The seven-member panel of justices held that the state governments have continued to abuse their powers by retaining and using the funds meant for LGAs.
The apex court also ordered the federal government to withhold allocations of LGAs governed by unelected officials appointed by the governor.
Reacting to the judgement via a post on his X page, Ibori opined that the judgement is an assault and a setback on true federalism.
He argued that the court’s verdict contravenes section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution.
The former governor said the federal government “has no right to interfere with the administration of LGAs under any guise whatsoever”.
He said the ruling would have “far-reaching” implications, such as “erosion of state autonomy” and centralising “more power to the centre,” among others.
Ibori wrote, “The supreme court has dealt a severe setback on the principle of federalism as defined by section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
“The section expressly provides thus: ‘Any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the Local Government Councils in each State on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly’.
“Sections 6 provide further clarity on the subject matter: ‘Each State shall maintain a special account to be called ‘State Joint Local Government Account’ into which shall be paid all allocations to the Local Government Councils of the State from the Federation Account and from the Government of the State.
“The implications of the ruling are far-reaching, and the issues that readily come to mind are Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution.
“The implications of the ruling are far-reaching, and the issues that readily come to mind are Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution.
“This raises questions about judicial interpretation and whether the court has overstepped its bounds in reinterpreting clear constitutional language.
“Balance of Power: The ruling potentially shifts the balance of power between the federal government and states. By allowing federal intervention in local government finances, it arguably centralises more power at the federal level, contrary to the principles of federalism.
“State Autonomy: This decision could be seen as an erosion of state autonomy. States are meant to have significant control over their internal affairs, including the administration of local governments, in a federal system.
“Financial Independence: The ruling may impact the financial independence of states and local governments. If the federal government can directly intervene in local government finances, it could potentially use this as a tool for political leverage.
“Precedent-setting: This decision could set a precedent for further federal interventions in areas traditionally reserved for state governance, potentially leading to a more centralised system of government over time. That local governments must be ‘democratically elected’ goes without saying.”
