A member of the Edo State Assets Verification
Committee, and Chieftain of the All Progressive Congress (APC), Prince Kasim
Afegbua has cautioned the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of
Justice, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, over his comment that the State House of
Assembly has no right to suspend the 18 Local Government Chairmen in the State.
Afegbua said that the judgement of the Supreme Court
particularly on financial autonomy does not expressly cede the powers of the
Houses of Assembly to the Local Government and that of the Legislative house.
Afegbua, in a press statement he signed and made
available to journalists in Benin City, maintained that the AGF issued a fiat
without considering the implications of the law, maintaining that the Edo
Assembly only suspended the activities of the councilmen to enable them to
investigate the finances of the local government and not to remove them as
being speculated in some quarters.
The statement reads, “There are existing Laws for
Local Government Administration across the country enacted by the State Houses
of Assembly, whose powers to make such Laws derive from the 1999 Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“I read the Attorney General of the Federation’s
elocution about the suspension of the Local Government Chairmen in Edo state,
in line with the relevant provisions of the Edo State Local Government Law
2000. I picked holes in the hasty manner the AGF issued a fiat without
considering the implications of the law.
“The Judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on
autonomy of the Local Government particularly financial autonomy, does not
expressly cede the powers of the Houses of Assembly to the Local Government and
that of the Legislative house.
” There are existing Laws for Local Government
Administration across the country enacted by the State Houses of Assembly,
whose powers to make such Laws derive from the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria.
“Edo State Local Government Law was enacted in the
year 2000, in exercise of the powers vested in the House of Assembly as
expressly stated in the 1999 Constitution.
“Therefore, in the discharge of their
responsibilities, Local Governments are guided by the relevant provisions of
such law. In line with the provisions of section 20 of the Edo state Local
Government Act and other provisions, the Governor in consultation with the
House of Assembly expressed concerns over the untoward activities of the
Chairmen and reported same to the House.
“In the exercise of the powers vested in the Assembly,
as contained in the Local Government Act 2000, (as amended), the Assembly
subjected the issue to debate at its plenary, and a majority vote supported the
SUSPENSION of the Local Government Chairmen for a period of two months in line
with the provisions of the law whilst allowing the Speaker of the Legislative
House to take over in Acting capacity.
“The use of the word REMOVE by the AGF is most
ambiguous and unfortunate. What the Edo Assembly did was to SUSPEND the
chairmen to allow for an investigation of their finances while allowing their
Speakers to act in the various LGAs. “Suspension” is different from “Removal”
and the imputation of the AGF that the Chairmen cannot be removed contradicted
what the Edo Assembly has done. Mr AGF sir, the Chairmen have not been REMOVED,
but SUSPENDED. In line with the law, the suspension is to last for two months in
the first instance whilst the investigation into their financial activities by
the Administrative Panel of Inquiry subsists.
“It is misleading therefore for the AGF to rush to
town without taking a judicial notice of the rationale for this decision as
well as the raison d’etre for the action, in the first place. What we have done
in Edo state does not offend the verdict of the Supreme Court with respect to
financial autonomy. The law is what it is; factual, evidential and instructive.
“The Legislative Houses serve as checks and balances
for Local Government chairmen and its administration. After the investigation,
depending on the outcome and findings, some of the chairmen will be restored to
their positions while others may lose their positions.
“It is injurious to our collective psyche for the AGF
to hurriedly conclude that we removed the chairmen instead of stating the real
status of what we have done; suspension. This clarity becomes instructive to
correct the negative impression created by the misplaced outburst of the
Attorney General of the Federation.
“It may interest the Attorney General of the
Federation to take note of the following observations:
a. Are there no laws governing the relationships
between the State Government and the Local Governments? The answer is yes.
b. Has the SC judgment on the financial autonomy of
the LG come to destroy all such laws? The answer is no.
c. To the extent that the Constitution as an organic
law cannot cover every conceivable area of governance, should there not be
other laws to cover areas that the Constitution cannot possibly and practically
cover? The answer is yes.
d. Is it not a time-honoured principle that the
Constitution has not come to destroy other laws but to preserve them, as long
as such other laws do not run contrary to the grains of the Constitution?
“The answer is yes. Is the judgment of the SC on LG
autonomy designed to act as an octopus such that it is meant to frighten the
State government away from situations or circumstances in which the former can
appropriately intervene in the act of the latter, where necessary? Or better
put, does the judgment on LG autonomy mean that the LG can go haywire in the
matter of application of its resources without checks? The answer is no.
“The contention that it is only the Legislative arm of
the LG that can check the Council’s financial recklessness is nebulous and
therefore unconvincing.” He said.
Comments:
Leave a Reply