i
DECENTRALIZATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CREATION IN NIGERIA’S 4TH REPUBLIC: A CASE STUDY OF EBONYI STATE DEVELOPMENT CENTRES
BY
NGWOKE, SUNDAY OKPO REG. NO: PG/M.SC/11/59708
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
SEPTEMBER, 2012
i
TITLE PAGE
DECENTRALISATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CREATION IN NIGERIA’S 4TH REPUBLIC: A CASE STUDY OF EBONYI STATE DEVELOPMENT CENTRES
ii
APPROVAL PAGE
This thesis has been approved on behalf of the Department of Public
Administration and Local Government, University of Nigeria Nsukka
By
______Ikeanyibe Okey Marcellus, PhD Prof Fab O. Onah Supervisor HOD PALG
______External Examiner
______Dean, Faculty of the Social Sciences
______Dean, School of Postgraduate Studies
iii
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Mr. Ngwoke, Sunday Okpo, a postgraduate student in the Department of
Public Administration and Local Government with the registration number
PG/M.Sc/11/59708 has satisfactorily completed the requirements for the research work for the degree of Master of Science in Public Administration.
This work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in part or full for any other degree of this or any other university.
______Dr. Ikeanyibe, M. O. Ngwoke, Sunday Okpo Supervisor Candidate
iv
DEDICATION
To my late mother-Orie Ngwoke, my children – Chikezie, Nicholas,
Victoria and Chidiebere and my cousin-Evelyn.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I remain eternally grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Ikeanyibe, whose persistent prodding and guidance enabled me to timely complete this work.
Even when I considered dropping this project, he urged me to persevere. Thank you Dr!
I consulted the work of many authors in an effort to accomplish this task.
To all of them I say thank you. Mrs. Monica Nkama contributed immensely in terms of finance and otherwise in the realization of this work. Madam, I am greatly indebted to you. Thank you and more grease to your elbow!
To my lovely wife-Mrs. Christiana O. Ngwoke and my dependable brothers-Osondu Ogbonnaya Ngwoke and Kenneth Ochuchu Ngwoke – I drop my special gratitude. Without you this work would not have seen the light of the day. I also recognize the effort of my sister in-law, Miss Ngene Uzo Blessing.
Finally, I thank the typist who typed the work and every other person that contributed in one way or another to produce this work.
vi
ABSTRACT
Many states since the second republic in Nigeria embark on creating additional local governments outside those normally contained in the constitution in exercising their constitutional power to establish the structure, functions of local governments. Ebonyi state is one of the states in the fourth republic to have embarked on the project of additional local government creation but has ended up with development centres. These are supposed to offer the benefits of decentralization such as improved service provision, political and administrative autonomy and so on. This research has probed into the newly created Ebonyi State development centres to find out how they have met the objectives of decentralisation. Using a survey design comprising of interviews of development centre officials and distribution of questionnaires to citizens of development centres, this study collected data to analyze this problem. It is discovered that the reason for development centres are more of political and meant to increase the control of the state government over the resources of the local government than any fundamental objectives of decentralization. Thus the study reveals that much of the benefits of decentralization have not been realized with the creation of the development centres. Rather through their creation, the control and dissipation of the local government council’s authority have further been increased. The study recommends among others that if development centres have to be created at all, they should be shouldered with single purpose responsibilities such as health or roads construction; alternative source of their financing should be provided rather than the use of local government allocations, there is need to reduce the number of institutions that control and supervise them to increase administrative autonomy and Management Committee should be elected rather than appointed by the Governor.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page ------i Approval Page ------ii Certification Page ------iii Dedication ------iv Acknowledgements ------v Abstract ------vi Table of Contents ------vii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Study ------1 1.2 Statement of Problem ------5 1.3 Objectives of the Study ------8 1.4 Significance of the Study ------8 1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study - - - - - 9
CHAPTER TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 Literature Review ------10 2.1.1 Conceptual Issues ------10 2.1.1a Meaning of Local Government - - - - - 10 2.1.1b The Concept of Decentralization - - - - - 16 2.1.2 Decentralization and Local Government - - - - 19 2.1.3 Local Government System in Nigeria - - - - - 22 2.2 Hypotheses ------26 2.3 Operationalization of Key concepts - - - - - 26 2.3.1 Local Government ------26 2.3.2 Centralization ------27 2.3.3 Decentralization ------27 2.4 Methodology ------27 2.4.1 Research Design ------27 2.4.2 Method and Sources of Data Collection - - - - 27 2.4.3 Reliability and Validity of Instruments - - - - 28 2.4.4 Population of Study ------29 2.4.5 Sample of study and Sampling Procedure - - - - 29 2.4.6 Method of Data Analysis ------30 2.5 Theoretical framework ------31 2.5.1 Application of Theoretical framework - - - - 33
CHAPTER THREE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE CASE STUDY 3.1 History of Ebonyi State ------35
viii
3.2 Political Leadership and Development of the State - - - 36 3.3 Ebonyi State and Local Government Creation - - - 38 3.4 Management of Development Centres - - - - - 43
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESNETATION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4.1 Data Presentation ------47 4.1.1 Preamble and Background Characteristics of Respondents - - 47 4.1.2 Constitutionality of Development Centres - - - - 50 4.1.3 Development Centres and Improved Provision of Basic Services to the Grassroots People of Ebonyi State - - - - 54 4.1.4 Challenges of the Development Centres - - - - 57 4.2 Findings ------59 4.3 Discussion of Findings ------61
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary ------71 5.2 Conclusion ------72 5.3 Recommendations ------75
Bibliography ------77 Appendix 1 ------83 Appendix 2 ------86 Appendix 3 ------87 Appendix ------115
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Decentralisation has been the fundamental reasons for creating sub- national governments or organisations. Okoli (1998) explains decentralisation as a process that allows a measure of discretion to local institutions and levels in matters closest to them. The overriding aim is to give issues a local touch reflecting the spatial and demographic peculiarities of the issues concerned.
Creating local governments has been a contentious issue in Nigeria in every democratic dispensation since the famous 1976 Guidelines for local government reforms in Nigeria. Prior to the guidelines, local governments were solely a sphere of state governments’ statutory power and their creation was at their beck and call. Ogunna (1996), documents that ‘with the creation of twelve states in 1967, the constituent units of the federation became much smaller in size of territory and population. As states became nearer to the local people, the local government as a consequence should be much nearer to the local people. This called for the creation of smaller units of local government areas’ (Ogunna, 1996:103). Thus, most of the states went their separate ways in the choice of local government system. This led to the
wanton creation of local governments of various sizes, structures and functions by different states. Ogunna has also pointed out some features of these local governments to include, small size, emphasis on administration rather than government, elaborate system of control by the state, poor financial resources as some of the revenue sources of previous larger local government divisions were taken over by the states, reduction in functions of local government (Ogunna, 1996:128).
The power of states over local governments gradually enlarged leading to the near extinction of local governments in some states and making the issuance of the 1976 Guidelines for local government reforms in the country a necessity. A key motive for the1976 reform guidelines was to save the deterioration status of local governments and the high-handedness of states in dealing with their local governments. As Brigadier Shehu M
Yar’adua stated in the preface to the reform guidelines:
The Federal Military Government has therefore decided to recognise local governments as the third tier of governmental activity in the nation. Local governments should do precisely what the word government implies i.e. governing at the grassroots of local level (FRN, 1976:i)
The above indicates the disposition of the federal government to provide a local government system that could have definable characteristics and status.
The objectives of the reform guidelines are:
i. To make appropriate services and development activities responsive to local wishes and initiative by devolving and delegating them to local representative bodies ii. To facilitate the exercise of democratic self-government close to the local levels of our society, and to encourage initiative and leadership potential iii. To mobilize human and material resources through the involvement of members of the public in their local development iv. To provide a two-way channel of communication between local communities and government (both State and Federal) (FRN, 1976:1) Okoli (1998) describes the 1976 reform guidelines as the first bold attempt at realizing the national objective of unity and integration as envisaged by the federal government. Not only that the federal government chose to establish a system of local government that is protected from the states’ stifling controls, it also provided grounds for the establishment of a uniform, multipurpose local government system with constitutionally stipulated number, names and functions. Above all, it set the standard for the operations of local government system in Nigeria, including the guide for the creation of local governments. Following the guideline, the federal military government created a total of 301 local government areas throughout the country which were eventually nominally listed in the 1979 constitution. As recollected by Ukiwo (2006: 9),
The 301 local government areas were listed in the 1979 Constitution to guarantee their perpetual existence. In creating these local government areas, the military government emphasised the need for viability and administrative efficiency. The minimum population for an area to qualify for local government was 150,000 while the maximum was 800,000.
The 1979 constitution under which the second republic was operated created some flaws regarding the creation of local governments. Despite making basic provisions that would place local governments as a third tier government, it substantially gave the states powers of establishing local governments. This led to the abuse of local government creation in the second republic. Ukiwo (2006:10) describes the situation thus:
The worst violations of the autonomy of local councils however stemmed from political machinations. The politicians realised they could trade local councils for votes as there were agitations across the country for more LGAs as local elites eyed local councils which now had guaranteed funding. Politicians also realised they could balkanise local governments for electoral purposes. As elections approached most state governments dissolved local councils and appointed loyal party members who were expected to deliver votes in the locality. Little wonder, the local government councils were deeply involved in the large-scale electoral fraud of 1983.
The military government that took over power in 1983 abolished various local governments created by various states of the federation. Further state and local government creations in 1991 and 1996 increased the number of local governments in Nigeria to 774 which are again listed in the 1999
constitution. As a ploy to prevent the second republic scenario on local government creations by states, the 1999 constitution provides that the states have the power to establish local governments [FRN, section 7 (1)] but also provides a caveat that limits such power by making the creation subject to
“ratification” by the National Assembly (NASS) (Section 8).
Yet local government creation by state governments has not stopped in the fourth republic. A good number of states including Ebonyi state have created local governments. The experience of Lagos state that has been in the forefront of local government creation in this fourth republic cowered many states to renege into calling their newly created local governments development centres. Usually, the rationale for creating the local governments or development centres as the case may be is to ensure decentralisation of both political and administrative powers to the grassroots thereby increasing participation of the citizenry in their government.
It is yet problematic among the academics to justify the creation of local governments or development centres by states in this fourth republic judging from the constitutional provisions in this regard. It is also yet to be understood why states, including Ebonyi, have continued to feel that these newly created development centres have important roles to play. It is therefore an important academic exercise to inquire into some of these
vexing questions concerning the position of these states in creating new local governments and how these are relevant in decentralising political and administrative powers.
1.2 Statement of Problem
Many governments are devolving power to elected local councils, hoping to improve service delivery and citizen representation by bringing officials closer to the people (Hankla and Downs, 2010). Nigeria’s fourth republic has seen many state governors creating local government areas in line with their purported constitutional powers. Thus Lagos, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa,
Enugu Ebonyi and Kastina states, to name a few all created new local governments within the first four years of return to democratic rule in 1999.
The Administration of Obasanjo’s disapproval to this action made some of the states to stay action on their already created councils. Indeed, it was only
Lagos state that pursued her newly created local governments to a reasonable extent by recognising and distributing national revenue allocated to the constitutionally recognised local governments with those newly created. This of course led to the conflict with the federal government which climaxed with the withholding of local government allocations to Lagos state.
The first move to create local governments in Ebonyi State was made in
2001 under the administration of Dr Sam Egwu. Through Law No.7 of 2001 known as Ebonyi State Local Government Area Creation and Transition
Provisions, the administration of Dr. Sam Egwu created 21 additional local government areas. These are apart from the original thirteen approved by the constitution.
Ejibunu (2009) observes that the law creating these additional local governments gave the same powers to them as the existing constitutionally recognized local governments in the state. He states:
Some of the local government areas created are: Akaeze, Amoha, Ebyia, Edda East, Effium and Ikwo East. According to the law, "subject to the provision of the sections 4 to 16 of this law, the New Local Government Areas created by subsection (i) of this section shall have the same rights, powers and privileges as the local government areas existing prior to the commencement of this law".
The implications of the above legal provisions are far reaching and indeed instigated the action of the Obasanjo administration to ban newly created local governments by states. And thus the newly created local governments in the state were comatose.
However, the urge for creating further decentralisation has been reawakened among states in Nigeria after the case of Lagos state was politically resolved under the administration of Yar’adua. Since then, many states have devised the strategy of creating development centres instead of
local governments. However, it seems that it is only the nomenclature which has changed and many of the so called development centres still share local government allocations, functions, responsibilities and predicaments. It is yet legally questionable to justify the grounds upon which states create their development centres.
In 2007 Ebonyi State created a total of 64 development centres. The problem that aroused this study is the need to probe into the reasons for the creation of development centres in Ebonyi state and the challenges faced in operating this sub-local governmental system. This problem is further clarified with the following research questions:
1. Is there legal/constitutional justification for the creation of Ebonyi state
development centres?
2. Has the creation of development centres improved the provision of basic
services to the grassroots people of Ebonyi State?
3. What challenges are faced by the development centres in fulfilling their
set goals?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The general objective of the study is to probe into the reasons for the creation of development centres in Ebonyi state in 2001 and the challenges faced in operating this level of governmental decentralisation in the state.
The specific objectives are:
1. to examine the legal/constitutional justification for the creation of the
development centres in the state
2. to find out if the development centres have improved service delivery
and citizen participation in the grassroots in the state
3. to identify the challenges faced by Ebonyi State development centres
in fulfilling their set goals.
1.4 Significance of the Study
This study has both theoretical and empirical values. Theoretically, the study contributes to the discourse on decentralization and the importance of participatory governance. It has contributed to the problematic of decentralisation in terms of sustainability of lower level units and relationship with higher levels. Generally the work has made contributions to the theory of decentralisation and intergovernmental relations.
Empirically, the work has made significant contribution to critical issues concerning the running of development centres not only for Ebonyi
State but for other states in Nigeria that have considered it an option of
effective service delivery and grassroots participation and mobilization. The study has also pointed out the legal flaws in the state-local relations that arise from the creation of development centres. The work will therefore offer useful guide for policy makers, legislators and politicians in handling the grey areas in this important policy area.
1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study
The focus of this study is on decentralisation of Development Centres in Ebonyi state within the fourth republic. Even though they were created in
2001, development centres became fully operational in the state from 2007.
Key areas in which attention was paid in examining the development centres include the legal justification for their creation, the extent to which their objective of decentralisation has been achieved and the manner of relationship between them and other levels including the local governments especially and the state government.
This study suffered from some limitations. Firstly, research in this area especially in this fourth republic has been few. The research also suffered from the usual bureaucratic bottlenecks in obtaining relevant and timely data for the study. Time and finance were also strong handicaps that constrained the level of field activity. Within the limits of what has been done however, we can attest to the reliability and validity of data presented.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHDOLOGY
2.1 Literature Review
We have reviewed extant and relevant literature under the following subsections:
i. Conceptual Issues
ii. Decentralisation and the Local Government System
iii. Local Government System in Nigeria
2.1.1 Conceptual Issues
The two key concepts of this research are the ‘local government’ and
‘decentralisation’. The local government is primarily presented in this work as a decentralisation of the higher level government. This section explains the two concepts and underscores the nexus between them.
2.1.1a Meaning of Local Government
The idea of local government is self evident since it presupposes the existence of another ‘higher’ level government (Okoli, 1998). Yet, there can hardly be agreement among scholars on what Local government is. Ezeani
(2012) observes that local government has been variously defined by scholars and administrative practitioners, but believes that the variety of
definitions can be subsumed under two broad approaches. He explains the two approaches thus:
The first approach which is usually adopted in comparative studies, regards all sub-national structures below the central government as local government (see UNO, 1962;89; Alderfer, 1964; SNV/UNDP, 2009:8; Global Forum on Local Development, 2010:7)…. The second approach to the definition of Local Government which is the one adopted in this lecture identifies certain defining characteristics (see among others Olisa et al 1990:93; UNO, 1961:11; Mahwood, 1993:vii &2) (Ezeani,2012:9).
From the above, it becomes clear that the two approaches are (1) to regard all forms of sub-national governmental levels as local government while (2) not to regard every sub-national level government as local government. In other words, there are further defining characteristics. What these defining characteristics are, is also subject to disagreement among scholars.
The defining characteristics that help to understand the concept of local government in the two approaches however are fundamentally dependent on the type of decentralization allowed by the higher level government to the sub- national governments. It is therefore important to remark that a clear idea of local government within the two approaches pointed out by Ezeani
(2012) cannot be grasped without clearly understanding the concept of decentralisation. Before going into this task of understanding the meaning and nature of decentralisation, suffice it to say that the two approaches
harped by Ezeani gave rise to the two types of local governments – local government and local administration.
Okoli (1998) explains local administration as the extension of the national government activities to all the nooks and crannies of the state. In his words,
‘Usually, the national government establishes field officers (provincial and area) throughout the country to articulate and execute national policies and programmes. In local administration:
the unit of operation is national in scope the functionaries are national government employees (civil servants), mere agents or representatives of the national government the issues are not purely local in nature, but even when local in nature , are given national recognition and solution little discretion is allowed to the functionaries the population is marginalized, and there is no independent source of revenue (Okoli, 1998: 13)
On the other hand, he defines local government thus:
Local government is, therefore, government that is restricted to specific area within a large government. Its very essence is located in the concept of autonomy as indicated by the devolution of wide powers, adequate and elastic sources of revenue and reasonable level of discretion. For local government to be so-called, the people under it must be in a position to elect or select their functionaries freely and fairly, participate fully in the decisions affecting their lives, initiate and execute projects and programmes they deem desirable for the improvement of their living conditions. Local government is , in this respect, local democracy exercised by the people through their own representatives for the benefit of the whole people (Okoli 1998:12)
Hague and Harrop extol the virtues of the local government which they describe as the dual model thus:
Under the dual system, local governments have freestanding status, setting their own internal organisation and employing staff on their own conditions of service. Staff tend to move horizontally from one local authority to another – rather than vertically, between central and local government (Hague and Harrop, 2001: 212)
Also, the local government model will seem to qualify for most of the justifications about the essence of local government. These essences are contained in theories of local government which Ezeani, (2012:15) identifies as follows:
i. the democratic-participatory theory
ii. the efficiency-services theory
iii. the developmental theory, and
iv. the localism theory
The democratic-participatory theory contends that local governments exist to bring about democracy and to afford opportunities for political participation to the citizens as well as educate and socialize them politically
(Ezeani, 2012: 15). It does seem that only the local government or dual model meets this criterion since it insists on local government being freestanding and being made of elected officials. The Efficiency theory justifies the existence of local government on the ground that it is an agent
of higher government for providing services that are local in character. In other words, local government helps high level government to provide efficient services and not necessarily the issue of democracy and participation. The local administration model pays particular attention to this idea of local government and sees local government as an extension of the national or higher government ‘to fill a gap which the national government is too remote to fill’ (Okoli, 1998: 2). The development theory of local government sees local government as an instrument of development, not just an instrument to be used by the higher government to pursue routine programmes. Local government can do this by being involved in implementing socio-economic programmes that attempt to restructure the infrastructure necessary for the improved way of life (Ezeani, 2012: 17 citing Ola, 1984). Invariably this theory also does not pay much attention to how the local government should be constituted but in the quantum of developmental contribution it makes to the local area.
Finally the localism theory of local government acknowledges that the environment makes substantial difference in governance. Hence, ‘diffusion of power is a fundamental value and local authorities as elected bodies can represent the dispensing of legitimate political power in our society’ (Ezeani,
2012: 17). This theory also emphasizes the freestanding nature of local
government and the importance of local leadership and procedure in handling local affairs. The local administration model may also not meet the full justification as local government using this theory.
However, while these features are significant in clearly distinguishing local government and local administration, it will be absurd to deny the status of local government to the so called local administration especially when one considers the two approaches already mentioned by Ezeani and also the various theories or what Okoli (1998) calls hypotheses which nevertheless justify the role of local administration in terms of what a local government should do. Our argument here is that we cannot deny a sub-national unit the status of local government because there is no democracy existing at that level, or because the staff of that sub-unit belongs to the national government or because there is reduced discretion as the proponents of the dual model will tend to argue. Indeed, it is becoming obvious that the grounds upon which the proponents of the dual model seem to anchor their arguments, viz, democracy, elastic revenue sources and high degree of discretion (see Okoli, 1998 as cited above) may not all be present in a dual model and may equally be present in a local administration model. For instance, there may be democracy, that is, officials are elected but have very little discretion and functions allowed to them; they may be elected but with
diminished sources of income. On the contrary, there may be sub national units that are run as local administration (i.e by appointed staff of the higher government) but enjoys substantive autonomy and discretion, and elastic source of revenue.
Our concept of local government in this research therefore incorporates both local government and local administration. Indeed, Hague and Harrop
(2001) see both as models of local government (dual system or local government) and (fused model or local administration) rather than outright discard of local administration as not qualified to be a local government.
One cannot be unaware however that the dual model which according to Hague and Harrop (2001) maintains a formal separation of central and local government, has ample advantages which make it to be highly advocated for countries. But as Okoli (1998) surmised,
It is often said that the distinction between local government and local administration is simply a play on words, that in fact there is no significant difference between them. At first sight this assertion appears naïve since any student of politics should recongnise the fundamental difference between them. However, a closer examination will reveal that the situation is not so neatly wrapped up. There is a difference between local government and local administration. though this difference is a matter of degree and emphasis (Okoli, 1998: 10)
2.1.1b The Concept of Decentralisation
The concept of decentralisation is usually considered along its opposite concept of centralization. Centralization versus decentralisation are among the basic concepts and principles of administration. LD White sees centralization as the concentration of administrative authority on a higher level government and the converse as decentralisation. Decentralisation is defined as the dispersal of authority among the lower levels of the administrative system, (Laxmikanth, 2002). Laxmikanth further says that the issue of centralization versus decentralisation revolves around the location of the decision-making power in the administrative system. In other words, the extent of concentration or dispersal of decision making on higher or lower levels of government, administrative system organization etc. qualifies the extent we can say a country, an administrative system, an organization etc is centralized or decentralized.
Sharma and Sadana (2007) note that decentralisation has five aspects viz.
i. Delegation of authority in such a way that large areas of discretion are entrusted to subordinate officers and comparatively few questions are referred to the chief at the apex (administrative) ii. Broad grant of power to individual component parts of the organization and retention of only certain essential powers of control in the head office (administrative) iii. Much power in the hands of elective bodies and considerable popular participation in administration (political)
iv. Freedom to the field units or agencies away from headquarters and near to the people (geographical) v. Functional autonomy to the various departments in respect of their several functions (functional) (Sharma and Sadana, 2007: 176) From the above, one can grasp that decentralisation according to Sharma and
Sadana could be along administrative (i and ii), Political (iii) geographical
(iv) and functional lines. Okoli (1998) prefers two-way classification of decentralization along (i) Area (geographical/political) and functional
(administrative) lines. Area decentralisation is also called territorial decentralization (Sharma and Sadana, 2007). For Okoli (1998)
Area decentralization is also called political decentralisation. It involves the creation of levels of authority and power, with each level exercising a certain degree of independence and discretion within spheres. For instance, a political or area decentralization in Nigeria can be seen in the division of the country into federal, state, and local government levels. Each level has its own constitutional powers and functions and each exercises a certain amount of discretion in issues within its competence (Okoli, 1998: 17)
Functional decentralisation on the other hand means leaving power of decision in respect of technical or professional matters largely to the appropriate technical or professional units of the organisation e.g, educational questions to the universities or boards of education, medical questions to medical units, engineering questions to engineering units and so on (Sharma and Sadana, 2007:8). Okoli differs slightly from this view by explaining functional decentralisation as administrative delegation geared
towards ensuring effective and efficient performance of functions. For him the main concern of functional decentralisation is to ensure that functions and services are conveniently rendered to the people.
It is very often difficult to distinguish between area and functional decentralisation since decentralisation in whichever form often entails territorial dispersion of field offices that exist far away from the head offices. In other words, functional decentralisation could as well be territorial or area. The obvious difference between area and functional decentralisation seems to lie on degree of autonomy or discretion allowed to the decentralised units. Sharma and Sadana underscore that territorial or area decentralisation arises when the field agencies and officials of the government scattered in various places all over the country are allowed to decide most of the problems on the spot, or when local bodies are given large powers to cater for the needs of their local population. It is thus a matter of relationship between the headquarters organisation and the outlying field agencies and officials or between the central government (or state governments) on the one hand, and local bodies on the other. Put in another way, functional decentralisation usually involves one organisation for as remarked by Okoli (1998:18), ‘there is an unbroken chain of administrative hierarchy’. Furthermore, functional decentralisation is thus an
issue of the relationship between the general administrator (chief executive) and his technical or professional staff whether they are geographically separated or work under the same roof (Sharma and Sadana, 2007:177)
2.1.2 Decentralisation and Local Government
The whole idea of local government is based on decentralisation.
However both concepts are not synonymous. Keith Miller asserts:
Local Government and Decentralization are concepts which are very closely inter-related, but they are not synonymous, and they do not always bear the same relationship to each other. In other words, while local government can be said to always represent some form of decentralization, decentralization does not always have to take the form of some type of local government. Additionally, different models of local government may represent different forms of decentralization (Miller, 2002:4).
From the theories of local government explored above, it is decipherable that local government is essentially rooted on the task of reducing concentration of power (whether the power is political, administrative, economic or functional) at the higher level of government. Okoli (1998) categorically asserts that the critical issues of local government revolve around the four
Ds- Decentralisation, Deconcentration, Devolution and Delegation. Any relationship between the national government and its subordinate units must of necessity involve one or a combination of these four Ds.
As applied to the local government, decentralisation is said to be advantageous because local governments are in a better position than
national or provincial authorities to target public goods to the preferences of local citizens (Hankla and Downs, 2010). Also the model of local government in place essentially depends on the nature of decentralisation allowed by the state. Thus whether a country practices local administration or local government greatly depends on the type of decentralisation. Okoli replicating the accomplishment of pioneer scholars like Goran Hyden,
Ronald Wraith and others, introduces a number of concepts to explain how the kind of decentralisation gives rise to the type of local government. The key concepts here are Deconcentration and Devolution. The diagram below further illustrates this connection.
Fig 1: Diagrammatic Representation of Different Forms of Decentralisation
Decentralisation
Area Functional
Deconcentration Devolution Managerial Participatory
Source: Okoli (1998:20)
As shown in the figure above, decentralisation takes two broad forms - area and functional. Area decentralisation can be achieved through the process of deconcentration or devolution, whereas functional decentralisation can be predicated on managerial or participatory calculations. Deconcentration is explained as the dispersal of functions and services on a territorial level to the field offices of the same organization or on a functional level within the units of the same organization; devolution is the dispersal of power and authority on a territorial basis. It involves a grant of power and authority by the national government to a subordinate body. Within this sphere of authority, the body exercises a certain degree of independence with regard to both its functions and sources of revenue (Okoli, 1998: 22). On the other hand, functional decentralisation can take the form of managerial or participatory approaches. The managerial approach seeks to delegate directives and instructions to field offices or subordinate bodies, while the participatory approach does not give specified managerial functions but encourages participation of initiative of those to whom function is delegated.
The implication of the above is that both area and functional decentralisation can entail significant autonomy to the sub units and can also well entail reduced discretion. When deconcentration goes with participatory functional delegation, substantial autonomy is extended to the subordinate
unit; but when it goes with managerial functional decentralisation, ‘power and authority are involved to the extent that they are absolutely necessary and adequate’ for the performance of the functions, and the provision of services needed (Okoli, 1998:21). However,
In a properly decentralized system, deconcentration goes with managerial efficiency, while devolution goes with participatory values. The two constitute ‘technical’ decentralization, and the last two constitute ‘political’ decentralization. The choice of any of these two modes of decentralisation depends on the orientations of the regime (Okoli, 1998: 21)
2.1.3 Local Government System in Nigeria
Scholars believe that the existence of local government in Nigeria far predates the contact with the colonialists in as much as local government is understood as sub-national units of governance used by higher centres of power to coordinate activities and loyalties from the remoter part of the polity. Gabriel Lanre Adeola avers that
Governance and politics at the local level in Nigeria did not come with the attainment of nationhood in 1960; neither was it the handiwork of colonial masters. Local governments have always been an integral part of the various societies and human communities that became known as Nigeria by proclamation of Sir Frederick Lugard in 1914 (Adeola, 2008: 1)
Ikeanyibe also noted that the people making up today’s Nigeria existed as separate political entities with diverse tribal, ethnic, cultural, social and
political difference. These groups operated sophisticated political and administrative systems, which the white man could not but acknowledge and exploit for his colonial subjugation of the peoples (Ikeanyibe, 2007: 45). The pre-colonial era of local government has been described by scholars in three models viz. the centralized emigrated kingdom found in most parts of
Northern Nigeria, the semi-centralized chiefdoms/kingdoms of the Western part of the country and the decentralized village democracy of the East.
What colonialism did to local government system in Nigeria was probably a gradual transformation from the use of the traditional structures to the use of artificial structures created purposefully for the purpose of local government. The British colonial government introduced the Native
Authority System otherwise known as the Indirect Rule as the structure for local administration. The Native Authority was the recognition, adaptation or institutionalization of a local chief as an integral part of the colonial government. The Chiefs were given well-defined powers and functions and acted under the ultimate control of the British Officials, mainly the District
Officers. From this starting point in the history of one Nigeria, Gboyega
(1987), Adeola (2008: 2) have chronicled the major epochs in the development of local government in Nigeria as follows:
1. The first epoch spans from inception (i.e the coming of the Colonial
rulers to adjust local administration in 1903) until the early 1950s
when the Native Authority system faced problem of effective
implementation in Southern part of Nigeria.
2. Another epoch begins from the era of total rejection of Native
Authority system in virtually all parts of Southern part of Nigeria and
its replacement or modification with strong emphasis on liberal
participatory values.
3. The third epoch identified was the era of unprecedented military
incursion into political arena. This put paid to the paradigm of
participatory democracy at the grassroots’ level. This was
subsequently replaced with the logic of centralization in line with the
military unity of command scheme. Local administration promptly
replaced local government.
4. The last epoch in Gboyega’s seminal study is the era of return to
participatory local government system. This came with the
unprecedented massive reforms known as the 1976 local government
reforms.
5. The era of deliberate neglect of the 1976 reform agenda, partly
engineered by renewed military incursion into the political arena after
the second republic was sacked (Adeola, 2008:2-3).
6. To this we may add the 4th republic era in which the country has
returned once again to the participatory democracy.
This chronology may not actually describe what exactly the situation was in the local government system in each era. For instance, while
Gboyega (1997) and Adeola (2008) describe the 4th era as the era of return to participatory democracy, and also the 6th era is described by us as when the country returned again to participatory democracy, the practice of local government at these periods by state governments have been a far cry from participatory democracy. Many state governments have operated local governments that are more like local administration than local governments.
An important feature however of local governments in these two eras
(i.e, when the country returned to democratic government and expectedly to be operating a local government by elected councils) is the issue of creating additional local governments within their states contrary to those stipulated in the constitution. The Nigerian constitution since 1979 recognized the local governments as the third tier local government. The implication of this is that the powers and functions of local governments, their number and
respective names are provided in the constitution. In addition, the power to create new local governments is to be exercised by both the state and federal governments through their respective legislatures. In the second republic, the
1979 constitution recognized only 301 local governments. But by the time the military took over power at the end of 1983, the number has reached
1000 including those newly created by states. Also in this 4th republic many states have also created new local governments or development centres.
Benjamin remarks that history has repeated itself as many states like their counterparts in the second republic went ahead to create local governments.
Eme (2008: 50) estimates that in the present dispensation, the number of local governments has risen to over 2000 as compared to the constitutional number of 774.
2.2 Hypotheses
This study as we said in the first chapter seeks to probe into the reasons for the creation of development centres in Ebonyi state and the challenges faced in operating this sub-local governmental system. The following hunches have been made to guide the study
1. The creation and operation of development centres in Ebonyi state is not
justified by the provisions of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution
2. The creation and operation of Development centres in Ebonyi State has
not improved the provision of basic services to the grassroots people of
Ebonyi State, but rather has helped in their further exploitation
3. Development centres in Ebonyi state face the challenges of poor funding
and unclear responsibilities in the process of pursuing their set goals
2.3 Operationalisation of Key Concepts
2.3.1 Local Government: Local government is understood in this work as any sub-national unit of government established through a law to pursue the functions allocated to local government in the Nigeria’s 1999 constitution or any other such functions stipulated by the house of Assembly of a State.
Creation of Local Governments: This is understood as the establishment of structures of local administration or government that are not part of the ones enlisted in Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution. Thus, in Ebonyi state, any local structures outside the 13 local governments contained in the 5th schedule of the 1999 constitution and are operative as an instrument of local administration or government are regarded as newly created local governments.
2.3.2 Centralization: centralization is the act of concentrating power at a higher level of government
2.3.3 Dencentralisation: is understood as creating sub-units and investing powers otherwise concentrated at a higher level to such units
2.4 Methodology
2.4.1 Research Design
Eboh (1998) observes that the choice of research design is a compromise between objectives and resources. He also advises that it is plausible to adopt an integrated sequence of approaches/enquires, operating at different levels of detail and precision (Eboh, 1998: 31). This study therefore combines the survey and the documentary approaches.
2.4.2 Method and Sources of Data Collection
Primary and secondary sources will be exploited to secure data for this work. Primary data will be generated from citizens of Ebonyi state whom are the beneficiaries of services provided by the newly created development centres. Also, officials of the development centres will also serve as useful sources of information. Secondary data will be sourced from books and other documentary sources including government publications.
Based on the above, we shall use questionnaires, interviews to collect primary data. These will be interposed with data obtained from documentary sources.
2.4.3 Reliability and Validity of Instruments
Eboh (1998:30) warns that in selecting a research design, a primary concern is that the conclusions of the study be valid and reliable. He defines validity as the process of ensuring that the conclusions of a research are true; while reliability means that someone else using the same method in the same circumstances should be able to obtain the same findings. To ensure the validity and reliability of this study, we have taken adequate steps in the manner of choosing our research subjects and also in the construction of our research instruments. Eboh has suggested that the following strategies could be used to deal with threats to validity:
Random assignment of subjects to groups
Unobtrusive method of data collection
Careful design and pre-test of survey instruments
Knowledge of environment of events (for example, history of research
problem and /or issue.
The combination of various views – the citizens, the various documented opinions and the view of the officials of the development centres is designed to ensure verification of data and ensure that collected data are cross- checked to ensure veracity.
To ensure reliability, we have ensured proper construction of instrument with inputs from colleagues and the project supervisor. We also used a pretest administration of the instrument to a similar sample of citizens and officials of development centres apart from those who were finally used for the study to ensure that the items were consistent in measuring what we intended to measure.
2.4.4 Population of Study
The sixty four development centres are the basic units of this research.
They therefore form the primary population of this study. We remark however that organizations are nothing outside the make-up of human beings. The necessary information regarding the activities of organizations can be obtained from the relevant persons connected with the organization.
Thus, we shall also consider the officials and the citizens under these development centres as objects of this study but only important in so far as they can offer useful data that will help us to understand the importance of
the development centres as further decentralization for effective service delivery in Ebonyi state.
2.4.5 Sample of Study and Sampling Procedure
Isaac Obasi (1999) avers that the size of a sample is determined by a combination of technical issues as well as human and financial considerations. Some of the technical issues he mentioned are the size of the population, the level of precision (accuracy) desired, the level of variability of the factors to be estimated, the homogeneity of the population, the extent of prior knowledge about the characteristics of the population, and accessibility elements in the population etc, (Obasi, 1999: 136). We have carefully tried to take some of these technical factors into consideration within the bounds of our human, financial, and time constraints. Hence, because we have a small population of development centres (64) but which requires covering the entire Ebonyi State, we have decided to arbitrarily take three development centres as sample but ensuring that these are selected randomly to reduce the effect of the fewness of sample. The sample will therefore be taken from each of the three senatorial zones to ensure wide variability and spread. We have therefore used a combination of judgmental, cluster and random sampling to select three development centres for this
study. Two senior officials of each development centre will be interviewed based on availability while a total of sixty questionnaires shall be used.
Twenty questionnaires will be randomly distributed to citizens of each development centre. The citizens will also be selected targeting a mixed group that will include school teachers, operators of small scale businesses and community leaders.
2.4.6 Method of Data Analysis
We have used descriptive method of data analysis to process collected data. Opinions of interviewers were transcribed and their implications inferred. Simple percentage analysis of responses to the questionnaire items were employed using simple majority opinion as the basis for testing the hypothesis.
2.5 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of analysis employed in this work is the
Efficiency Services Delivery theory of local government. The theory is propounded by such scholars like Mackenzie (1954), Sharpe (1970) and others. The main tenet of the theory is that the objective for the existence of any local government is to serve as an agent for the provision of efficient
services to the local people. Mackenzie asserts that ‘local government exists to provide service and it must be judged by its success in providing services up to a standard measured by a national inspectorate’ (Mackenzie, 1954:14).
Also Watt (2006) noted that
the clearest rationale for the existence of local government is as a solution to the problem of local public goods. Whilst many public goods such as defence, are national in extent, other public goods such as local parks, street lighting and refuse collection, have a more limited geographical extent or benefit area. The major advantage of local government is that it allows the local public goods and services it provides to be adjusted to suit the tastes and the preferences of local residents (Watt, 2006:8)
Of course, local government can be used to achieve other noble objectives such as resource mobilization, political participation, political education and training (Ogunna, 1996; Fatile and Adejuwon, 2008) etc. However, the
Efficiency theory holds that provision of services is the fundamental objective for establishing local government and as opined by Mackenzie should be the basis for assessing other objectives. Indeed, other objectives such as democratic and participatory theory, the development theory and the localism theory of local government are all solutions to the best way to achieve the goals of the Efficiency theory.
Furthermore, innovations in administrative processes generally and more specifically in the local government system are directed at improved service delivery. For instance, the use of processes such as collaborative
government, privatization, contracting and the rest are all geared towards customer satisfaction and effective service delivery. In this vein, McKinlay
Douglas Ltd (2006:41) reports that “recent material from local government researchers, from governmental policy papers and from reviews of local government practice... all point to an increasing acceptance of the case for collaborative activity amongst local government entities as a means of improving the efficiency of service delivery where one or more of such issues as skill, capacity or capability are involved. It is also in confirmation of this opinion that Hankla and Downs (2010:759) affirmed that ‘Many governments are devolving power to elected local councils, hoping to improve service delivery and citizen representation by bringing officials closer to the people.’ Thus decentralisation should have the fundamental goal of improving service delivery. This is why Miller (2002) averred that
Meaningful decentralization of state power, manifested in the form of strong systems of local governance, is now recognized as key prerequisites for facilitating sustainable development and promoting good governance....Strong local government and decentralization are essential to this paradigm. Most countries around the world are therefore presently engaged in some initiative towards decentralizing the state and enhancing local government (Miller, 2002: 2-3).
In other words, decentralisation through local government system whether it is for the purpose of realising local participation, or involvement of marginalized groups such as women, youths or minority groups are
ultimately meant to enhance the quality of decision-making and consequently the outcome of development at the local areas. This more or less boils down to efficient provision of services.
Watt (2006:8) gives what might be taken as a justification for creating smaller units of local government through the process of decentralisation by remarking that “Small local governments are likely to be better at solving the problem that the right local public goods are produced and go to the right people. In addition, the accuracy with which local authorities are able to match their residents’ preferences for local public goods is likely to be enhanced”. It is therefore expected that further decentralisation through creating smaller units of local government ultimately improves the level of service delivery in the Nigeria states that have insisted on creating smaller units of local governments or development centres.
2.5.1 Application of Theoretical Framework
This study assumes that the purpose of decentralisation is to enhance service provision in Ebonyi state local areas. No other reason can be more justifiable than this, especially where most states in Nigeria have not allowed democratically elected councils to exist as the third tier or constitutional local governments. Hence the idea of local government creation cannot be for the purpose of allowing participation and democracy.
Invariably, if effective uses are not made of the development centres in service provision at the remote parts of Ebonyi state, then it can as well be assumed that the purpose of creating the development centres has been defeated. Indeed for the Ebonyi state government to do what appears to be constitutionally illegal by running local governments that have not been ratified by the National Assembly can only be surpassed by the expediency of such structures in improving the life of the rural people in the state.
The efficiency Services delivery theory of local government therefore, helps us to view the newly created development centres in the light of improved service delivery in Ebonyi State Local government areas.
CHAPTER THREE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE CASE STUDY
3.1 History of Ebonyi State
Ebonyi state was created as one of the five last states created by
General Sani Abacha on 1st October, 1996. The geographical area that constitutes the state however has had series of shoveling from one political entity to the other. Starting with the creation of three regions in 1946, the area was carved into the Eastern region, belonging to the old Ogoja province. In 1967 when Gowon created the twelve states, the people were included within their kith and kin, the Igbo stocks in the East Central state.
The state creation exercise of Murtala Mohammed administration saw the people balkanized into two different states of Imo and Anambra. Ibrahim
Babangida’s state creation exercise in 1991 still saw the people further set apart into Abia and Enugu States.
These various disorientation and disarticulation of a people with common cultural and ancestral heritage relegated the issue of their development to the background. As properly described by Onyeukwu
(2006: 22),
Both human and material resources innate amongst this geo-political group were all kept in limbo. Name it, illiteracy, poverty, poor healthcare delivery, guinea worm devastation, poor infrastructural development, and shortage of the needed manpower were all the awful features that characterized the geo-political.
It was this state of marginalization and total neglect that probably touched the then Head of the military junta that was ruling the country in
1996 to come to the rescue of the people with the creation of Ebonyi State on October 1996 as part of the highlights for the celebration of Nigeria’s 36th
Independence Anniversary. Ebonyi State and five others created along with it brought the number of states in Nigeria to 36 in the 36th year of the country’s independence. The state derives its name from the River Ebonyi. It is bounded to the north by Benue State, to the west by Enugu State, to the east by Cross River State and to the south by Abia State.
Ebonyi State is popularly known as the 'Salt of the Nation,' apparently because of the large deposits of salt water in the state.
3.2 Political Leadership and Development of the State
Ebonyi State was administered by Navy Captain Walter Aye
Feghabor as the first political administrator. He was succeeded by Assistant
Inspector General of Police, Simeon Oduoye who eventually handed over to the first elected executive governor of the state, Dr. Sam Ominyi Egwu. The
Government of Ebonyi State of Nigeria (2008) declares Dr Egwu’s eight year rule in the state as the tonic towards a holistic transformation of the state. It documents that
Governor Egwu’s eight-year two-term administration was a tonic toward the holistic transformation of the state. The development touched all facets of the state: education, health, agriculture, religion, human, infrastructure, economy, among others (Government of Ebonyi State of Nigeria, 2008: 6).
It was probably the commitment of Egwu and his desire to uplift the plight of the people that informed the idea of creating additional local governments in the state, which his government undertook in 2001.
The good works of Dr. Egwu has long been continued with election of
Chief Martin Nwanchor Elechi, who was sworn in on May 29, 2007.
Describing the position of this governor in the fight for the creation of
Ebonyi State as what informed his developmental strides and policy direction, the Government of Ebonyi State of Nigeria avers:
Firstly, he is the only surviving founding father of the State, who had led the Ebonyi State Movement for over three decades. Secondly, with its creation in 1996, he transformed into the chairman of Ebonyi State Development Association, (a forum of the Elders and State men of the State). From these positions he has advantage of knowing first hand, why the people agitated for state of their own, and how far these objectives have been attained (Government of Ebonyi State of Nigeria, 2008: 7)
The importance of further decentralisation and empowerment of the grassroots by these two indigenous leaders of the state may have derived from the consequences of the marginalization and neglect which the people suffered from remoteness to centres of power in their journey to statehood.
Ostensibly, the creation of the development centres in the state was to pursue a key objective for the creation of the state – bringing the people closer to the seat of power and resource allocation.
3.3 Ebonyi State and Local Government Creation
Ebonyi state was created with thirteen local governments in 1996. The local governments and their head quarters are shown in the table below.
Table 3.Names and headquarters of 13 Constitutionally Recognised Local Governments of Ebonyi State S/N Name of Local Government Headquarters
1 ABAKALIKI NKALIKI
2 AFIKPO NORTH AFIKPO
3 AFIKPO SOUTH NGUZU EDDA
4 EBONYI UGBODO
5 EZZA NORTH EBIAJI
6 EZZA SOUTH ONUEKE
7 IKWO ONUEBONYI ACHARA
8 ISHIELU EZILO
9 IVO ISIAKA
10 OHAOZARA OBIOZARA
11 ONICHA ISU
12 OHAUKWU EZZAMGBO
13 IZZI IBOKO
Source: Government of Ebonyi State of Nigeria (2008:10)
In 2001, the administration of Dr Sam Egwu set in motion the process of
creating additional local governments in the state with the collaboration of
the Ebonyi State House of Assembly. Thus with the enactment of Ebonyi
State Local Government Area Law No 7 of 2001, 21 new local governments
were created as part of the decentralisation efforts of the state government.
Section 3 (1) of the law lists the names of the new local government areas as
contained in the table below:
Table 3.2: List of Additional Local Government created by DR Sam Egwu in Ebonyi State in 2001 S/N NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS HEADQUARTERS O 1 AKAEZE UGWUAGBA 2 AMOHA APOJO 3 EBYIA NWOPHE 4 EDDA EAST OWUTU 5 EFFIUM KELA-UMUEZE 6 EKUMAENYI NDIOKE 7 EZZA EAST ONUZO-UMUOGBOJI 8 EZZA WEST NWACHI-UKE 9 IKWO EAST IDEMBIA 10 IKWO SOUTH EGUNWENU AMAGU 11 IMOHA ACHIAGU
12 INYABA ONUNWEKE 13 NGBO EAST NGBO COURT 14 NGBO WEST IJINIKE-UMUOGUDU AKPU 15 NNODO OVUDU-ECHI 16 OHAOZARA EAST EGUEZE 17 OKPOSI ENU-AKWA 18 ISHIELU EAST UKWUACHI 19 OZIBO OGUZORONWEYA 20 UBENYI LELU 21 UKABA EGUEZEAFOR Source: Ebonyi State Local Government Area Law No.7 of 2001 (Creation and Transitional Provisions), Section 3
These local governments were not to see the light of the day. The
opposition from the federal government and the refusal of the National
Assembly to ratify and recognize them, led Ebonyi state and others that
attempted creating local governments to shelve the idea for the mean time. It
was probably only Lagos state that defied the federal order and went ahead
to challenge the matter in court. In her ruling on the matter,
The Supreme Court held that the process followed in their [37 local governments created by Lagos state] creation was legal but that until the National Assembly made the consequential order (which many have described as “ratification”), the said creations remained inchoate. The dictionary defines “inchoate” as: “not yet completed or fully developed; rudimentary; just begun; incipient; not organised; lacking order” etc. Some commentators have drawn an allusion between the Lagos LGA creation and childbirth. They opine that the child has already been born and that what the federal legislature was required to do was merely a naming ceremony. If that be the case, then we could argue that when the Supreme Court referred to the LGAs as inchoate, it meant, using the example of a baby, that the baby is ill-formed, maybe premature! In such a situation, the baby must be kept in an incubator until it is properly formed and ready to face the real world.
But it seems the health officers (in this case, NASS) have refused to provide the necessary support and medication needed to guarantee life for the baby (Effanga, 2009)
With this ruling of the Supreme court of Nigeria most states changed the mode of creating local government centres by giving them various names, viz development centres, community councils, administrative units etc.
Ebonyi state made plans to recognize these as local government development centres. Thus, in 2006, a law of the Ebonyi State House of
Assembly was enacted creating some development centres in the state. This law was followed, subsequently, by Ebonyi State law No 007 of 2007 which eventually repealed the Ebonyi State Local Government Area (Creation and
Transitions law of 2001 and the Ebonyi state Development Areas Creation and Related Matters Law of 2006. In their place, a new law, the Ebonyi state
Local Government and development Centres (Amendment Law) 2007 was enacted. In the new law, a total of sixty four Development Centres were created making it a total of 77 local governmental units with the 13 constitutionally recognised local governments. Below are the list of the development centres and their headquarters, while the list of the 13 constitutionally recognized local governments in Ebonyi State and their headquarters is as shown on p.38 of this work.
LGA Development Centre Headquarter
Abakaliki Amagu Afikpo North Itim Afikpo Northeast Amaozara-Ozzizza Afikpo South Ekoli Edda Akaeze Uguwuagba Amachi Uwarem-Amachi Amoha Apojo Amasiri Azuhu Anuagata Obodo-oma Ebonyi Odomoke Ebyia Mwofe Echiaba Ogbaga Echiele Ukpasiaga Edda East Owutu Edda North Osso Edda Edda West Igbara Edda Effium Kela-Umeze Effium South Enyanwigwe Ekumenyi Ndioke Enyida Odageriga Ezekoma Akwurakwu Ezeukwa Enu-Agu Ezza East Onuzoumu Ogboji Ezza North Ezza Northeast Euara-Umuezeokoha Ezza South Onunwogba-Ameka Ezza Southeast Oshiugbo-Amagu Ezza West Ubenyi Ezzama Onunwafor-Ezzama S. Igbeagu Nwezenyi Ikwo Eleke Achara Ikwo Central Okpokpeze Ikwo East Idembia Ikwo South Egunwenu Amagu
Ikwo Southeast Ibiem-Ekpaomaka Imoha Achiegu Inyaba Onu-Nwaeke Inyaba North Ekeugwu Ishielu Amaozara Ishielu East Ukwuachi Ishielu North Egedegede Ishielu West Nkalagu Ivo Iyiakpu Izzi Izicha Mbeke Egu-Ogbala Ndufu Ikwo Ndukwu-Egu-Nkwo Ngbo Central Ndulo Okpochi Ngbo East Ngbo Court Ngbo North Ndiagu Akparata Ukwuagba Ngbo West Ijinike Umuogudu Nnodo Ovudu-Echi Ohaozara Anibe-Umuobuma Ohaozara East Ugoezeooke Ohaozara West Enu Faith Ohaukwu Ntisulakpa Ohaukwu North Onuafor-Amechi Okposi Enuakwa Ominyi Abarigwe Onicha Amanato Anioma Onicha West Umodomi Oshiri Onu-Urani Ozibo Oguzoronweya Ubeyi Leelu-Unwana Ukaba Eguezeafo ------Source: Ebonyi Online.com (2009)
3.4 Management of Development Centres
The development centres are primarily managed by a Management
Committee to be appointed by the Governor of the state, subject to the confirmation of a simple majority in the House of Assembly (Law No 007 of 2007, Section 8). People to be appointed as members of the Management
Committee must be citizens of Nigeria, must have attained the age of 25, must possess at least First School Leaving Certificate, must not be an employee of the civil or Public Service of the State or the federation, and must have necessarily qualified to be elected as a Councillor in a Local
Government in accordance with the provision of the State law on this. The
Management Committee comprises of a Coordinator and not more than four other members. The coordinator is however the manager of the
Development Centre while the four other Management Committee members head the four main units of works, Health and agriculture, Education and
Finance. The units are accountable to the Coordinator (Law No 004 of
2008: section 19). The Heads of Units are mainly drawn from the career civil servants as the law also provides that it is the responsibility of the
Local Government service Commission to appoint heads of units for the 64 development centres in the state and this must be based on merit, seniority, experience, qualifications and geographical spread. The Development
Centres operate with career civil servants including both junior and senior staff. The law provides that upon coming into effect of this law, all junior staff in each development centre shall remain as staff therein, and that each development centre shall maintain such skeletal senior staff as may be required for its infrastructural development provided that its personnel costs do not exceed 30% of its current revenue (Law No 007 of 2007, Sect 19).
The development centres operate under the laws made by the
Government of Ebonyi State which include the Ebonyi State Local
Government Councils and development Centres (Amendment) law
2007,Ebonyi State Local Government and development Centres Regulations and Remunerations for Public and Political Office Holders (Amendment)
Law, 2008. In addition to these basic laws (the establishment and regulatory laws), the following laws also guide their operations:
i. Other existing rules and regulations governing the civil/public
service of Ebonyi State
ii. The 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
iii. The Ebonyi state local government councils and development
centres (Amendment law No.7 0f 2007)
iv. The Revised edition (2006) of the Approved scheme of service
for the Local Government Employees in Nigeria
v. The Financial Memorandum (FM) and other financial
regulations and laws relating to public expenditure ( Law
No.004 of 2008)
Development centres are equally under the general control and supervision of local government council and the state government. All Bye laws made by the Legislative arm of the Local Government and assented to by the
Chairman shall apply mutatis mutandis in all Development centres within the Local Government (Law No 007 of 2007: Section 20). Section 30 of
Law No 004 of 2008 further provides that:
(a) Local government councils shall submit quarterly and annual returns
of income and expenditure to the Ministry in charge of local
government matters and Ebonyi State House of Assembly Committee
on Public Accounts.
(b) Development centers shall send copies of these returns to the parent
local government councils in each instance.
(c) Failure to render these returns as and when due, shall attract sanctions
including withholding of allocations, provided that the Ministry in
charge of Local Government Affairs shall approve any such sanctions.
Section 34 of Law No.004 of 2008 also directs that the The Ministry in charge of Local Government Matters shall have the powers, generally to
control and supervise the activities of Local Government Areas and development Centres in the State.
These and other numerous provisions stipulate stiff guidelines and controlling system of the development centres (see appendix 3 for Law No.
004 of 2008 which is only but one of the laws guiding the operations of the development centres). The law is more detailed in what should not be done and who should supervise and regulate development centres than clearly outlining the powers allowed to the development centres. The point remains that the functions allowed for the development centres are the same functions provided for the local governments. Section 16 of Law No.004 of
2008 elaborates on this:
A local government council or development centre shall have power to embark on the following functions:
(a) Construction of bridges; culverts and mini-bridges (b) Construction, grading, lateriting, compacting and or tarring of roads within their territory (c) Building, repair and equipping of schools, health centres and market stalls, offices (d) Rural electrification (e) Rural water scheme, drilling of boreholes and construction of overhead tanks; (f) Sanitation rate collection
(g) Collection of other internally generated revenue. This constitutes duplication in functional allocation that will obviously lead to conflict or shifting responsibilities and blames
CHAPTER FOUR DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4.1Data Presentation 4.1.1 Preamble and Background Characteristics of Respondents In accordance with the research design proposed for this study, a survey consisting of interviews and questionnaires were used in the collection of data. These were complemented with documentary data available in secondary sources, especially government documents. The following three development centres viz., Edda North Development Centre, a development centre in Afikpo South Local Government (Ebonyi South
Senatorial zone), Inyaba North Development Centre in Ishielu Local
Government (Ebonyi Central Senatorial Zone) and Ekumaenyi Development
Centre in Abakaliki Local Government (Ebonyi North Senatorial Zone) were selected for the study. Two senior officials were interviewed in each of the development centres. As we proposed in the methodology, the two officials interviewed were based on availability and accessibility. Thus, for the Edda
North Development Centre, Mrs Nkama Monica the Administration Officer and Nkwegu Samuel the Finance Officer were interviewed; for the Inyaba
development Centre, Nworie Jane the Health Officer and Okene Okorie the
Head of Department of Agriculture were interviewed; and for the
Ekumaenyi Development Centre, the Coordinator Hon Ogodo F. N and the
Head of Works Department, Engineer Emeka Ibor were interviewed.
Though our choice of interviewees was not subjected to any form of
randomization, we used our personal judgment to ensure diversity. Thus,
various departments of the development centres, civil servants as well as
political appointees, gender differences and professional outlook were
reflected in our choice of interviewees.
On the other hand, a total of sixty questionnaires were completed for
this study by the citizens. Twenty questionnaires were distributed to the non-
employees, that is the citizens within each of the development centres. These
were randomly distributed based on chance meeting with respondents. But
this was carefully guided to include a mixed group sample comprising of
school teachers, operators of small scale businesses and community leaders.
Efforts were made to ensure that collected questionnaires completed the
proposed sample of sixty. The table below shows the key background
characteristics of the respondents to the research questionnaire.
Table 4.1: Identity of Questionnaire Respondents sex NO Occupation NO Academic NO Age NO (%) (100%) Qualification (100%) (100%) Male 22 Teachers 18 (30%) FLSC OR 23 18 OR 9
(36.67%) LESS (38.34%) LESS (15%) Female 38 Traders 19 GCE/SSCE 15 19-45 21 (63.33) (31.67%) (25%) (35%) - - Community 13 NCE/ND 11 46-65 13 Leaders (21.67%) (18.33%) (21.67 %) - - Others 10 BSC/HND 8 65 AND 17 (16.67) (13.33%) ABOVE (28.33 %) - - - = MASTERS 3 (5%) - - AND ABOVE TOTAL 60 TOTAL 60 TOTAL 60 TOTAL 60 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Source: Fieldwork (2012)
The above table displays the characteristics of those who filled the study
questionnaire. From the table key characteristics captured are sex,
occupation, academic qualification and age. As shown, 22 of the 60
respondents comprising 36.66 percent are male while 63.34 percent are
female. The great disparity in the gender does not likely constitute any
apparent distortions to the study. From all indications, women highly
populate the rural areas and will normally constitute the most likely subjects
of study in a rural setting.
The respondents cover the key occupations of trade and public
service. The inclusion of community leaders provide adequate merit for the
study as these are more likely to be in position to assess the effect of the
development centres as medium of community and rural development. A
total of 21.67 percent of the respondents are community leaders, and efforts were made to include at least a community leader from every community in each development centre.
Educational Qualification is relatively distributed with the majority having first school leaving certificate (38.33%), followed by those with
General Certificate of Education or Senior School Certificate (25%). The issues at stake in the study are such that level of educational qualification does not constitute apparent limitation to the study.
Finally the respondents are basically adults above eighteen years who are mature enough to appreciate and make independent assessment of the role of development centres.
4.1.2 Constitutionality of Development Centres
There is no doubt that the creation of local governments outside the constitutionally recognised ones have been controversial in Nigeria since the inclusion of the right of states to establish the structure, composition, finance, and functions of local governments in the Nigerian constitution.
This provision which appeared in the 1979 constitution has been carried forward into the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The constitution states in Section 7 (1) that:
The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this constitution guaranteed; and
accordingly, the Government of every state shall, subject to section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, Structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.
This is fundamentally the basis for creating additional local governments or what has been generally described as development centres by many states.
While many states in the fourth republic are desirous of creating new local governments and have actually taken steps to do so, none has been able to pursue the objective of creating additional local government to conclusion, that is, in fulfillment of all the constitutional requirements. Of course only
Lagos state has tried pursuing a legal interpretation of the extent of state powers in relation to creating new local governments. As revealed by
Effanga (2009), ‘in the case of Lagos State’s 37 ‘new’ LGAs, the Supreme
Court held that the process followed in their creation was legal but that until the National Assembly made the consequential order (which many have described as “ratification”), the said creations remained inchoate.’ It should be remembered here that the constitutional provision on the establishment of local governments by states provides a detailed procedure which should be followed in section 8, (3 and 4). Further, it provides in section 8 (5and 6) that such creation requires an Act of the National Assembly to make consequential provisions with respect to the names and headquarters of such
created local government areas as provided in section 3 of the Constitution and in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to the Constitution. Section 8 (6) requires that each House of Assembly creating new local government should make adequate returns to each House of the National Assembly. Section 9
(3) of the Constitution provides the hardest knot that needs to be tied in creating new local governments by states. It states that
An Act of the National Assembly for the purpose of altering the provisions of this section, section 8 or Chapter IV of this Constitution shall not be passed by either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is approved by the votes of not less than four fifths majority of all the members of each House, and also approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the States (FRN, 1999:Section 9 (3).
Thus creating new local governments and getting them to a level where they can receive constitutional recognition and be entitled to all the priviledges associated with local governments in Nigeria requires not only the rigorous procedures stipulated in section 8 (3, 4), but also be approved by four-fifths of members of the two chambers of the National Assembly and on obtaining favourable resolutions of House of Assemblies in two-thirds of the states in the country. Fulfilling these conditions is not very possible considering the antagonism and stiff nature of resource competition between states and ethnic groups in the country.
It is the inability to complete these stringent processes that have made many states to end up with playing some semantic pranks by creating institutions variously described as development centres, fourth tier administration, Central Business Districts or any of such conceptions to avoid the intricate procedure in creating constitutionally recognised local governments. But the point remains that many states still accord these
‘inchoate’ institutions the status of local government with virtually all the priviledges of local governments, and finance them with federal allocations made in favour of constitutionally recognised local governments.
Most of the officials of the development centres interviewed supported the creation of the development centres and justified their existence on the decentralisation argument: ‘that it has brought the government closer to the people and enhanced the opportunity for increased service provisions.’ Out of the six officials interviewed, five strongly supported the creation of development centres. For them, there does not seem to be any constitutional infringement since the states are given the power to establish their local governments, allocate their finances through the state House of Assembly.
While some of the interviewees admitted some obvious contradiction in constitutional provision regarding this issue, (where states seemingly have the power but must receive the approval of not only the National Assembly
but other States Assemblies), they feel the matter should be resolved in favour of the states since local governments in many federal states are under state’s jurisdiction.
The citizens on their own part do not deeply understand the constitutional issues relating to the creation of local governments. Many
(73%) do not know if the state government has constitutional right to create local governments as shown in the table below.
Table 4.2: Citizens Views on Constitutionality of Development Centres Test Item: Has Ebonyi State the Constitutional Powers to create Local Government/Development Centres?
Options Frequency Percent Yes 7 11.67 No 9 15.0 Don’t know 44 73.33 Total 60 100% Source: Field work (2012)
Only 15% of the citizens clearly admitted that the creation of development centres was against the provisions of the 1999 constitution and cited the relevant constitutional sections or paraphrased the letters of the constitution, especially the requirement that the National Assembly must approve the newly created local governments of any state Legislature. Those that opined that Ebonyi state has the power to create local government do not seem to be aware of this extra constitutional requirement and thus many of them selected the option of ‘don’t know’ in the next question. The table below
shows distribution on respondents’ knowledge of the constitutional provision concerning creation of local governments by states.
Table 4.3: Respondents’ Knowledge of Constitutional Provisions Relating to State Power to Create Local Governments Test Item: Do you know of any constitutional provisions about creating local governments by state governments? Options Frequency Percent Yes 3 5.0 No 8 13.33 Don’t know 49 81.67 Total 60 100% Source: Field work (2012)
Most of those that responded positively to the power of states to create local governments joined the option of don’t know as those that said No in the two options remained relatively stable.
A critical factor in our data is that many of the respondents tend to perceive constitutionality in terms of the relevance of the development centres. Thus many were more interested in discussing issues about the usefulness and nearness of development centres to the people rather than about constitutionality and legality. The data on this important aspect of the research is presented in the next sub section.
4.1.3 Development Centres and Improved Provision of Basic Services to the Grassroots People of Ebonyi State The perception of many respondents is that the creation of the development centres is expedient and necessary. A good number of the respondents agree that states can create local governments to enhance
service provision, increase the level of internal revenue mobilization, ensure equity in the distribution of government resources, provide work to more people and provide greater opportunity for people to participate in government. These are some of the recurrent reasons and options offered by respondents to the question requiring them to make individual assessment of whether it is proper for the Government of Ebonyi State to create development centres.
Many however regretted that the expected benefits of the development centres have not been realized in some good measure. The table below portrays the views of respondents on whether the development centres have satisfied the reason for their creation.
Table4.4: Respondents’ View on Whether the Development Centres have satisfied the Reason for their Creation Test Item: Do you think that the existence of Ebonyi development centres satisfies the reason for their creation?
Options Frequency Percent Yes 16 26.67 No 39 65.00 Don’t know 5 8.33 Total 60 100% Source: Field work (2012)
As shown, 65% of the respondents said that the development centres have not lived up to expectation; 26.67% believed that the development centres have satisfied the reasons for their existence and 8.33% could not form a
clear opinion about this assessment. Further test was carried out to determine the most important contributions of the development centres in the personal and communal lives of the citizens. Opinions on this are shown in table 4.5 below.
Table 4.5: Profile of Contributions of Development Centres to Individual and Community Lives Test Item: What do you consider the major contributions of the development centres in your personal or community’s live?
Options Frequency Percent Accessibility to government 6 10.00 Improved Provision of Services 4 6.67 Increased Participation of People in 5 8.33 government Work for more people 13 21.67 Compensation of political Allies 14 23.33 Increase in the level of internal revenue 10 16.67 mobilization of local governments, ensure equity in the distribution of 7 11.67 government resources Nothing 1 1.66 Total 60 100% Source: Field work (2012)
The profile reveals many relevant variables to decentralisation. Taking items that scored up to 10% as significant because of the number of variables tested, the table reveals the following as major contributions of the Ebonyi state development centres to the lives of the individuals and communities:
Accessibility to government (10%), Work for more people (21.67%),
Compensation of political allies (23.33%), increase in the level of internal revenue mobilization (16.67%) and equity in the distribution of government resources (11.67%). Many respondents obviously believe that the development centres are basically created to satisfy some political objectives such as compensating political allies and creating job for people. The two options appealed to 45% of the respondents. Relevant indices of decentralization such as Accessibility of government to the people (10%), increased political participation of the people in government (8.33%), improved service delivery (6.67%) low in comparison to the political goals of compensating political allies and creation of job opportunities.
Based on this analysis, we can say that the development centres have not lived up to expectation of many of the citizens as primary reasons for decentralisation have not been met.
The interviewees gave a clue to the fact that the development centres are facing significant operational challenges which invariably affect their
level of performance. Four of the interviewees explained that most of the local government operators are not happy with the creation of the development centres and find it hard to cooperate with them. A lot of other challenges affecting the performance of the development centres are examined in the next section.
4.1.4 Challenges of the Development Centres
Data collected reveal numerous challenges which face the operations of development centres in Ebonyi state. Data on this aspect of the research were mainly collected from interview reports and documentary evidence.
From the interviewees we gathered that major problems facing the development centres border on finance, stiff control from many fronts, lack of equipment and infrastructure. Reactions of the development centre officials to the apprehension of the citizens that the development centres virtually do not provide any services reveal that the problem is as a result of lack of fund. It is discovered that even though development centres get finances from the allocation of the Joint Local Government Accounts
Committee, most often what is left after taking care of personnel and other overhead costs are too meager to embark on any meaningful project. It was discovered that many of the development centres try to distribute the meagre fund available to them to go round the entire functional areas that ought to
be handled. These include roads, education, health, security and others (see
Section 16 of Law No.004 of 2008). Interviewees explain that the development centres engage in all the functions earmarked for the local government making it difficult to impact significantly on any single area. As one official clearly stated:
The funds available are too small to do all that we have to do. Here we have all the departments available in the local government and have to maintain these and ensure something is done in all of them as you cannot leave some redundant. This makes it extremely difficult to allocate sufficient fund to carry out tangible projects. We make do with the little we have (an official of Edda North Development Centre in Interview on 26th June, 2012)
The problem of poor funding, multi-level control and poor relationship between the local government and the development centres are among the major challenges to the institutions.
4.2 Findings
From the above section we can articulate the findings of this study to include the following among others:
1.That the power of states to create development centres drives from the
1999 constitutional provision in section 7 that the establishment, Structure, composition, finance and functions of local government councils are to be done under a state law. This section provides a caveat in sections 8 and 9 that requires the approval of the National Assembly and House of
Assemblies of two thirds of the thirty-six states. But because the states are not able to fulfill this requirement, they end up creating institutions that do not have the status of local government according to the Nigerian constitution but nevertheless go ahead to finance and accord these institutions with privileges due to local governments. It is therefore unconstitutional for states to do this. While they have the rights to create institutions that will help them deliver on their constitutional mandates, it is improper for them to treat such institutions as local governments and accord constitutional priviledges meant for the local governments to them where they have not fulfilled all the constitutional provisions in that regard.
2. We found out that the people of Ebonyi State as represented in our study sample are fairly disposed towards the creation of the development centres.
For them, the issue of constitutionality should be measured by the value of the institution in question. They argued that government should be nearer to the people through the creation of development centres.
3. However, there was the vital issue of whether the Ebonyi state development centres are fulfilling the objectives for their creation. The primary aim of accessibility, ensuring participation of the people in government and increased service delivery are minimally fulfilled.
Nevertheless, the development centres are relatively important as openings
for settling political cleavages, providing work for more people, and reaching more remote people for the purpose of revenue collection.
4. Development centres have not provided more services as a result of paucity of fund which are further depreciated by sharing it to meet numerous responsibilities.
5. It is discovered that the development centres by addressing the same functions or responsibilities with the local governments constitute some kind of duplication in functional responsibility. There is therefore the problem of poor economies of scale as little funds are not only shared between the local governments and their development centres, but further divided to attend to the same issues at both levels but managed differently. It is therefore difficult to pool resources together to address few projects and take up others in subsequent fiscal years as the estimates of every department must at least be met no matter how little.
6. The research also revealed that the development centres face numerous challenges that make their ability to function as decentralized government units unrealistic. The officials are not elected and thus the development centres do not offer opportunity for political participation. The multi-level supervision and control leaves little room for discretion and autonomy which is one of the goals for decentralization. The benefits accruing from the
development centres as a decentralisation effort of the Ebonyi State government are yet to be maximally realized in the state.
4.3 Discussion of Findings The problem of local government creation is still an unresolved political and legal issue in Nigeria. The 1999 constitution is very clear on the procedures for creating new states or local governments. But obviously it is an uphill task for these procedures to be met because of the political consequences if the National Assembly should succumb to easily granting approval to such creations. While it is the desire of many cultural groups and sectionalism in the country to have a state of their own and for some states to create new local governments, it is evidently a highly politicized issue going by the demands from many quarters. The National Assembly would certainly be overwhelmed if it fell to the temptation of approving any request from states for recognition of new local governments. Suberu (1998) observed in the second republic episode that attempts to create new states or allow for the creation of new local governments by states were stymied by constitutional complexity, partisan acrimony, economic uncertainty and unfettered sectional recrimination and suspicion. The scenario has also been repeated in the fourth republic. Hence, it would not be an easy task for the
National Assembly to start granting approval for such highly sensitive issue.
What can easily be drawn from the findings of this study as summarized in the last section is that the creation of additional local governments in many states has more of political aims than any clear political and administrative needs. In many states in Nigeria including Ebonyi State, the existing local governments have not been effectively utilized in the administrative processes; elections have not been allowed; most states interfere with the funds of the local governments and have not ensured that they (local governments) operate with relative autonomy in relation to their constitutionally assigned duties.
Creating new structures to carry out the same functions for which the local governments have not been allowed to perform is to my mind, an unnecessary bureaucratization and multiplication of government institutions.
This handicap is manifested clearly in the operations of the Ebonyi State
Development Centres in the level of control and processes through which the development centres operate. They are supervised and controlled by numerous institutions. The development centres are controlled by the Local
Government Service Commission that handles staff matters for both the local governments and development centres; the Ministry of Local
Government, Rural Development and Chieftaincy Matters which exercises multi-pronged supervision over the local governments and the development
centres equally; the Office of the Ebonyi State Auditor General for Local
Government, and off course the parent local government. The Commissioner for the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters is the
Chairman of the Joint Accounts Committee and wields strong influences over the management of local government and development centres. In most cases, his approval is required for most expenditure in both the local governments and development centres. Indeed as provided in the Ebonyi
State Local Government Councils and Development Centres Regulation and
Remuneration for Public and Political Office Holders (Amendment) Law
2008, ‘approval limits for Chairman of Local Government area shall be one hundred thousand naira (N100,000) only at a time, subject to a maximum of three hundred thousand naira (N300,000) only for a month, while that of
Coordinators of Development Centres shall approve an expenditure of fifty thousand naira (N50,000) only at a time, and a maximum of two hundred thousand naira (N200,000) only for a month. While the law required that amount in excess of this limit be referred to the Finance and General
Purposes Committee (F and GPC) in the case of the local government and the Management Committee in the case of the development centres.
The development centres are required to submit their annual estimates to both the Budget Department of the Ministry as well as the Parent local
government and defend the estimates at both levels. The utility of this duplication especially in conserving financial resources or providing autonomy for a decentralized unit of administration is not obvious. It only goes to complicate administrative processes and make the operations of the development centres slow, rigid and reduces discretion to the barest minimum. Thus, the crucial benefits that decentralisation supposes to promote become elusive in this kind of setting. Decentralisation according to
Sharma and Sadana (2007) should ensure:
i. Delegation of authority in such a way that large areas of discretion are
entrusted to subordinate officers and comparatively few questions
are referred to the chief at the apex (administrative)
ii. Broad grant of power to individual component parts of the
organization and retention of only certain essential powers of control
in the head office (administrative)
iii. Much power in the hands of elective bodies and considerable popular
participation in administration (political)
iv. Freedom to the field units or agencies away from headquarters and
near to the people (geographical)
v. Functional autonomy to the various departments in respect of their
several functions (functional) (Sharma and Sadana, 2007: 176)
None of these are granted sufficiently to the development centres. Political decentralisation is not ensured in Ebonyi State development centres as officials are appointed not elected; discretion is highly limited as approval has to be sought from the parent local government and the Ministry of Local
Government, Rural Development and Chieftaincy Matters especially for most operations of the development centres. In fact there are numerous sources of control over the development centres.
Above all, the creation of development centres has not offered much benefit of economic decentralization to the rural areas. It does not attract additional funds to the areas but rather increased the pressure on federal allocation to the local governments. Even though their creation is believed to have increased the level of internal revenue generation, this claim has not been substantiated and if at all it was true, the result has not trickled down as many parent local government refused to share the internally generated revenue between herself and the development centres created from it. This situation is summarised in an instance in Edda North Development centre. In the words of an official:
Since 2009 the Joint Internally Generated Revenue Account was opened in Afikpo South Local Government. The component development centres Edda North Development Centre inclusive, do not know whether the money paid into the account is still there or whether it has been used by the parent Local Government because
nothing has been shared from that account (An Interview Respondent from Edda North Development Centre, 26/06/2012)
The above replicates sundry similar views of other interviewees and reveals the nature of relationship between the development centres and their parent local governments. The law relating to collection of internally generated revenue provides that:
The Local Government Council shall have the custody of all Revenue receipt booklets and shall issue same to the development Centres for the collection of Revenue. This in turn is remitted to the Local Government Council who in agreement with Co-ordinators opens IGR account where all monies internally generated is paid in. Any amount standing to the credit of the IGR Account at the end of each month shall be distributed between the Local Government Council and the Development Centres as follows: (1)Local Government Area – 30% (11)Development Centres 70% (Ebonyi State Local Government Councils and development Centres Regulations and Remunerations for Public and Political Office Holders, Section 22 (f)
There is little evidence that this legal provision is respected.
The creation of development centres also has not enhanced the smoothness of administrative operations at the grassroots. There are constant rift between the officials of the parent local government and the development centres. This situation had previously been attested to by
Ejibunu (2009) when he revealed that
There has been a lingering crisis between the 13 old local government areas and the development centres over sharing formula of the allocation. Other issues creating rift between the LGA and the Development centers include power tussle amongst the Chairmen and
the Co-ordinators. Coordinators are also having confrontations with the management committees (http://thenationonlineng.net/web2/articles/13713/1/Like-Lagos-- Ebonyi-Bayelsa-Enugu-run-development-areas/Page1.html)
The creation of development centres therefore, has in no significant ways improved the utility of decentralisation, and efficiency and effectiveness of governance there from. There is no evidence that the development centres have surmounted the crucial problems faced by many local governments in Nigeria which include the following:
(1) Lack of financial and human capacity to deliver on the statutory and shared responsibilities between it and the other tiers of government;
(2) Existence of minimal input into the decisions on resource allocations at both the federal and state levels;
(3) Existence of high level corruption: As in all levels and institutions of government in Nigeria, corruption is predominantly wide spread, undiluted and unambiguous in the local government. It is a statement of fact that in the local government system, corruption has become all pervading, unabashed, uncontrolled and persistent. This perhaps explains the inefficiency and ineffectiveness in local government administration in Nigeria (Oviasuyi,
Idada and Isiraojie, 2010:84-85). Though some of these factors are not directly examined in this study, they go to show that Nigerian governments
at both the state and federal level have more important task of building existing institutions than multiplying them without addressing the critical issues why existing ones do not perform. An Igbo adage says that ‘if the first child has not started to walk, the second should not be expected to start running.’ The local government system must be made to perform in Nigeria before the actual needs of the people can be determined. Solving the problem of ineffectiveness in the local government system by fragmentation as the case of creating development centres cannot be a panacea to the critical issue of performance of local governments in Nigeria.
In the face of these anomalies, one will have no fear of contradiction and overstatement to declare with Ojo and Adebayo (2008) that the rationale of fragmenting Nigeria’s federal system into several localities not only to enhance effective decentralization, which is the hallmark of federalism, but also to enhance administrative efficiency is far from being achieved. There are sufficient reasons for the above declaration which have also been validated in this study. Some of these reasons include the fact that most created states and local governments in Nigeria (in this case the development centres) lack economic viability. The Ebonyi State Development centres investigated in this study merely depend on sharing the federal allocation to the local government and not on any novel source of funding. The Law
stipulates that Federal Allocations meant for the 13 constitutionally recognised local governments will be shared after mandatory deductions from each local government monthly allocation in the following ration:
Local Government Council 38%
Development Centres 60%
Stabilization Fund 1%
Administrative Fund 1%
(Law No.004 of 2008, Section 22(e)).
The Internally Generated Revenue as we have shown above is shared in the ratio of 30:70 between the local government and the component
Development Centres.
Obviously the overdependence on the Federal Allocation has been shown to constitute serious impediments to local government administration especially because of the uncertainties surrounding the value expected and the usual manipulation and deductions by the state governments. The development centres therefore have no assured sources of income to guaranteed enhanced provisions of services.
Another serious challenge is that creation of states and local governments or development centres, as the case may be, will continue to increase the demand for more as many more sections will usually consider
themselves as marginalised in the previous exercise. In a country with over
300 ethnic groups, uncountable dialects, and sundry pluralism, with the use of these differences as basis for negotiating for national resources (this is what Joseph, (1991) calls the politics of prebendalism), it is too obvious that the demand for further fragmentation of existing governmental structures will continue. Speaking generally on the failure of fragmentation of Nigeria through state and local government creation to afford the country the benefits of decentralisation, Ojo and Adebayo (2008) reiterate the view of
Onyeoziri (2002) that
Nigeria’s internal territorial reforms have remained pathetically inconclusive, as each successive exercise in state and local re- organization has merely spawned new minorities’ antipathies and agitations for new states and localities. Since it has created more minorities, it means the policy has failed as an antidote to fear of ethnic domination. Although even development has become its new rationale it has still failed to bring about even development. Dependence on federal support too seems to have increased the intensity and hostility of the scramble for the “national cake” (Ojo and Adebayo, 2008: 356)
We dare conclude this analysis by underscoring that the goals of decentralisation are marginally realised in the Ebonyi State development centres.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONLCUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
This study set out to probe the reasons for the creation of development centres in Ebonyi state and the challenges faced in operating these sub-local governmental institutions as decentralized governmental units. The objective of the study was of course to examine the legal/constitutional justification for the creation of the development centres, to find out if the development centres have improved service delivery and citizen participation in the grassroots in the state in accordance with key variables of decentralization and to identify the challenges faced by the development centres in fulfilling their set goals.
The study applied a combined survey method of the use of questionnaires and interviews. Documentary data were also employed. The findings of the study is quite revealing on the purpose of creating additional local government institutions in Nigeria. It showed that most local government systems in Nigeria are not effective and fragmenting them further does not constitute a solution. As revealed in the Ebonyi State case, development centres were created more for political reasons other than that for which decentralisation should be undertaken. While decentralisation should be taken to enhance political, financial and administrative autonomy and discretion, the Ebony state development centres have not offered these.
Indeed, their creation does not offer economy of scale in the management of
scarce resources and provides further stratum in the competition for the resources of local government from the federation account and other constitutional sources.
There are a number of challenges underscored which include the issue of viability of the development centres, problem of funding, multi-layer control that increases administrative red-tapism and reduces discretion, and lack of people participation through elected officials, as the Management
Committee is appointed by the Governor. Addressing most of these challenges can afford the local communities in Ebonyi State the ample utilities of decentralization which the development centres ought to offer.
5.2 Conclusion
Creation of development centres are meant to achieve political and administrative gains of decentralization. Decentralization entails the transfer of state/national responsibilities or functions from central government to sub-national levels of government, or from central agencies/offices to regional bodies or branch offices, or to non-governmental organizations or private concerns. It can be described as “the redefinition of structures, procedures and practices of governance to be closer to the citizenry” (Miller
2002:3). It can take the form of delegation, deconcentration or devolution.
These variants indicate the nature and form of empowering remote institutions towards achieving mainly administrative and political goals. The
Ebony State development centres are created to:
i. Coordinate all development activities in the Development Centre
ii. Advise the local government on the developmental needs of the
development centre
iii. Advise the local government on the security situation and needs of the
development centre
iv. Execute the directives of the local government in the development
centre
v. Carry out such other functions as the local government chairman may
direct or the overall policy of the state government
vi. Submit the annual estimate of the development centre to the local
government in the annual budget (Ebonyi State Local Government
Council and Development Centres (Amendment) Law, 2007,
section 12).
There does not seem to be clear functional distinctiveness between the duties of the local governments and the development centres. This implies that the little fund that trickle down to the development centres will have to be
allocated towards achieving numerous developmental activities which they suppose to coordinate.
The development centres face the challenge of having adequate fund to carry out their responsibilities. Above all, the management of the development centres is not made up of locally elected representatives.
Section 8 of Law No.007 of 2007 provides that
The Governor of the State shall subject to confirmation of simple majority of the House of Assembly appoint for each Development Centre and each area mentioned in Section 7 subsection 2 of this law, a Development Management Committee made up of a Coordinator and not more than four members.
But researchers largely agree that local democratic elections are necessary to realise the benefits of decentralisation (Hankla and Downs, 2010:761).
Without elections it is impossible to make local governments accountable to the citizens, and ensure the committed participation of the people. The control of the development centres by the Ministry of Local Government,
Rural Development and Chieftaincy Matters and other state agencies do not help matters. Development centres are meant to be further decentralisation of the local government system. They are not to be at par with the constitutionally recognised local governments. Their supervision ought to be done by the parent local government. There is no doubt that the existing multi-level and multi-institutional control would generate conflict and
administrative bottlenecks. It does lead to the disenchantment of the parent local governments and thus affects the smooth relationship between the development centres and the parent local government. These problems affect the expected benefits of decentralisation and require some serious administrative and political restructuring to ensure effective and efficient development centres that can guarantee improved people participation in government and enhanced service delivery to the grassroots people of
Ebonyi State.
5.3 Recommendations
To reposition the Ebonyi State Development Centres to ensure the benefits of decentralisation, we recommend the following political, financial and administrative restructuring and adjustment in the current regulations, guidelines and operations:
i. There is need to provide for elections of members of the management
committee from the constituent communities of each development
centre. This is to ensure that the communities are directly involved
in the management of their own affairs rather than the use of
appointees of the governor. It is vital that the development centres’
management committee be elected to ensure accountability and
people representation.
ii. The state should use the development centres as special institutions to
pursue the delivery of specific services such as health or roads
projects. To establish institutions that will compete with local
governments in the same functions for which they are established
is to neglect the value of economies of scale. A restrictive
responsibility for the development centres will ensure maximum
concentration and use of resources. This is typical of the use of
various boards that act as local government bodies in some United
States of America states. iii. Some revenue windows could be designed for the development
centres rather than sharing the local government allocations
between them and the parent local government. Not only is this
unconstitutional, the fragmentation of the meagre financial
resources available to Local Governments does not allow for
execution of tangible projects that require huge financial resources.
Even though there is possibility of embarking on joint projects, this
cannot always be guaranteed. iv. There is need to reduce the number of institutions that control the
development centres. This is to ensure a clear line of authority and
supervisory legitimacy so as to reduce conflict and the negative
outcomes of multi-layer loyalty. There is no doubt that most
development centres disregard the directives of their parent local
government especially those who have the support of the state
controlling institutions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books Benjamin, S.A (2004) “Federal-State and State-State Relations in Nigeria: A
Case Study of Lagos State”, In: O.F Egwaikhide, et al (eds)
Intergovernmental Relations in Nigeria, Ibadan: John Archers, Pp 85-
6
Eboh, E.C (1998) Social and Economic Research: Principles and Methods,
Lagos: Academic Publications and Development Resources Ltd
Ezeani, E.O (2012) Delivering the Goods: Repositioning Local Governments in
Nigeria to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): An
Inaugural Lecture of the University of Nigeria, Delivered on April
26th, 2012, Nsukka: University of Nigeria Senate Ceremonials
Committee
Gboyega, A (1987) Political Values and Local Government in Nigeria,
Lagos:
Malthouse Press
Hague, R and Harrop, M (2001) Comparative Government and Politics: An
Introduction 5th ed, New York: Palgrave
Ikeanyibe, O.M (2007) “History of Pre-Colonial Southern Nigeria”, In S.A.
Idahosa et al. Nigerian Peoples and Culture, Benin City: General
Studies Unit, Benson Idahosa University. PP44-62
Joseph, Richard (1991) Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria: The
Rise and Fall of the Second Republic, Ibadana: Spectrum Publishers,
Second Ed.
Laxmikanth, M. (2002) Public Administration for UPSC Services
Preliminary Examination, 2nd Ed, New Delhi, Tata Mcgraw Hill
Publishing Ltd.
Mackenzie, W. J. M (1954) Theories of Local Government, London: Greater
London Capers
McKinlay Douglas Ltd (2006) “Local Government Structure And
Efficiency”,
Being A report prepared for Local Government New Zealand
Miller, K. L (2002) “Advantages & Disadvantages of Local Government
Decentralization”, A Presentation to The Caribbean Conference on
Local Government & Decentralization at The Ocean View
International Hotel Georgetown, Guyana, June 25 to 28
Ogunna, A.E.C (1996) A Handbook on Local Government in Nigeria,
Owerri:
Versatile Publishers
Ojo, Emmanuel O. & Adebayo, P.F (2008) The Politics of States’, Local
Governments’ Creation and Nigeria’s Search for Geo-Political
Balancing, African Research Review, Vol 2 (3), Pp 334-367
Okoli, F.C (1998) An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Local
Government: A Nigerian Perspective, Nsukka: Topmost Printing
Press
Onyeoziri, F. (2002), Alternative Policy Options for Managing the National
Question in Nigeria, Ibadan: John Archers Publishers Ltd. In
collaboration with Programme on Ethnic and Federal Studies (PEFS),
Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan,Ibadan, 2002,
pp. 13-16.
Sharma, M. P. and Sadana, B. L. (2007) Public Administration in Theory
and Practice, Allahubad: Kitab Mahal Agencies
Sharpe L. P. (1970) “Theories and Values of Local government”, Political
Studies, Vol 18
Suberu, R. T. (1998) “States’ Creation and the Political Economy of
Nigerian Federalism” in Kunle Amuwo et al. (eds) Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria, Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd and IFRA.
Watt, P.A. (2006) Principles and theories of Local Government, Oxford
Blackwell Publishing
White, L. D. (1926) Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, New
York: Macmillan.
Journals
Adeola, G.L (2008) “From Native Authority to Local Government: Is there a
System of Government in Nigeria?”, In: The Constitution, Vol 8, No.
3, Pp1-1
Eme, O.I (2008) “The Politics of Local Government Creation and
Delimitation
in Nigeria: The Case of The Fourth Republic”, In: The Constitution,
Vol 8, No 3, Pp49-65
Fatile, J.O and Adejuwon, K.D (2008) “Intergovernmental Relations in
Nigeria:
An Appraisal of the Involvement of Local Government”, In The
Constitution, Vol. 8, No 3. Pp83-102
Hankla, C & Downs, W (2010) “Decentralisation, Governance and the
Structure
of Local Political Institutions: Lessons for Reform?” In: Local
Government Studies Vol. 36, No. 6, Pp. 759–783
Onyeukwu, F. (April-June 2006) “States’ Creation: A Veritable Tool for
Sustainable Rural Development – The Ebonyi Example” in Assembly
Watch. Quarterly Journal of Ebonyi State House of Assembly,
Abakaliki: EBHA.
Oviasuyi,P.O, Idada, W and Isiraojie, L. (2010) ‘Constraints of Local
Government Administration in Nigeria’ Journal of Social Sciences,
24(2): 81-86
Government Publications
Ebonyi State House of Assembly (1999) H.A.B. No. 005, 1999: A Bill for A
Law
To Make Provisions for the Establishment, structure, composition,
Finance and Functions of Local Government Councils in Ebonyi State
Ebonyi State House of Assembly (2006) A Quarterly Journal of Ebonyi
State
House of Assembly, April-June 2006
Ebonyi State of Nigeria (2001) Ebonyi State of Nigeria Official Gazette:
Law
No 7 – Ebonyi State Local Government Area (Creation and
Transitional Provisions), Abakaliki: Government Printer, Abakaliki
Ebonyi State of Nigeria (2007) Law No.007 of 2007: Ebonyi State Local
Government Council and Development Centres (Amendment) Law
2007
Ebonyi State of Nigeria (2008) Law No. 004 of 2008: Ebonyi State Local
Government councils and Development Centres Regulations and
remuneration Package for Public and Political Office Holders
(Amendment) Law, 2008
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1997) Handbook on Local Government
Administration, Abuja: Reproduced by The States and Local
Government Affairs Office, The Presidency
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999)1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of
Nigeria, Lagos: Federal Government Press
Ministry of Information and Orientation, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State (2008)
Government of Ebonyi State of Nigeria…Salt of the Nation: Diary
2008, Lagos: Fine Finishing Ltd
Internet Sources
Effanga, O (2009) “Nigeria’s federalism and local government creation”, In
Thisday Newspaper, August 4
Ejibunu, W (2009) “Like Lagos, Ebonyi, Bayelsa, Enugu run development
areas”The Nation,retrieved on 24/04/2012 from
http://thenationonlineng.net/web2/articles/13713/1/Like-Lagos--
Ebonyi- Bayelsa-Enugu-run-development-areas/Page1.html
Nigeria – Places (nd) “Ebonyi State”, retrieved on 27/04/2012 from
http://www.ngex.com/nigeria/places/states/ebonyi.htm
Online Nigeria.com (nd) “Community Portal of Nigeria: Ebonyi State” retrieved on 7/05/2012 from http://www.onlinenigeria.com/links/ebonyiadv.asp
Uka F. (2012) ‘Ebonyi NUJ’s assessment of LGs, DCs (1)’, Daily
Independent posted online on 25/7/2012 retrieved from
http://dailyindependentnig.com/2012/07/ebonyi-nujs-assessment-of- lgs- dcs-1/
APPENDIX 1 STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
Department of Public Administration And Local Government University of Nigeria Nsukka
Date------
Dear Sir,
I am a postgraduate student of the above institution undertaking a study on the topic Decentralisation and Local Government Creation in Nigeria’s 4th Republic: A case study of Ebonyi State Development Centres.
This questionnaire is designed to elicit useful information towards addressing issues concerning the created local government development Centres in the state. You have been chosen as one of those considered knowledgeable in the issues of the study.
I recognise that you are a very busy person but request for your gracious sacrifice in sparing some of your time to fill this questionnaire. I wish to remind you that this is purely an academic venture and whatever information supplied will remain anonymous and used only for the purpose for which it is solicited.
Please accept the assurances of my best regards.
Yours Faithfully,
Ngwoke Sunday
A. Personal Information Please select the option that best applies to you 1. SEX: male Female
2. AGE: 18 or less 19-25 26-45 46-65 above 65
3. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFCIATION: FSLC GCE/SSCE ND/NCE HND/Bachelors Masters and above
4. OCCUPATION: School Teacher Trader Community Leader Others
B. Constitutionality of Local Government Creation
5.Has Ebonyi state the constitutional power to create the development centres? Yes No Don’t know
6.Do you know of any constitutional provision about creating local governments by state governments? Yes No Don’t Know
7.If yes above, mention the section or the provision thereto------
8.In your own assessment, do you think that it is right for states to create additional local governments or development centres? Yes No Don’t Know
9.Give reasons for your answer in 8 above------
C Justification for Ebonyi Development Centres
10. Do you think that the existence of Ebonyi development centres satisfies your reason for their creation? Yes No Don’t Know
11. What do you consider the major contributions of the development centres in your personal or community’s live? Accessibility of government increased provision of services
Nothing Others (Please specify) ------
12. What would you have preferred to be the function of the development centres? The same as local government Education Roads
Health services Any other (please specify) ------
13. Will you like the development centres to be scraped? Yes No Don’t Know
14. If No, what would you suggest that should be done to improve the operations of the development centres? ------
APPENDIX 2 UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW
1. What is your view about the legality of development centres in consideration of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution?
2. Do you think that there is enough justification for their creation?
3. So far how would you assess the performance of the development centres?
4. What is the nature of relationship between the development centres and their mother local governments?
5. Who controls (in terms of supervision and regulation) the development centres?
6. What challenges are faced by the development centres in fulfilling their set goals?
7. What suggestions would you make towards improving their effectiveness?
NB: Additional questions were asked to further clarify views on these items by individual interviewees.
120
125
128
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139