Why INEC-Controlled Local Elections Could Be the Missing Key to True Local Government Autonomy
Without a generally conducted election—similar to the nationwide elections organised by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)—Nigeria may continue to struggle with achieving genuine political autonomy at the local government level.
As long as state governments retain control over the electoral process for local government elections, the political independence of local councils will remain difficult to achieve. The issue is not simply about where local government funds come from; it is also about who elects the chairman, who gives the mandate and, ultimately, who the chairman feels accountable to.
The argument becomes even more important following the landmark Supreme Court judgment of July 11, 2024, which affirmed that local governments are constitutionally entitled to democratic governance and ordered that funds standing to their credit should be paid directly to democratically elected local government councils rather than being controlled by state governments.
However, financial autonomy alone may not be enough.
Under the existing constitutional arrangement, local government elections are conducted by State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs), while INEC conducts federal and state elections. This creates a fundamental political imbalance because the same state political structure that has enormous influence over local government administration also has control over the electoral machinery that determines who occupies the council offices.
That is why I believe local government elections should be conducted through an independent, nationally standardised electoral process.
There is already a historical precedent.
During Nigeria's transition to democratic rule, INEC conducted the local government elections on December 5, 1998, followed by the governorship and state assembly elections in January 1999. The Carter Center's records of the 1998–99 transition confirm this sequence of elections.
It is important to clarify that the local government election associated with the emergence of many of the politicians of that era was conducted in 1998, not 1999.
One prominent example was the late former Oyo State Governor, Otunba Christopher Adebayo Alao-Akala.
Alao-Akala contested and won the chairmanship of Ogbomoso North Local Government on the platform of the All Peoples Party (APP) and served as chairman from 1999 to 2002. His political rise at the grassroots level eventually became an important foundation for his emergence as deputy governor and later governor of Oyo State.
His story illustrates the political significance of having a chairman with an independent electoral mandate.
A chairman who believes he was elected directly by the people can potentially challenge a governor when necessary because his mandate does not originate from the governor.
The question today is: Can a local government chairman under the present arrangement confidently call the bluff of a governor if their political survival is closely connected to the state-controlled electoral system?
In many circumstances, the answer is likely to be no.
If INEC—or another genuinely independent electoral institution with comparable safeguards—conducted local government elections, the relationship between governors and council chairmen could become considerably more balanced. Chairmen would have a clearer mandate from their constituents, rather than being perceived primarily as products of the state political structure.
It could also make Nigerian politics more dynamic and versatile. Smaller political parties would have a greater opportunity to establish themselves at the grassroots instead of being overwhelmed by the dominant parties controlling state governments.
That said, local government autonomy should not be presented as a magic solution to every developmental problem. Even with full autonomy, local governments cannot possibly complete every road project or solve every infrastructure challenge within their jurisdictions. They still need competent leadership, transparent budgeting, accountability and effective collaboration with state and federal authorities.
The bigger issue is therefore not simply money. It is political independence, electoral credibility and accountability.
The Supreme Court has already taken a major step by affirming the constitutional position that local governments should be democratically governed and should have control over funds allocated to them.
The next major conversation should therefore be about how to guarantee that the people—not state political structures—truly determine who governs them at the grassroots.
Until local government chairmen can confidently say, “I was elected by my people, just as you were elected by yours,” the struggle for genuine local government autonomy may remain incomplete.
0 Comments