ADEKANMBI, AUTONOMY AND THE POLITICS OF CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION | Timilehin Kolade
ADEKANMBI, AUTONOMY AND THE POLITICS OF CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION
Abimbola Adekanmbi, the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) governorship candidate in Oyo State, reportedly argued yesterday on Fresh FM 105.9 Ibadan that local government autonomy has never worked and will never work. He further alleged that Senator Sharafadeen Abiodun Alli of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was using the promise of autonomy to manipulate the electorate. Beyond the political exchanges, however, this argument raises a fundamental question about Nigeria’s federalism: does the failure of local government administration amount to proof that local government autonomy is inherently unworkable?
The history of local government administration in Nigeria suggests otherwise. The landmark 1976 reforms under General Olusegun Obasanjo sought to establish local government as a meaningful institution of grassroots development, with defined responsibilities, elected councils and a more structured funding system. The underlying philosophy was straightforward: communities needed institutions capable of identifying their priorities, managing local affairs and delivering services without excessive dependence on distant political authorities.
Subsequent constitutional arrangements, including those of 1979 and 1999, continued to recognise democratically elected local government councils. Yet a persistent contradiction emerged: local governments were assigned responsibilities but often lacked sufficient financial and administrative independence to discharge them effectively. State-level interference, disputes over funding, weak accountability and political manipulation repeatedly undermined the system.
This is precisely why Senator Alli’s position on local government autonomy deserves serious consideration. The argument for autonomy is not that local government chairmen are inherently better administrators or that financial independence will automatically eliminate corruption. Rather, it is that councils cannot be expected to deliver effectively when their authority over resources and decisions is persistently constrained by another tier of government.
The Supreme Court judgment of 11 July 2024 was a significant milestone in this debate. By addressing the constitutional status of local government councils, the dissolution of elected councils and the administration of their allocations, the Court strengthened the legal basis for local government autonomy and direct payment of funds to democratically elected councils. The judgment did not resolve every problem of grassroots governance, but it reinforced the principle that local governments must be able to exercise their constitutionally recognised responsibilities.
Adekanmbi’s reported assertion that autonomy has never worked and will never work conflates two distinct concepts: local government autonomy and local governance. Autonomy concerns the freedom of councils to exercise their lawful powers and manage their affairs without undue interference. Local governance concerns the quality of leadership, accountability, public participation and service delivery. The former creates institutional space for the latter, but does not guarantee it.
A local government may enjoy financial autonomy and still fail because of corruption, incompetence, poor planning or a lack of accountability. Equally, a council may deliver some services despite restrictive state supervision. Neither example proves that autonomy is impossible. Rather, they demonstrate that institutional independence must be accompanied by responsible leadership and effective oversight.
Consequently, the failure of some local governments is not sufficient evidence that autonomy itself is unworkable. A serious critic must identify the specific institutional weaknesses responsible for poor performance and explain why a proposed alternative would produce better results. Declaring that autonomy will never work is a sweeping prediction that requires more than pointing to decades of administrative shortcomings.
If Adekanmbi believes Senator Alli’s advocacy is politically manipulative, he should substantiate that allegation by examining the substance of Alli’s position and demonstrating precisely how it departs from the constitutional and developmental objectives of local government autonomy. Political disagreement is legitimate, but accusations about electoral motives cannot replace a rigorous examination of public policy.
At the same time, Alli’s position must be judged by its practical implications. What mechanisms would ensure transparent management of local government allocations? How would credible elections, independent audits, effective procurement and citizen oversight be guaranteed? How would councils build the administrative capacity to translate financial resources into measurable improvements in the lives of residents? These are the questions that should define the debate.
The objective of autonomy must not be to create powerful local political barons who are insulated from public scrutiny. It should be to bring decision-making, resources and accountability closer to the people. Residents should be able to assess their local leaders through the condition of their roads, the cleanliness of their communities, the management of markets, access to primary healthcare and the responsiveness of local institutions.
Ultimately, the historical trajectory from the 1976 reforms to the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment reveals Nigeria’s continuing struggle to establish effective grassroots governance. That history exposes serious implementation failures, but it does not establish that autonomy is inherently incapable of working.
Local government autonomy is not a magic wand, but neither is it an empty political slogan. It is a constitutional and institutional question central to grassroots democracy. The appropriate response to decades of weak local government performance is to strengthen autonomy, accountability and administrative capacity together, rather than dismiss autonomy as an impossibility.
The debate should therefore move beyond sweeping declarations and political accusations. The real test of any position on local government autonomy is whether it offers a credible path towards more accountable councils, more responsive public services and tangible development at the grassroots.