Former Governor of Ekiti State, Ayo Fayose, has raised apprehensions regarding the recent ruling by the Supreme Court granting local governments the authority to directly receive monthly allocations from the federation account. However, he posits that this newfound autonomy is likely to be impeded by the state Houses of Assembly and governors. Fayose contends that the ascendancy to a local government chairmanship is contingent upon the governor’s patronage. He underscores that the judicial decree is unlikely to alter the prevailing dynamics, as governors will persist in wielding influence over local administrations. A prominent figure in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Fayose articulated his views during an appearance on Channels Television’s Politics Today. While acknowledging the allure of direct allocations to local governments, he deems it unattainable within the current framework.
Fayose asserts that local government chairpersons are incapable of operating autonomously without the backing of their governors. Citing instances of laxity among local government employees who shirk their duties, he emphasizes the regulatory role of state Houses of Assembly in impeding chairpersons from functioning independently.
The former governor contends that governors wield more sway over local governments than commonly perceived. He contends that even if a local government chair chooses to flout gubernatorial directives, state legislators will intervene to enforce compliance. Fayose further highlights governors’ pivotal role in facilitating appointments and overseeing operations within local governments, thereby rendering chairpersons dependent on their favor.
Despite his reservations about the Supreme Court’s ruling, Fayose acknowledges the imperative for governmental bodies at all levels to uphold transparency and accountability in financial transactions. He underscores the aversion towards witnessing the misappropriation or diversion of funds designated for developmental initiatives. Ultimately, Fayose anticipates minimal alteration in the prevailing system post the court’s ruling, as governors and state Houses of Assembly are projected to retain their influence over local administrations.
