IMPLICATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Our focus in this chapter is to critically examine relevant literature that would assist in explaining the research problem and furthermore recognize the efforts of scholars who had previously contributed immensely to similar research. The chapter intends to deepen the understanding of the study and close the perceived gaps.

2.1 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW

Concept of Local government

Local Government The concept of local government involves a philosophical commitment to democratic participation in the governing process at the grassroots level. This implies legal and administrative decentralization of authority, power and personnel by a higher level of government to a community with a will of its own, performing specific functions as within the wider national framework. A local government is a government at the grassroots level of administration meant for meeting peculiar grassroots need of the people (Agagu, 1997). It is defined as “government by the popularly elected bodies charged with administrative and executive duties in matters concerning the inhabitants of a particular district or place (Appadorai, 1975). Local government can also be defined as that tier of government closest to the people, “which is vested with certain powers to exercise control over the affairs of people in its domain” (Lawal, 2000:60). ‘

Akpan (1982) defined local government as “the breaking down of a country into smaller units or localities for the purpose of administration in which the inhabitants of the different units or localities concerned play a direct and full role through their elected representatives who exercise power and undertake functions under the general authority of the national or state government” . Barber (1969) defined Local government as authority to determine and execute matters within a restricted area. It becomes clear from the above that the purpose of establishing a local government is to ensure appropriate services and development activities responsible to local wishes and initiatives. Local government operates at the lowest level of society. Bandhu (1967) defined local government as: representative of local inhabitants, more or less autonomous in character instituted under state legislation, in a village, a district, a city or in urban areas to administer services as distinguished from state and central services The jurisdiction of a local government is limited to a specific area, a village or a city, and its functions relate to the provision of civic amenities to the population living within that area.

Clarke (1948) maintains that a “local government appears to be that part of the government of a nation or state which deals mainly with such matters as concern the inhabitants of particular district or place”. According to Rao (1965), Local government is “that part of the government which deals mainly with local affairs, administered by authorities subordinate to the state government, but elected independently of the state authority by the qualified residents. Robson (1949), in a lengthy definition, says that “Local government may be said to involve the conception of territorial, non-sovereign community possessing the legal right and the necessary organization to regulate its own affairs. This in turn pre-supposes the existence of a local authority with power to act independently of external control as well as the participation of the local community in the administration of its own affairs.

Gokhale (1972) definition of local government is very simple. He says that “Local self government is the government of a specified locality by the local people through the representatives elected by them. Venkatarangaiya and Pattabhiram (1969) defined local government as the administration of a locality, a village, a town, a city or any other area smaller than the state by a body representing local inhabitants, possessing a fairly large amount of authority, raising at least a part of its revenue through local taxation and spending its income on services which are regarded as local and, therefore, as distinct from state and central services.

Historical Background Of Local Government System In Nigeria

The study of the development of local government as a tier of government in Nigeria will not be meaningful, if it is not preceded by an examination of the philosophical consideration underlying the local government system (Alex, 1987). The structure, composition and functions of local government are influenced by the political beliefs of those who have the authority and responsibility for determining the main features of the local government system. This relationship between values or political beliefs and structure for the distribution of powers in society has been argued by Stanley Hoffmann (1959:113) as he wrote: any preference for a certain scheme of area division of powers presupposes a decision on the ends for which power is to be exercised – a decision on the values power should serve and on the ways in which these values will be served.

Regardless of nomenclature, local government is a creation of British colonial rule in Nigeria. It has overtime experienced change in name, structure and composition; Between 1930s and 1940s, for instance, local government was known as chief-in-council and chief-and-council, where traditional rulers were given pride of place in the scheme of things. In the 1950s, election was introduced according to the British model in the western and eastern parts of the country with some measure of autonomy in personnel, financial and general administration (Nwabueze, 1982). It was on this premise that the rising tide of progress, growth and development experienced in the local governments in these areas was based. During this period, heterogeneity was the hallmark of local government as there was no uniformity in the system and the level of development was also remarkably different. The introduction of 1976 reforms by military administration of General Obasanjo brought about uniformity in the administrative structure of the system. The reforms introduced a multi-purpose single tier local government system (Ajayi, 2000).

The reforms also introduced population criterion under which a local government could be created. Consequently, a population of within 150,000 to 800,000 was considered feasible for a local government. This was done to avoid the creation of non-viable local council and for easy accessibility. There was provision for elective positions having the chairman as executive head of local government with supervisory councilors constituting the cabinet. This was complemented by the bureaucrats and professionals, such as Doctors, Engineers etc who were charged with the responsibility of implementing policies (1976 Guidelines). In 1991, a major landmark reform was introduced as the system had legislative arm. In addition, the Babangida administration increased the number of local government from 301 in 1976 to 453 in 1989 and 589 in 1991, the Abacha regime also increased the number to 774 local councils that we have today and the administrative structure also underwent some changes (Ajayi, 2000). In summary, it can be said that no public institution in Nigeria has been so subjected to frequent reforms than local government.

Overview of Local Government Administration in Nigeria

The 1999 Constitution has amendment process by National Assembly vexing issue of local government financial autonomy to the attention of Nigeria’s political arena. Reforms of local government administration have been emerged since independence . The first and second military interventions of 1966 and 1976 respectively, and the subsequent restructuring of the country from four regions to twelve states, has witnessed several other restructurings, which have culminated into 36 states and 774 local governments. The states and local governments differ markedly in size, resources and ethnic compositions (Akpan&Ekaneu, 2013). However, these marked differences did not stop the military from introducing a unified local government system in 1976, and officially declaring localgovernment as the third tier of government with specific functions and responsibilities. The decree that declared local government as the third tier of government was included in the 1979 constitution and 1999 constitution. The local government reforms initiated from 1986 to 1992Babangida military administration which is the most remarkable of all the reforms of local government we ever had. The reforms were remarkable for repositioning local government administration in Nigeria. The reform signified and amplified the issue of local government financial autonomy by ensuring that local government got their financial allocation directly from the federation account. The reform also abrogated the Ministry of Local Government and introduced the legislative and executive arms of government to the local government system in Nigeria. The reform went ahead to tacitly freed the local governments financially from the apron string of the state governments. Unfortunately, rather than maintaining the gains of the military administration, successive administrations after the regime further emasculated both the administrative and financial autonomies of the local government. This is one consequence of political instability. Consequently, just like the local governments were seriously abused financially and administratively.

Concept of Rural Development

The concept of rural development in Nigeria lacks a unified definition as different scholars tend to view it from varying perspective. Some scholars look at rural development from the aspect of educational training like Haddad (1990), and Hinzen (2000). Obinne (1991) perceived rural development to involve creating and widening opportunities for individuals to realize full potential through education and share in decision and action which affect their lives. Others like Olayide, Ogunfowora, Essang and Idachaba (1981) view rural development as means for the provision of basic amenities, infrastructure, improved agriculture productivity and extension services and employment generation for rural dwellers. Olatunbosun (1976), Williams (1978), Lele (1979), Idachaba (1980) and Ogunfiditimi (2000) viewed rural development from various perspectives. However, there is a consensus among them about the need for improvement in rural living conditions and standard of living of the rural populace. Olatunbosun (1976) stated that rural development is based on the need to balance the pattern and direction of government for the benefit of both the urban and rural sectors and provide technical requirements for speeding up economic growth in the development. Sartaj, A.(1978). viewed rural development from various perspectives. However, there is a consensus among them about the need for improvement in rural living condition and standard of living of the rural populace. Olatunbosun (1976) stated that rural development is based on the need to balance the pattern and direction of government for the benefit of both the urban and rural sectors and provide technical requirements for speeding up economic growth in the development. Adelemo (1987) sees the concept of rural development to include resettling displaced communities or adopting new types of housing unit. He continues that rural development should include alongside land-use development, economic factors such as land carrying capacity for each area of farmland, irrigation improved farming method and finance. The objective of the National Policy on

Rural development as outlined by Ogbazi (1992) encapsulates an ideal situation of an acceptable level of development in the rural area. These objectives can be paraphrased to include:  Promotion of the social, cultural, educational and economic well being of the rural population, promotion of sustained and orderly development of the vast resources in the rural area for the benefit of the rural people.  Increase in and diversification of job opportunities and improvement of income in the rural areas  Mobilization of the rural population for self-help and self-sustaining programme of development, and  Up-lifting of the technological based industries in the rural area.

Rural development is a concept that is used to describe a strategy that is designed to improve the economic and social life of the people in the rural areas. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) sees rural development as a process of socio-economic change, involving the transformation of agrarian society, in order to reach a common set of development goals, based on the capacities and the needs of the people (Owo, in Nwosu, 2007, p. 305). To Anibueze, in Nwosu, Aliede and Nsude (2005, p. 36), rural development is a strategy that is designed to improve the economic and social conditions of a specific group of people, that is, the rural people. It involves extending the benefits of development to the poorest, among those who seek a livelihood in the rural areas. Rural development in general, is used to denote the actions and initiatives taken to improve the standard of living in non-urban neighbourhoods, countryside and remote villages. These communities can be exemplified with a low ratio of inhabitants to open space. As earlier noted, rural areas are such areas in a country that lack necessary social amenities and infrastructures which are necessary for good living. Thus, there is the need for advancement and growth in these rural areas. The process of bringing about this advancement and growth in the rural areas is what is referred to as rural development. Anaeto and Anaeto (2008, p. 1) observe thus: Rural development is a subset and an important part of national development. The idea and concern for rural development stems from the fact that majority of the people in the developing countries reside in rural areas. And the fact that development of the nation cannot be achieved without the development of the rural areas. Even the developing countries have recently come to realise that unless the rural areas are well-developed, hardly would any meaningful development occur in these countries. The above assertion implies that rural development is part of national development, because when rural communities are not fully developed, the objectives of national development cannot be achieved. No country can boast of development when its rural communities have not been positively affected. This perhaps explains why Moemeka (1985, p. 9) explains that rural community education entails all activities like social, economic, educational, political and cultural, which touch on the lives of rural communities, knowledge of which is essential to purposeful living and progress. Onabajo, cited in Anaeto and Anaeto (2010) say that rural development entails interventions aimed at improved productivity, increased employment/ incomes for the target groups, as well as, minimum acceptable levels of food, shelter, education, health and housing. Rural development according to Anaeto and Anaeto (2010) is a subset and an important part of national development. The idea and concern for rural development stems from the fact that majority of the people in the countries reside in the rural areas. Rural development efforts attempt to bring about self reliance in the rural communities in a country. New practices, ideas, innovations and methods, are introduced and when the rural dwellers accept these practices, it leads to economic gains.

Role of Local Government in Rural Development

Local government is the focus of government efforts at promoting development. It becomes obvious overtime that to effectively develop, the people must be adequately mobilized. A purposeful combination of the local (peoples) effort/energies with that of government with the objective of improving socio-economic conditions and encouraging political participation is a key factor in rural development. It represents the objective expression of the energies of mobilized rural communities in concrete and tangible projects such as roads, clinics, schools, potable water and other communal initiatives that benefit the people. This chapter seeks to examine the role local government plays in rural development.

In Nigeria, past centralized development efforts embarked upon had resulted into failure to benefit the rural people yet, these people cannot be neglected for its enormity. For instance, in Nigeria, the population of people residing in rural areas in few selected states is : Rivers 86.16%, Anambra 80:85%, Bauchi 76:8%, Oyo 37:84% , Ondo 25.8%, Kano 89:6%, Sokoto 38:7% Kwara 52.0%, Plateau 69:0%, Ogun 68:3% and Gongola 71:5% (Olojede,1991). It has therefore been realized that rural development must constitute a major part of a development strategy if a large segment of those in greatest need are to benefit since most programmes embarked upon by the central and state governments. have failed in this areas; then local government becomes the next agent to fall on for development.

The roles of local government in rural development are:

Education: Local governments through their local education districts have been responsible for the construction, maintenance and staffing of primary schools in their respective areas. Also, it is responsible for the payment of salaries for teaching and non – teaching staff in primary schools.

Transportation: The provision of transportation has gone a long way to enhance the status of Nigerian local governments. These local governments have set up diverse mass urban transit scheme to help to transport their staff and also act as a source of revenue generation for local governments.

Public Toilet: Local governments are not left out in the maintenance of good hygienic culture. They embark on the construction of public toilet for their people.

Water Supply: Local governments embark on digging of bore holes in the rural areas, this has greatly improved the hygiene nature of the people in these rural communities.

Medical and Health: These include the provision, maintenance and administration of dispensaries, maternity and health centres. The increase in the revenue allocation to local governments has been helping in the maintenance of these medical and health services.

Law Enforcement: Customary courts of Grades A, B and C and setup in different local government areas. These courts deal with Civil cases suchas divorce, defaulters and issuing of certificate of marriage Nehru (1996) emphasized the role of local government as the basisof any true system of democracy. According to him, the role of local government includes the following;

Grass-root democracy: Local government provides scope for democracy at the grass – root level. If direct democracy can still be practicable, it is only at this level, otherwise democracy at the state or national level has become only indirect type.

Serves as a training School: Local government is an excellent ground for creating and training future leaders. The participation of people at the local level in the management of their own affairs, gives them necessary experience to handle bigger affairs later at the state or national level.

Encourages participation of the people in public affairs: Local government affords opportunity to the people to participate in public affairs. It has become impracticable for common people to participate in public affairs at the state or national level.

Reduces the burden of the central government: Local government in a way acts supplementary to the central government. No doubt historically the local government is prior to the state or national government, but with the passage of time many important functions got transferred to the central government.

Serves as a channel of communication: The local government serves as two-way channel of communication between itself and the central government .Desires and aspirations of the local community are articulated and carried upward to the state government, and plans and programmes of the state and the central governments flow in the reverse direction.

Vital for national progress: Local government promotes diversity of experience and creative activity through democratic action. Thus, it contributes to national progress through resilience, strength and richness of democracy.

Concept of Autonomy

Autonomy in generic term implies freedom, independent, free from external and remote control. In the context of Local Government in Nigeria, there is a great deal of confusion and misinterpretation as to what the term ‘autonomy’ connotes. This is because, government reforms that is intended to preserve or extend Local Government autonomy ends up short of their objectives because the full meaning of the term ‘autonomy’ has not been fully explained (Odunfa, 1991). The focus of this chapter is to examine the concept of local government autonomy, the problems associated thereof and the implication of these problems of primary educations.

Local Government Autonomy

In the view of polemical interpretations, the term Local Government autonomy is perceived as local self government or grassroots democracy. This grassroots democracy is primarily aimed at giving the vast majority of the people the fullest opportunity to participate in determining their own destiny. But it is obvious that we cannot have complete autonomy or complete local self-government within sovereign states. If Local Governments were completely autonomous they would be sovereign states.

Within a federal system of government, Nwabueze (1983) defines autonomy to mean that “each government enjoys a separate existence and independence from the control of the other governments”. It is an autonomy which requires not just the legal and physical existence of an apparatus of government like a legislative assembly, Governor, Local Government departments, etc. But that each government must exist not as an appendage of another government but as autonomous entity in the sense of being able to exercise its own will in the conduct of its affairs free from direction of another government. Nwabueze, therefore, concluded that autonomy would only be meaningful in a situation whereby each level of government is not constitutionally bound to accept dictation or directive from another.

In the view of the defunct Centre for Democratic Studies, Local Government autonomy refers to “the relative discretion which Local Governments enjoy in regulating their own affairs”. That is, the extent to which Local Government are free from the control of the State and Federal Governments in the management of local affairs. In his contribution on the literature of autonomy, Davey (1991) opines that “Local autonomy is primarily concerned with the question of responsibilities, resources and discretion conferred on the local authorities. As such discretion and responsibility are at the core of Local Government”. It presumes that Local Government must possess the power to take decisions independent of external control within the limits laid down by the law. It must garner efficient resources particularly of finance to meet their responsibilities. Put differently, local autonomy is the freedom of independence in clearly defined issue, areas, as well as separate legal identity from other levels of government.

In the light of the above, the 1976 Local Government Reforms emerged by introducing a unified system, autonomy, and officially declaring Local Government as the third tier of government with specific functions. The decree that declared Local Government as the third tier of government was included in the 1979 constitution (and much later the 1999 constitution), and can be found in the fourth schedule of the 1999 constitution. Hence, several Local Government reforms have been initiated by successive governments to ensure that they are achieved (Olowu, 1984).

It should be noted that, the debate on Local Government autonomy focuses on what powers and functions the central or state government should grant to the local units within the political system (Clark, 1984). Pertinent is the, earlier stated, 1976 Local Government Reforms which gave us not only the definition of Local Government, but also the basic rudiments of Local Government autonomy.

Unfortunately, rather than build on the gains of the administration, successive administrations after the Babangida regime further emasculated both the administrative and financial autonomies of the Local Government. Consequently, just like the Local Governments were seriously abused financially and administratively during the military era before and after the Babangida administration, Local Governments have suffered similar fate, from 1999 when the country returned to civil governance to date (Felix & Okonette, 2013).

These abnormalities were subtly addressed by the 1999 Constitution in a phony manner. Section 162, Subsection (6) of 1999 constitution states that "each state shall maintain a special account to be called "State Joint Local Government Account" into which shall be paid such allocations to the Local Government councils of the State from the Federation Account and from the Government of the State." It went further under the same Section 162, Subsection (7) that "each state shall pay to the Local Governments in its area of jurisdiction such proportion of its revenue on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly." (Federal Republic Constitution, 1999). While Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the state legislature to make laws for the administrative operation of Local Government areas. However, these provisions have become the ammunition used by some state governors to incapacitate Local Governments within their states. It was rightly corroborated that the failure of Local Government in area of service delivery is the role of the state governors in the affairs of Local Government (Adeyemi, 2013). It is doubtful if proposed amendment to section 7 and 162 of the 1999 Constitution will succeed, since it requires 2/3 majority votes of members of the National Assembly and 1/3 majority votes of members of the 36 Houses of Assembly (state legislatures) in the country.

The measures on Local Government make it impossible for Local Government to operate independent of both federal and state governments. The policies include the institution of Ministry of Local Government (but abolished in Babaginda’s reform of 1986-1992), Local Government Service Commission, Caretaker Committee and appointment of a Sole Administrator to oversee the activities of Local Government. Others include Office of the Special Adviser to the Governor on Local Government and Community Affairs, the Senate and House of Representative Committees on Local Government matters, the State Houses of Assembly Committee on Local Government matters (Federal Republic Constitution: 1999).

State Government interference in Local Government Administration

The degree of interference on the activities of Local Government remains alarming. The governors are fond of taking over their financial allocation, taxes, counterpart funding and refuse to conduct Local Government elections, instead ruling Local Governments with appointed administrators, most of whom are party loyalist, friends and relations, thereby turning the entire process of Local Government into an ineffective institution (Ukonga, 2012). There have been instances where state governors unconstitutionally dissolve the entire elected council officers without proper recourse and due process (Eboh and Diejomaoh, 2010). As soon as a new governor comes into office, one of the first actions is to dissolve the existing local councils, whether elected or caretaker (Abutudu, 2011).

This is pertinent to the case of River State which started on July 21, 2015. Immediately the Governor, Ezebunwo Nyesome Wike, assumed office, he dissolved 22 out of the 23 Local Government councils in the state based on the verdict obtained from Justice Lambo Akanbi of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt (The Leadership, 2016). Thereafter, the governor has been changing Local Government caretaker committees like a chameleon institution. For example, 17 Local Government caretaker committees that were inaugurated by Governor Nyesom Wike on May 9, 2016 were dissolved by himself on September 1, 2016. Subsequently, 20 new Local Government caretaker chairmen that were appointed by the state governor were screened by the Rivers Assembly on October 6, 2016 (Vanguard Newspaper, 2016).

In many cases, caretaker-ship is perpetuated through promises of elections which are invariably postponed. This has been the case in Lagos, Oyo, Benue, and others (Premium, 2016; Daily, 2016; Queen, 2016). The outright denial of democratically elected local councils through caretaker committees demonstrates the increasing authoritarian holds of the councils by state governors. As such, most state governors never bothered to conduct Local Government elections. For instance, as at 2009, Anambra state had not held any local council elections since the return to civil rule in 1999 until January 11, 2014 when the first Local Government elections, under the fourth republic, was conducted (Daily, 2014; Nkwocha, 2009). The high level of interference by state governors on Local Government affairs was also expressed by Khaleel quoted in Adeyemi (2013) when he observed thus: There is no state of the federation of Nigeria where one form of illegality or the other is not committed with funds of Local Government, through over deduction of primary school teacher’s salary, spurious state/Local Government joint account project, sponsoring of elections, taking over the statutory functions of Local Government and handling them over to cronies and consultants, non-payments of pensioners and non-utilization of training fund despite the mandatory deduction of stipulated percentages for these purposes… nine states out of the 36 states of the federation have elected representatives running the affairs of their Local Governments. This is central to the whole problem because it is by planting stooges called caretaker committee, who neither have the mandate of the people nor the moral strength to resist the excruciating control of the state government that perpetuates the rot.

This undue interference has incapacitated Local Government from effective functioning and alienated grassroots people from enjoying social service delivery expected of Local Governments in Nigeria (Agba, Akwara, & Idu, 2013). Consequently, Local Governments now functions mostly as extension of state governments (Eboh & Diejomaoh, 2010; Ajibulu, 2012). The inherent consequence of this problem, according to Adeyemi (2013) is that Local Government has to wait for the next directives from state government before embarking on any developmental project. This has made Local Government an object of control and directives of a higher level of government.

The import of the above is that there are different dimensions of interference by state governors on Local Government administration in Nigeria. The first is the fiscal interference by the state governors. This problem stems from the fact that the Nigerian constitution does not totally grant financial autonomy to the Local Government. The second dimension is the political interference. The constitution does not provide adequately for the political autonomy of the Local Governments in Nigeria. For instance, it does not provide specifically for the constitution of the Local Government council to be solely through democratic elections, for the specific tenure of the Local Government political office holders, for the Local Governments to derive their full existence directly from the constitution of the Federal Republic and for the specific powers and functions of the Local Government (Azelama, 2008; Ezeani, 2012; Chukwuemeka et al., 2014).

The Implications of the Joint Account System on Local Government Fiscal Autonomy and service delivery

The research reveals the following;

1. The laws made by the State houses of Assembly to bring the State Joint Local government Account (SJLGA) into force are usually tilted to favour ends thereby compounding the already distressed financial positions of the councils.
2. The key officers of the Joint Account Committee set up by the State governor are state government representatives who function on the directive of the State Chief Executives with little or no control form the Council Chairmen who are the statutory owners of the fund as the chief accounting officers of their Local Governments.
3. Most of the Local Government councils were not even represented in the Joint Account Allocation Committee (JAAC).
4. The Council who are the chief accounting officers of their respective Local Governments were never briefed as to how much accrued to their councils monthly from the Federation Account before sharing.
5. Substantial amounts of the allocations from FAAC to each of the Local Government Councils were deducted at source in the name of Joint projects or any other contrived reasons. F
6. The council chairmen who picked up the courage to protest over the unwarranted deductions from their councils’ statutory allocation were threatened and some were even sacked from their positions for daring to query the activities of the joint Account Allocation Committee (JAAC) by the State Governors.
7. State governments that are constitutionally required to fund local government councils have instead used the SJLGA provisions to hold local governments hostage and make them mere appendages of the stat thereby practically denying the local government councils their financial autonomy (Okafor, 2010). This study shows that the Revenue Allocations that accrued to Local Government Councils in the States were not only deducted at source but that they were in some occasions totally withheld by the State Government through the Joint Account Committee