THE suspension of Local Government Area (LGA) chairmen and vice chairmen in Edo State has once again drawn national attention to the tension between state and federal authorities over local governance autonomy. The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), has unequivocally declared the suspension unconstitutional and illegal. Speaking in Abuja on December 19, 2024, the AGF stated that the actions of the Edo State government violated the autonomy granted to LGAs by the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment of July 11, 2024.
The crisis began when the Edo State House of Assembly suspended council leaders from all the 18 LGAs for two months, alleging gross misconduct and insubordination. Governor Monday Okpebholo supported the move, directing the affected officials to hand over their responsibilities to their respective legislative leaders. The governor cited their alleged failure to submit financial reports dating back to September 23, 2022, as a justification for his actions. This suspension, however, was swiftly challenged in court. On Friday, December 20, 2024, Justice Efe Ikponmwonba of the Edo High Court issued a mandatory injunction declaring the suspensions null and void, thereby restraining the state government and its agents from interfering in LGA operations pending further deliberation. Despite this clear judicial ruling, Governor Okpebholo and the Edo State House of Assembly have refused to comply, escalating tensions and raising questions about the rule of law in the state.
The defiance of the High Court’s ruling represents a direct challenge to the judiciary and a broader confrontation with President Bola Tinubu’s administration. President Tinubu’s government has prioritised the financial and administrative independence of LGAs, a policy that culminated in the Supreme Court’s July judgment affirming local government autonomy. This decision was widely celebrated as a pivotal step toward addressing the systemic overreach of state governors and strengthening Nigeria’s federal structure. Edo State’s resistance to this policy not only undermines federal authority but also threatens to erode public confidence in governance. The state’s argument that local laws supersede federal mandates directly contradicts the constitutional framework, which places federal supremacy above state statutes.
Governor Okpebholo’s issuance of a 48-hour ultimatum demanding financial reports from LGA chairmen further exacerbated the situation. This demand directly contravenes the financial autonomy guaranteed by the Supreme Court. When the chairmen refused to comply, the governor invoked Section 10(1) of the Edo State Local Government Law (2000) to justify their suspension. However, this section was previously declared unconstitutional by the Edo High Court in a separate ruling, rendering its application invalid. The actions of the Edo State government epitomise a troubling pattern in Nigerian governance, whereby state governors exert undue influence over local government affairs. This often includes attempts to control LGA funds and remove elected officials from opposing parties, typically under the pretext of alleged misconduct. These maneuvers are frequently followed by the appointment of loyalists, consolidating power in a manner that undermines democratic principles and institutional integrity.
Read Also: Lafarge Africa empowers customers with 155 trucks
Edo State’s refusal to comply with judicial and constitutional directives represents a significant threat to governance in Nigeria. Such defiance erodes the authority of the judiciary, weakens the autonomy of local government structures, and challenges the foundational principles of federalism. When state governments ignore clear constitutional provisions and Supreme Court judgments, it signals a dangerous erosion of the rule of law and threatens to destabilise the federal framework upon which Nigeria’s governance is built. The Nigerian Constitution and the Supreme Court have unequivocally affirmed the financial and administrative autonomy of LGAs. State governors lack the legal authority to override this mandate, and any attempt to do so constitutes a blatant violation of the rule of law. The ongoing crisis in Edo State underscores the urgent need for all political actors to respect these constitutional principles and prioritise the preservation of democratic norms.
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on local government autonomy is a pivotal step towards addressing systemic governance flaws in Nigeria. However, its effective implementation demands strict adherence to the rule of law, alongside a commitment to upholding the separation of powers. This crisis also highlights the importance of intergovernmental dialogue and negotiation as a mechanism to resolve disputes, in contrast to the prevalent culture of impunity. If left unresolved, the Edo State crisis risks setting a harmful precedent that could weaken Nigeria’s federal structure and further erode public trust in democratic institutions. The failure to address this issue in alignment with constitutional principles threatens to embolden similar actions across other states, compounding the challenges facing the country’s governance system.
This standoff serves as a critical test of Nigeria’s commitment to justice, accountability and effective governance. Policymakers and stakeholders must recognise the urgent need to reinforce local governance structures, protect judicial authority, and reaffirm the supremacy of the constitution. Strengthening local government autonomy and ensuring accountability at all levels are not only constitutional imperatives, they are also essential for fostering sustainable development and preserving democratic values in Nigeria’s evolving federal system.
The Edo State case should act as a clarion call for reform, demanding decisive action to ensure that the principles of federalism, transparency and the rule of law remain at the core of Nigerian governance. Only through such measures can the country address its systemic challenges and build a more equitable and accountable governance.