By Oghenekaro Awodeha
On Thursday 24th, 2024, The Senate approved a 15 percent deduction from member states’ statutory allocations to fund newly established regional development commissions.
The Senate’s decision to fund these newly created regional development commissions by mandating a 15 percent deduction from state allocations represents a serious violation of state autonomy. While the federal government has taken steps toward decentralization by supporting local government financial autonomy, its move to force states to fund federal commissions undermines its stated commitment to empowering lower levels of government. This double standard in federal governance threatens to erode trust and stability within Nigeria’s federal structure.
By establishing these regional commissions, ostensibly aimed at regional development, the federal government is sidestepping its own fiscal responsibilities and forcing states to finance projects they cannot control. This approach not only strains state budgets but also reveals an alarming double standard: while the federal government appears committed to strengthening local government autonomy, it simultaneously imposes financial burdens on states for federal projects, directly undercutting state sovereignty.
Senate President, Godswill Akpabio’s justification of this funding model as constitutionally valid, alongside his suggestion that “anyone who wishes to challenge it in court is free to do so,” reflects a disregard for the principles of state rights.
This attitude implies that states should meekly accept federal decisions about how their own funds are allocated, even if these decisions conflict with their own local needs or priorities.
The federal government’s recent support for local government financial autonomy was a step in the right direction, signaling a commitment to empowering local entities to address their specific needs.
Local governments can now allocate resources to better address issues directly impacting their communities. However, the decision to force states to fund regional commissions, while retaining centralized federal control over those commissions, contradicts this progress and raises questions about the federal government’s true intentions toward autonomy.
While regional development commissions may benefit the states, they should be funded by the federal government if they are ultimately under federal authority.
Expecting states to shoulder the financial responsibility without significant oversight is hypocritical. The logic here is straightforward: if the federal government genuinely values these commissions, it should fund them directly.
Passing the financial burden to the states, while retaining centralized control, creates an inequitable dynamic that undermines the very principles of federalism and state autonomy.
Akpabio’s argument that the National Assembly has the right to appropriate funds from state allocations is, at best, a selective interpretation.
While Section 162(4) of the 1999 Constitution grants the National Assembly authority over revenue allocation, this power should not be wielded to undermine states’ rights to manage their own resources. The constitution’s intent was never to provide a gateway for federal overreach or to undermine the fiscal independence of states.
State allocations are intended to address each state’s unique needs, and diverting these funds limits states’ ability to respond to critical issues ranging from infrastructure to health and education. When state funds are commandeered by the federal government for projects it controls, urgent local needs are inevitably neglected.
This mandate from the Senate is a blatant violation of state autonomy, a foundational principle in any federal system.
By claiming the authority to allocate state funds at will, the Senate prioritizes federal agendas over the financial independence of states. This is not cooperative federalism but a step toward centralized governance. By directing state funds to federal initiatives without granting states control, the Senate’s actions undermine genuine partnership between federal and state governments.
If these regional commissions are genuinely in the national interest, the federal government should demonstrate its commitment by funding them from federal resources. Passing the financial burden to states without granting them authority is not partnership; it is exploitation.
Ultimately, the Senate’s decision to compel states to fund federally controlled regional commissions stands in stark contrast to its recent move toward local government autonomy.
State autonomy is a cornerstone of Nigerian governance, and the Senate’s actions risk undermining that principle. Rather than fostering regional development, this decision may ultimately weaken the very federal structure it claims to strengthen.
