From Independence to Interference: How Nigeria’s Local Government Elections Lost Their Soul — and Why Reform Is Non-Negotiable
Local government elections in Nigeria were once more than a procedural formality — they were a vibrant expression of grassroots democracy, a platform where political relevance was earned on merit, not dictated by state governors. Today, however, that original purpose has been compromised, leaving a hollow democratic process that restricts choice, shrinks political competition, and undermines the very fabric of local representation.
To understand how Nigeria arrived at this point, we must take a deep dive into the origins of local government democracy, the pivotal changes that eroded its autonomy, and the urgent reforms needed to restore it.
The Early Democratic Roots: Local Government Elections in 1998
Many Nigerians who came of age in the late 1990s remember the historic transition to democratic rule. After years of military governance, the nation was preparing for elections at every level — federal, state, and local — as part of the transition programme under General Abdulsalami Abubakar.
I was a student at the Ladoke Akintola University of Technology (LAUTECH) in 1998, and I vividly recall participating in local government elections that year. For the first time, Nigerians voted simultaneously for council chairmen alongside state and federal representatives. This election was significant not because it was held, but because it reflected an environment where the grassroots truly mattered.
The outcome of those elections was unprecedented: political parties that were relatively insignificant at the national or state level suddenly gained traction at the grassroots. They won council seats and secured leadership in local governments far from the influence of powerful state executives.
When Governors Couldn’t Control Local Governments
One of the most striking aspects of the 1998 local government elections was the independence enjoyed by elected council chairmen. Governors might hold sway at the state capital, but they could not dictate terms at the local level — especially if council chairmen were from rival parties.
One example that stands out in my memory was Alao Akala, who was elected Executive Chairman of Ogbomosho North Local Government on the platform of the All People’s Party (APP) — a party quite distinct from the political affiliation of then-Oyo State Governor Lam Adeshina, who was a member of the Alliance for Democracy (AD).
Despite this political mismatch, Akala governed his council with relative independence. No governor could simply issue directives and expect them to be followed unquestioningly. His impact in Ogbomosho soon drew the attention of influential political figures, including the late godfather of Oyo politics, Chief Lamidi Adedibu, who recognised Akala’s grassroots influence and helped build his political trajectory.
This is a crucial point. With genuine grassroots democracy came powerful leaders who rose from local popularity, not from alignment with governors or state administrators.
The Shift Begins: Obasanjo’s Reforms and Centralisation
After President Olusegun Obasanjo assumed office in 1999, Nigeria’s democratic architecture began to change. One of the most consequential reforms was the restructuring of local governments, particularly how elections were conducted and who controlled them.
Under Obasanjo’s administration, local governments were gradually pulled under the administrative control of state governments. The timing of elections was altered, and State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs) were empowered to organise local government elections — effectively handing governors the authority to control the process.
The effect was immediate and far-reaching: instead of being democratically contested contests, local government elections became extensions of state politics. Governors could influence not only the timing of elections but also the outcomes, aligning council leadership with their preferred party and agenda. This shift effectively diminished the autonomy and distinct political voice of grassroots leadership.
2019 and the Collapse of Genuine Local Democracy
By 2019, the consequences of this centralisation had become stark. Across the 36 states of the Federation, local governments struggled to assert independent direction or authority. Even issues of local service delivery, community development, and grassroots governance depended heavily on the approval, support, or interference of state governors.
Local elections were no longer competitive spaces where multiple parties could thrive. Instead, they became walkovers for candidates aligned with the sitting governors — effectively shrinking the political environment into a one-party system at the grassroots level.
This development did not merely affect political diversity; it eroded the very essence of democratic participation at the community level. Smaller parties lost their foothold, voters felt disenfranchised, and the political landscape became less reflective of the people’s aspirations.
Tinubu’s Ruling on Local Government Autonomy: Progress Blocked
When President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office in 2023, one of the most notable constitutional issues in Nigeria was the demand for local government autonomy — particularly financial independence from state governments. The argument was straightforward: local governments should have the authority to manage their own finances, directly accountable to the people they serve.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of local government autonomy. This was a landmark decision, reaffirming that councils should receive funds directly from the federation account and operate independently of state interference.
However, the implementation of this ruling has faced significant resistance. Many governors have frustrated the spirit and letter of the court’s decision, either through procedural delays, administrative obstacles, or outright refusal to cooperate. As a result, local councils continue to struggle for financial clarity and operational independence, even with a favourable judgment.
A significant part of the problem has been an absence of strong political will from the federal government to enforce the ruling decisively. Some of this reluctance stems from political complexities within the ruling parties, where state executives hold considerable power and influence.
Why the Real Fix Must Go Beyond Funding
Even if local councils were to receive funds directly, the core problem would remain: state governors would still control the electoral process. As long as State Independent Electoral Commissions oversee the conduct of local government elections, governors will have the capacity to manipulate outcomes, install loyalists, and maintain political dominance at the grassroots.
The Supreme Court ruling on autonomy is essential — but it is only a partial fix.
The root cause lies in who organises local government elections, and how those elections are integrated into the national democratic framework. Until this changes, local government will continue to be a political appendage of state power rather than an independent arena for grassroots representation.
A Clear Path to Reform: Integration into the National Election Calendar
The solution lies in re-aligning local government elections with the national electoral calendar, managed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) rather than state commissions. This approach would accomplish several vital reforms:
1. Restoration of Competitive Politics: All registered political parties would have equal opportunity to contest local elections without state interference or bias.
2. Reduction of Rigging and Manipulation: A centralised and impartial electoral body would make it significantly harder for governors to influence outcomes.
3. Re-Empowerment of Local Leadership: When councils are elected independently, they can genuinely represent their communities and serve the public interest.
4. Enhanced Accountability: Elected council chairmen and councillors would be accountable to the electorate, not state executives.
5. Strengthened Federalism: Genuine autonomy at all tiers reinforces Nigeria’s federal system, where power is shared, not monopolised.
Reforms of this magnitude require courage, political will, and commitment from the National Assembly, civil society, and an informed electorate. Electoral reform should not be treated as a secondary issue — it is central to Nigeria’s democratic viability.
Why This Matters for Every Nigerian
Local governments are not ceremonial structures. They are the tier of governance closest to the people. They manage essential services like primary healthcare, rural infrastructure, community development, and local markets. When local governments are weak, beholden to state governors, or politically hollow, ordinary citizens are the ones who suffer first and most.
Restoring genuine local government elections is not just a technical reform — it is a democratic overhaul that can:
strengthen accountability,
enhance political participation,
broaden political representation,
and deepen Nigeria’s federal democratic system.
Conclusion: Local Democracy Isn’t Optional — It’s Foundational
The story of local government elections in Nigeria is not simply about who gets elected where. It is about power, autonomy, representation, and the integrity of the democratic system itself.
From the hopeful elections of 1998, where grassroots leaders emerged based on community trust and relevance, to the compromised, governor-controlled systems of today, Nigeria’s local democracy has lost its way.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on autonomy was a necessary step — but it is not sufficient. True reform demands a national electoral process for local governments, stripped of partisan interference and aligned with democratic principles.
Only then will local governments return to their rightful place: as the people’s voice, at the heart of governance — genuinely, independently, and democratically elected.
0 Comments