29th December, 2010
By Francis Abayomi1
The recent dissolution of the executive of local government councils in Ekiti State and the subsequent composition of caretaker committees to oversee the affairs of the councils did not come as a surprise afterall. The action is neither new nor unexpected given the recurrent instability that has pervaded local government administration since 2003. The debates over the appropriateness or otherwise of the sacking of ‘supposedly’ elected local government officials in Ekiti State is however following in the pattern of public debate and popular outcry which have not really added significant value to the much-needed reform in local government administration in Nigeria. The House of Representatives’ meddling in the issue and the divisive intrigues which the action elicited in the Ekiti State House of Assembly are further confirmation of the giddy politicisation that has made nonsense of the democratic aspiration of people at the grassroots.
As would be expected, the overwhelming of PDP by the familiar executive fiat brought to bear in Ekiti State is in tandem with the trend that poses a critical challenge to genuine democratisation of local government administration in Nigeria. Indeed, the PDP should lick its wounds and accept the new twist in good faith, for it neither considered popular governance nor allowed democracy to thrive in the local government councils. It was ill-advised for the PDP to have attempted to resist the dissolution by Governor Fayemi, knowing very well that equity demands clean hands. Be that as it may, however, argument for or against this familiar drama is neither here nor there. For me, it is a road frequently travelled without definite destination, democratically speaking. It is simply unacceptable to reduce the argument in support of dissolution of local government executives to the fact that similar action had been carried out in so and so states and so why not in Ekiti State. To employ this argument is to send a wrong signal and effectively vitiate whatever good intention that must have informed the action of the new regime in Ekiti State. I am sure Governor Fayemi would be embarrassed by such pedantic and business-as-usual brand of argument.
One of the reasons adduced by Governor Fayemi, in a media interview, has to do with security reports about looting and other acts inimical to peace following the change of baton in the leadership of the state. There is no doubt that the sacked local government executives and the PDP would dispute and dismiss the claim by Governor Fayemi. Nevertheless, except there is concrete demonstration of intention to validate the quest for genuine electoral process leading to the emergence of credible democratically elected local government executive committees in Ekiti State in the foreseeable future, the dissolution of the councils and the appointment of caretaker committees would end up as self-serving; a standard which has become prevalent across Nigeria.
It is therefore important to submit, in the interim, that the stature of Governor Fayemi as a progressive comrade would ‘ordinarily’ not make the dissolution the correct and proper thing to do unless the motive is different this time around. For the reason to be justifiable, the process leading to the emergence of substantive local government executive must be a marked departure from the manner through which the sacked ‘elected’ officials emerged. It is now the burden of Fayemi’s administration to convince all stakeholders in Ekiti that proper process for electing new local government executives will commence without much delay and that the government is committed to a fair, free and credible election without prolongation of the stay of the caretaker committees. This appears to me the only convincing argument that could be canvassed in the circumstance.
It is specifically enunciated in Chapter I of the 1999 Constitution (Part II (7)) 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 councilsâ€. Nevertheless, circumstances may warrant the use of caretaker committees to preside over the affairs of a local government pending a properly constituted committee via democratic process. But to resort to the use of caretaker committees without restraint is not only contemptuous of democracy but a flagrant violation of the Constitution. If it could be rightly argued that caretaker committee is not an aberration afterall, it is also not contentious that the 1999 Constitution never envisaged ‘unelected’ caretaker committees administering local governments as a standard that could be tolerated for months, years and oftentimes at the whim and caprices of state governors as has been the case in the past.
Recently, a Kano High Court ruled in support of appointment of caretaker committees for the 44 local government councils in Kano State by Governor Ibrahim Shekarau following the expiration of the three-year tenure of elected executives. But it is instructive that Justice Mato who delivered the judgment also noted that the endorsement of caretaker committees became necessary in the interest of peace and security, which would probably be in jeopardy in the event of a vacuum in the local governments across the state. More importantly, however, Justice Mato also agreed that only democratically elected persons could administer local government councils and consequently ordered Kano State Independent Electoral Commission, KSIEC, to ensure the conduct of election for the emergence of legitimately constituted authorities for the local government councils in Kano State. This is precisely the correct and proper thing to do in the light of the fact that legal action was initiated by the outgoing Vice-Chairman of Rimin Gado Council, Mallam Muhy Magaji, whose three-year tenure expires in December 2010. One can only hope that local government administration in Kano State would sooner than later be under duly elected authorities.
From experience so far, dissolution of ‘elected’ executive committees and appointment of caretaker committees in several states across Nigeria have not in any way proffered concrete solution to manipulation of electoral process at the local government level. Indeed, such actions in the past merely substituted one form of pseudo-democracy for another whenever elections were held. There is also the problem of long period of interregnum, as though democratic imperative in the administration of a constitutionally recognised tier of government could be justifiably put in abeyance for as long as it pleases the government in power. One can only hope, and there is indeed reason to hope, that the situation will be different in Ekiti State. It should be noted that after almost two years into his four-year tenure in Ondo State, local government election is yet to be conducted in the state by the Olusegun Mimiko Labour Party administration. Although it is not unlikely that the crisis in the House of Assembly in Ondo State has contributed to the delay in organising elections into local government councils but again, caretaker committees for a period running to two years is unacceptable if democracy must be sustained by popular democratic engagement at the grassroots. The dissolution of local government committees in Ondo State on the basis of Agagu’s PDP manipulation of the democratic process does not provide any ‘reasonable’ superior justification for caretaker administration for close to two years. In the same vein, select caretaker committees, by any governor, with indeterminable tenure of office would not by any strength of persuasive imagination present a legitimate, valid substitution for the committees that were dissolved on the basis of flawed electoral process.
Local government administration in Nigeria became a big factor in the chess-game of power equation following the expiration of the tenure of local government executives that emerged nationwide in December 1998. The problem began, in 2002 or thereabouts, at the expiration of the ‘controversial’ three-year tenure of the local government executive constituted under the Abdusalami Abubakar transition programme. The controversies that surrounded the duration of tenure of elected local government officials then, has unfortunately snowballed; culminating in local government councils being turned into huge instruments of political manipulation by successive state governors, who are arguably the ‘most powerful’ politicians in Nigeria today. It would be recalled that a long period of interregnum was to pervade local government administration until 2004; after most of the then governors secured their second term in office. What then followed were recurring barefaced manipulations of electoral process at the local government level across the country when the elections were eventually held sometime in 2004 and 2005.
Ever since, the temptation has been to manipulate electoral process at the local government level for personal political advantages of the incumbent governors. Admittedly, the temptation is compelling, politically expedient and attractive given the prevailing political system. This is however where the new governor in Ekiti State faces the challenge of bringing freshness to the system in his own modest way. Given his antecedent, Fayemi definitely has a choice in this matter! It is either Ekiti goes the way of temptation as usual or we see a departure from the sickening standard that has left virtually everyone groping; accepting the farce called democracy at the local government level. So much talk about INEC and the shortcomings in the elections organised by the national election management body, but even the most vociferous platforms of the civil society pretend as though the situation with State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) could be tolerated. If we genuinely care about democratic empowerment in our communities and the indigenous populace, the civil society ought to shift attention in bringing about change with regards to electoral system at the local government level.
The dimension of the crisis in which local government administration is enmeshed requires a holistic rather than isolated attention. It is disturbing that the recent constitutional amendment process failed to tackle this issue headlong. It is important to also note that useful recommendations by previous local government reform initiatives as well as positions canvassed across the country since the constitutional reform efforts began in 2001 have not been accorded required attention to serve as an enduring panacea to the wilful erosion of democratic culture and participatory governance at the grassroots. There is no gainsaying that the consequences of failing to urgently address the problem is grievous for the future of democratic development in Nigeria.
Therefore, if the dissolution in Ekiti State will usher in credible, genuine democratically elected executive committees in the 16 local government areas, it is worth the trouble. However, under the present circumstances, there is no guarantee that subsequent local government elections across the country would be devoid of the familiar Nigerian ‘factor’ that barely tolerates the opposition when it comes to conceding power in free and fair electoral contests. There is abhorrence of fair play in the brand of politics that currently pervades our landscape. There appears to be no standard bearer among our political elites, particularly our governors, when it comes to exemplifying leadership that accommodates the opposition in electoral contests. There is no other aspect of our political life that this predilection has played out more than the electoral system in our local governments. Ekiti State may yet offer a radical departure to serve as a good example that we’ll all love to see. No doubt, the governor would not be able to do this alone without support from other political actors in the state. This can only be possible if there is constructive engagement and demand for transparency by the opposition political parties and vigilance from the civil society.
The practice should no longer be that the more we vent our anger at undemocratic conduct of the opposition, the more likely we showcase our contempt for democracy. Nigerians, no doubt, expect a departure from the usual from the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) government in Ekiti State. Events, beginning from now, would either compel our optimism or confirm our fears in this regard. However, whether subsequent local government elections in the state would be democratic, popular and credible is what no one, except the governor, could probably vouch for. The task is however not that of Governor Fayemi all alone. A  fresh beginning for genuine democracy at the grassroots is a task that must be done, even if it appears challenging for obvious reasons!
Copyright protected by Digiprove © 2010 P.M.News