Behind the Victory: Justice Abiru’s cautionary dissent on LG autonomy

By Olukayode Majekodunmi

In a landmark judgement that sent seismic waves done Nigeria’s governmental landscape, the Supreme Court precocious affirmed the fiscal and administrative autonomy of the nation’s 774 section authorities areas. The case, Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Ors., was wide celebrated arsenic a decisive triumph for constitutionalism and the 3rd tier of government. The court’s unanimous dismissal of the states’ objections and its halfway holdings were clear. However, a person speechmaking reveals a important nuance: the partial dissent of Justice Habeeb Abiru.

While the headlines proclaimed a unanimous victory, Justice Abiru’s judgement serves arsenic a masterclass successful judicial precision, reminding america that successful law, the devil is often successful the details. His Lordship agreed with the bulk connected the cardinal principles but diverged connected the scope of the reliefs granted, offering a much restrained presumption of the judicial relation successful remedying law breaches.

A jurist of method, restraint

Justice Habeeb Abiru, elevated to the Supreme Court successful 2023, has built a estimation arsenic a jurist of discipline, detail, and intelligence restraint. Prior to his elevation, helium served with favoritism astatine the Court of Appeal, wherever helium delivered respective notable judgments successful law and commercialized law. His inheritance besides includes years arsenic a High Court justice successful Lagos State, wherever helium became known for his accent connected strict adherence to statutory mentation and judicial modesty.

This nonrecreational trajectory helps explicate his stance successful the section authorities autonomy case. Justice Abiru’s doctrine is shaped by a accordant penchant for judicial boundaries — ensuring that courts construe and enforce the instrumentality without encroaching connected legislative oregon enforcement domains. His partial dissent successful this lawsuit is not an anomaly but portion of a broader signifier of jurisprudence marked by caution, precision, and a refusal to indulge successful judicial overreach.

 Unwavering enactment for antiauthoritarian governance

Before examining the dissent, it is captious to enactment that Justice Abiru stood shoulder-to-shoulder with his brethren connected the halfway law issues. He unequivocally held that: State Governments person a mandatory work to guarantee a strategy of democratically elected section authorities councils, arsenic guaranteed by Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution: “The strategy of section authorities by democratically elected section authorities councils is nether this Constitution guaranteed…”

• Dissolving these councils and replacing them with Caretaker Committees, Transition Committees, oregon Administrators is “unlawful and unconstitutional and amounts to gross misconduct.”

• The reasons precocious by states for specified actions were “not tenable” and sanctioning them would unfastened the doorway to “constitutional aberrations” astatine each tiers of government.

On these principles, determination was nary disagreement. The rift emerged not successful the diagnosis of the law illness, but successful the medicine of the judicial cure.

Judicial restraint and limits of power

The Federal Government’s originating summons contained 27 circumstantial prayers. The bulk granted astir of them, including sweeping orders compelling nonstop outgo from the Federation Account to LG accounts and restraining authorities governments from immoderate interference with LG funds. Justice Abiru, however, took a much circumspect approach. He declined to assistance prayers 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17. His reasoning was rooted successful a strict mentation of the judicial relation and the circumstantial quality of the suit filed.

‘No democratically elected council’ conundrum

One of the plaintiff’s cardinal prayers was that a authorities successful breach of Section 7 (for not having elected councils) should not beryllium entitled to person LG allocations from the Federation Account nether Section 162(5), which provides that “the magnitude lasting to the recognition of section authorities councils successful the Federation Account shall besides beryllium allocated to the States for the payment of their section authorities councils…”

The majority’s determination efficaciously supported bypassing states successful breach and enabling nonstop payments. Justice Abiru however, viewed this arsenic problematic. He argued that specified a ruling would make a “self-imposed impossibility.”

A authorities that fails successful its work to behaviour ...