Direct LG Funding: Only Constitution Amendment Can Override S’Court’s Order, Says Ozekhome
Prominent constitutional lawyer, Professor Mike Ozekhome, SAN, has emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling, which mandates the direct payment of monthly allocations to all 774 Local Government Areas, is binding and can only be overturned through a constitutional amendment. Ozekhome, a well-known human rights advocate, asserted that the ruling is clear and should be implemented without delay.
Ozekhome explained that only an amendment to the Constitution under Section 9 could override the Supreme Court’s decision. He stressed that no individual or authority has the right to disregard or selectively follow the judgement. Referring to a landmark 2007 case, he noted that court orders must be obeyed, whether deemed valid or not, until they are overturned. This, he said, is the essence of the rule of law.
In a statement issued on Thursday in Abuja, Ozekhome reiterated that the Supreme Court correctly interpreted Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution, which was the basis for its decision. He noted that some have questioned whether the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 162(3), (4), (5), and (6) was accurate and what should be done about a potentially flawed judgement.
Ozekhome responded by stating that law is defined by judicial interpretation, not merely by its text. He emphasized that the law remains dormant until it is brought to life through court interpretation. As such, the interpretation provided by the Supreme Court regarding the allocation procedures between the federal government, states, and local governments is what prevails, not the literal wording of the Constitution.
On the enforceability of the ruling, Ozekhome cited Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that Supreme Court decisions must be enforced across the federation by all authorities and subordinate courts. He argued that even if the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 162 regarding the State Joint Local Government Account was flawed, the judgement remains binding and must be adhered to by all.
Ozekhome asserted that court decisions must be obeyed, regardless of whether they are considered logical or well-researched, unless overturned by a higher court or amended by the Legislature. Given that no court is higher than the Supreme Court of Nigeria, only a constitutional amendment by the National Assembly under Section 9 can supersede the judgement. He referenced a famous declaration by the late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, noting that the Supreme Court’s decisions are final, not because they are infallible, but because they are the final authority.
Regarding the implementation of the Supreme Court’s judgement, Ozekhome suggested that the federal, state, and local governments should convene at the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) to establish procedures for directly paying allocations to the local governments, bypassing the State Joint Local Government Account, which is often misused by state governors. He noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling aimed to address this issue, and in his view, it did so effectively and clearly.
The statement concluded by affirming that the Supreme Court unequivocally declared that funds allocated to local governments from the Federation Account should be distributed and paid directly to them, with states having no authority to manage or disburse these funds. The Court also issued injunctive orders preventing state governors and their agents from interfering with these allocations and ordered immediate compliance by all parties involved. Ozekhome underscored that the judgement’s directives are clear and must be followed without delay by the federal government, states, and local governments.
