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.
