As debates over local government autonomy continue across Nigeria, former Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola has argued that expecting full autonomy for local councils under the present Constitution is unrealistic.

Speaking on Sunrise, a Channels Television programme aired on Saturday, Fashola, who also served as Minister of Power, Works and Housing, pointed out that the influence of state governments and state assemblies over local councils undermines the very concept of autonomy.

“I think that the debate we must have, debate we must have, is whether we really want autonomous local governments. It’s a debate that must be had. As it stands today, it is unrealistic to expect autonomy for local governments created by the Constitution,” he said.

Fashola explained that since state Houses of Assembly are empowered to make laws for local governments, this automatically imposes an external influence, contrary to the core idea of self-governance.

“They were not meant to be autonomous; that is my view after a very close reading of certain provisions of the Constitution. Some of those provisions provide, for example, that the local government in its economic activities and all of that will have laws made for it by the state House of Assembly.

“If you look at the legal and ordinary meaning of the word, autonomy, it suggests that you are acting independently without any outside influence and authority, and to that extent, a state House of Assembly making laws for what and how a local government can function is in itself an external influence that contradicts the idea of autonomy.”

He also identified land control as a practical constraint, noting that most responsibilities assigned to local councils, such as managing abattoirs, cemeteries, schools, and healthcare centres, require land, which is under the authority of state governments.

“The next thing, of course, is to look in the Fourth Schedule of the constitution and look at all of the responsibilities that are assigned to local governments… all of those responsibilities are dependent on one item, land.

“And to the extent that the state government controls land, which affects how the local governments will carry out these functions, I didn’t think that autonomy was intended. Now, if we decide that we want autonomous local governments, those are some of the things we have to free up if that is our decision.”

He added: “So we must have an agreement, but as it stands, I don’t think that autonomy was intended. What I think was intended was some sort of collaboration, some sort of supervision, some sort of an oversight of the state over the local government, and that is inherent in what you will find in Section 162, which deals with the state’s joint local government account.”

Fashola further explained that poor fiscal responsibility by many local councils in the early years of democracy led to the introduction of the state–local government joint account.

“And there’s history behind the enactment of that section because up till 1999, the local governments used to collect their money directly from the Federation account under a process that I think was known as JAAC, Joint Accounts and allocation or something.”

“But in the advent of the democratic era, it was found out that there were so many of them, or not a few of them, who had defaulted in the very basic obligation of paying staff salaries, primary healthcare workers, primary school teachers, salaries and pensions, and there was a backlog of debt, and I met some of that debt when I became Governor and we were working there.”

“And I think that is partly the history behind the creation of the state joint local government account to ensure that there was some supervision. Whether the supervisors have now become as culpable as those they were supervising is another narrative entirely.”

On the recent Supreme Court ruling which granted financial autonomy to local governments and barred governors from dissolving democratically elected councils, Fashola noted the mixed legal opinions on its constitutionality.

“No patriot would say that all was well with the state of local governments in Nigeria,” he said.

Still, he acknowledged that conducting local government elections was a step in the right direction towards improving their independence.

“The conduct of council elections was a good step towards making local governments independent.”

A former loyalist of ex-Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, has launched a scathing attack on him for accepting a political appointment from the same government he once publicly opposed during the 2023 election cycle.

Maigida Yakubu, in an 11-page open letter released Friday, denounced Dogara’s recent political alignment, accusing him of hypocrisy and betrayal, particularly for accepting an offer from the Bola Tinubu administration despite having fiercely criticized the APC’s Muslim-Muslim ticket.

Describing Dogara as “a master manipulator who has replaced honour with deceit, unity with chaos, trust with betrayal, and drives the community to the edge of fracture,” Yakubu painted the former Speaker as a divisive figure responsible for disunity in Zaar land.

Yakubu revisited Dogara’s role in the 2023 elections, slamming him for portraying himself as a moral crusader while allegedly seeking political favors behind the scenes.

“Your trademark, deceit, and legendary blunders finally got the spotlight they deserved. If there were awards for political self-sabotage, you’d have swept the night,” he wrote.

“You made a grand show of denouncing the APC’s Muslim-Muslim ticket, parading yourself as some moral crusader.”

“Yet, for the past two years, you have shamelessly been groveling at the feet of the same political group, begging for political appointments without a shred of dignity.”

He further accused Dogara of manufacturing public dissent for personal gain, citing his orchestration of protests during the APC primaries.

“To crown the hypocrisy, you went to the extent of importing a rented Christian crowd mostly from the Middle Belt just to help you act out your public yet staged disapproval. Not even a shred of kunya (shame) in your conduct.”

“Since when did you become the grand coordinator of Christian political mobilization? Oh, as usual, the moment it serves your selfish interest, you’re suddenly all in, full of energy and commitment, like we saw in 2023.”

Taking a jab at Dogara’s recent appointment, Yakubu mocked its perceived insignificance, calling it a political muzzle rather than recognition.

“Truly, a masterclass in double standards! Let’s remind you that the Tinubu government knows exactly who you are, that’s why the government handed you a token chairmanship of a new agency, not as a mark of honour, but as a convenient muzzle. Nothing more, nothing less.”

He added sarcastically, “Well, these days, you are not busy haunting the offices and homes of power brokers like a political housefly, buzzing around without purpose but making sure everyone notices you.”

Yakubu also criticized Dogara’s track record in his constituency, accusing him of exploiting youth and failing to deliver lasting empowerment.

“Remind us again, just for laughs, is there one Basayi son or daughter who can say he or she was genuinely economically or politically empowered from your celebrated reign as Member and Speaker of the House of Representatives?”

Former National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, has addressed public speculation surrounding his absence during President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent visit to Kano State.

President Tinubu was in Kano on Friday, marking his first visit to the state since assuming office.

The trip was primarily to extend condolences to the family of the late business tycoon, Alhaji Aminu Dantata.

Ganduje’s absence at such a high-profile event raised questions, with observers linking it to possible internal party tensions following his resignation as APC National Chairman.

Despite this, President Tinubu was warmly received by several top APC figures, including Deputy Senate President Barau Jibril, APC Kano Chairman Prince Abdullahi Abbas, former Deputy Governor Nasiru Gawuna, and State Ministers Dr. Mariya Bunkure (FCT) and Abdullahi Ata (Housing), among others.

In a statement issued on Saturday, Ganduje’s aide, Malam Muhammad Garba, clarified the reason behind his absence, stating the former governor had traveled to London for a personal engagement shortly after stepping down from party leadership.

Garba explained, “The visit by President Tinubu was communicated to Ganduje, but unfortunately, despite frantic efforts to reschedule his flight and itinerary, the logistics made it impossible for him to return in time.”

He dismissed rumors suggesting Ganduje was either avoiding the event or facing health issues, saying the former governor was abroad well before the president’s visit.

Garba also noted that Ganduje remained actively involved behind the scenes to support the President’s visit: “Despite being abroad, Ganduje remained in constant communication, virtually every hour or two, with key party leaders, including the Deputy Senate President, Senator Barau Jibrin, and the APC Kano State Chairman, Alhaji Abdullahi Abbas, to ensure smooth coordination for the President’s visit.”

He further emphasized that Ganduje’s resignation as National Chairman does not signal any rift with President Tinubu.

“The APC in Kano,” Garba said, “remains fully united, loyal, and committed to the vision and leadership of President Tinubu.”

He concluded by reaffirming the strong bond between Ganduje and the president, describing it as “a relationship built over years of mutual respect and political alignment.”

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has accused President Bola Tinubu of manipulating the death of former President Muhammadu Buhari for a political publicity stunt.

In a statement on Friday, Interim National Publicity Secretary Bolaji Abdullahi slammed the Federal Executive Council (FEC) tribute to Buhari as “a deliberate publicity stunt by an unpopular administration.”

Earlier, Tinubu had led a special FEC session at the State House in Abuja, offering warm tributes to Buhari, whom he described as “a good, decent, and honourable man” whose values of discipline, patriotism, and integrity would be remembered.

While acknowledging Buhari’s flaws, the president praised his “steadfast dedication to national service.”

The ADC, however, criticized the tribute as insincere, noting that Tinubu’s administration had spent over a year blaming Buhari for the nation’s economic challenges before pivoting to public mourning.

The party charged that the government had “distanced itself from Buhari’s policies, especially on fuel subsidy, the economy, and public sector management, only to now attempt to cloak itself in the very legacy it once denounced.”

In the statement, the ADC asserted:

“The African Democratic Congress condemns the Tinubu administration’s sudden and cynical attempt to wrap itself in the memory of the late President Muhammadu Buhari, a man this same government spent over a year blaming, sidelining, and scapegoating for every major challenge confronting the nation.”

They further described the tribute as “a choreographed Federal Executive Council (FEC) tribute … not a demonstration of genuine respect.

“It was a calculated public relations stunt by an unpopular government, carefully stage‑managed to distract Nigerians from the administration’s deepening failures and to rewrite history while the nation mourns.”

The ADC also criticized the inclusion of Yusuf Buhari, the former president’s son, in the FEC ritual:

“The unfolding stage‑managed displays of grief and the exploitation of a mourning son who was compelled to perform gratitude in front of the cameras is unconscionable and must be condemned by all decent people.”

Questioning the ethics of the timing, they countered:

“Nigerians remember that since taking office, the Tinubu administration … have blamed Buhari for everything … But now that it suits their political agenda, they seek to recast themselves as defenders of the late President’s legacy, pretending to give him in death, the honour they denied him while he was alive.”

Despite the ADC’s condemnation, they expressed confidence in Nigerians’ discernment:

“Nevertheless, we are confident that Nigerians can see through their grand deceit. No public relations stunt can save a government that has behaved in the last two years like an army of occupation.”