we interacted with is that the level of politicking at the local government, as it is now, needs a lot of reorientation and training of those you want to trust with this volume of money because of accountability. Otherwise, 70 per cent of them will end up in EFCC custody. I do not agree with that anyway, but it is a valid point.”
Ekungba stressed that the state and federal governments must collaborate to provide necessary training, reorientation, and support for local government administrators to understand the responsibility this new autonomy places on them, particularly given the volume of resources involved. He argued that the delayed implementation does not indicate divisions within the ruling party, despite the APC’s control over 28 states. “It is not easy for governors to change. The removal of fuel subsidy and naira unification required courage. When those decisions were taken, stones were thrown at the President. It is now that we realise it was better to do so. Change is not easy,” Ekungba said.
Legal expert and analyst Tope Temokun placed the blame squarely on the desire to maintain power and control rather than on party considerations, noting that governors across party lines have formed a united front to preserve the status quo. Temokun described the refusal to comply with the Supreme Court verdict as anti-party, anti-constitutional, and anti-people. He stressed that the unwillingness to relinquish control over council funds raises fundamental questions about governors’ commitment to transparency and decentralisation, and casts doubt on their readiness to cooperate on broader governance reforms, including tax administration.
Temokun argued that judicial pronouncements alone cannot dismantle decades of captured governance without legislative reinforcement and sustained political will at the federal level.
Elder statesman Chekwas Okorie described the situation as ridiculous, expressing concern that the federal government’s inability to ensure full implementation more than 17 months after securing the judgment was deeply worrying and reflected poorly on the credibility of Nigeria’s constitutional order.
Critical academics at the University of Ibadan attributed Nigeria’s failure to achieve genuine local government autonomy and effectively implement related reforms to a combination of entrenched political interests, weak enforcement mechanisms, and lack of transparency in governance processes.
Legal practitioner Wahab Abdullah explained that governors’ resistance is driven largely by political and financial calculations, with control of grassroots mobilisation and financial resources remaining central to electoral success. He argued that the Supreme Court judgment alone may prove insufficient without accompanying constitutional amendments and clear enforcement guidelines backed by federal authority. Abdullah stressed that cooperation from state governments remains crucial not only for council autonomy but also for the successful implementation of broader tax reforms that depend on functional governance at all levels.
Stakeholders warn that continued non-implementation undermines grassroots development, perpetuates the concentration of power at the state level, and constitutes a direct violation of the Supreme Court order. The impasse raises serious concerns over constitutional compliance and intergovernmental accountability as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, with local government autonomy likely to remain a contentious issue in national political discourse unless decisive action is taken to break the cycle of resistance and non-compliance.
