OKPATA, F.O.
Department Of Public Administration
Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki
Abstract
The structure and the relationship that exist between the various levels of government in any democracy are constitutionally determined. Furthermore, the level of participation in government by the various levels of government and even her citizenry is more often than not related to the provisions of the constitution. In realization of this therefore, the level and quality of political awareness and mobilization that is available to the people in a particular democratic setting, is an index of the partnership and freedom that exist in such relationship especially, the state and local government of every political system. It is therefore, the position of this article that a structural relationship between the state and local government is that of the constitutional provision which has accorded different and separate existence and status to the local government in relations to the state; and thus has given the state an uncontrollable check and undue supervisory role to the separate and independent existence of the local government in Nigeria. Furthermore, in respect of the relationship between the state and local government, this article established that, constitutionally and under state law provision, the existence of the local government as a third tier of government has seriously been undermined thus, the underdevelopment of the local government system in Nigeria.
INTRODUCTION
Nigeria, since independence in 1960, has been bedeviled plethora of political problems, revolving around disharmony, prediction upon ethic disintegration and nurtured in acrimony, deprivation, marginalization and inter-governmental conflict. This has result unhealthy and competitive rather than co-operative federalism attendant socio-political conflicts and agitations all over the various re of Nigeria.
However, in a federal system with the spirit of democracy supreme constitution is meant to regulate the actions of government times. In fact, the essence of a democratic federalism from a perspective, is best expressed in the concept of constitutionalism, \ means that an agreement is reached according to which the power of government are shared between, the various levels. This agreement \ has to be respected within the dictates of the constitution, has sovereign powers, and fits into Wheare’s (1963) theoretical model of federalism \ argues that:
each unit of government within such a structure should operate independently within statutorily or constitutionally defined spheres of competence. It further argues that although the different units within such a structure are relatively independent, yet because they operate within a single national sovereign structure, they are coordinated with one another.
The constitutional control sets out the relationship between stakeholders and the various tiers of government in such a way that m tier of government dictates the decisions of the other.
Furthermore, a given political system within a federal system derives its existence from a supreme constitution, which defines Federalism as the process of governance and regulates the actions decisions of the various levels of government in relation to the citizens.
Federalism demands both the horizontal and vertical interact the various levels of governments, namely the federal, state and local levels Thus, in a federal arrangement like Nigeria, inter-governmental relations (IGR) appear to focus attention on two major discernible issues, not the increasing recognition of the importance of smooth and effective Management of complex political system and; the need to manage the wide array of transactions among constituent bodies (Okafor, 2002). A federal political arrangement signifies a division of governmental power between the national government and constituent units and such a division is usually specified in the constitution. It is in the light of the above that a federal structure, best finds expression in the concept of constitutionalism. This constitution, however, allows sufficient room for the respective tiers of government to influence, bargain with and persuade each other on contending issues.
Constitutionalism, within a federal context therefore, implies that both the federal, state and local governments have specific constitutionally guaranteed competence for which they have to take responsibilities. In essence, it means that each level of government has some activities on which it makes final decisions, thus no level of the government, takes supreme control of others except within the purview of the constitution. It is against this background that the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria succinctly declares in section (2) that:
The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the government or any part thereof except in accordance with the provisions of these constitutions.
Consequently, every level of government of Nigerian federalism is expected to operate within the confines of the constitutional powers and provisions. It equally follows that no level of government can be reasonably assessed without reference to the constitutional limitations or otherwise in the federal structure of Nigerian government. Wheare (1963) captured the essence of federalism when he posited that:
Federal principle denotes the method of dividing governmental legislative powers so that national governmental (centre) and regional (component) governments are each within a sphere, co-ordinate and independent.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF NIGERIA AND NIGERIAN FEDERALISM
The study of intergovernmental relations in Nigeria will only be meaningful in the context of understanding the historical development of Nigeria and Nigerian federal system, which started following the amalgamation of Southern and Northern protectorates on 1st January 1914. By 1914, the colony of Lagos and the two protectorates of Southern at Northern Nigeria were amalgamated as a single entity, referred to, Nigeria. However, in spite of the amalgamation, the protectorates still formed provinces in line with the British economic and administrate convenience.
Although we must equally recognize that the creation of the Nigerian state was not of the Nigerians’ making, neither did Nigeria contribute to the process of amalgamation but most importantly, the British were only poised to remove the artificial frontiers that separated the two provinces, for easy evacuation of economic resources.
Having amalgamated the protectorates, the guiding principle was to encourage the groups to develop independently, especially to presser their different cultural and political peculiarities. Although factors of history, culture and geography, supported this strategy, the need for imperial economic considerations, were overriding. It is pertinent to note here that while the exploitation of vast agricultural and natural resources in the south absorbed the energies of colonialism or the imperial administrators, little time was devoted to forging patterns of political development. This was, spite of the fact that pre-existing African system of government, differed from one ethnic group to the other; from the segmentary political structure of the Ibos, to the highly hierarchical structure of the Hausa-Fulanis at the democratic structure of the Yorubas.
It should be recognized that in the early years of political association of the various groups in Nigeria, the colonial masters in the absence adequate consultation with the people of Nigeria, imposed a politic arrangement which they considered adequate for the people of Nigeria, and this political arrangement was in all intents and purposes, aimed at realizing the objectives of the imperial crown. The amalgamation of the protectorate and the split into provinces did not constitute any part of the process planned political development for the Nigerian people but were suggestion necessitated by the need and convenience of imperial economy exploitation.
From the perspective of the British, there was the need to bring together large stretches of territories, which have no economic, cultural and political affinity, to form a united nation without any genuine attempt devise lasting political structure or arrangement. On the other hand colonial administration in Nigeria, especially in the North, pre-occupy itself with developing administrative philosophy commonly referred to; indirect rule. Under this system of administration, power was Share between the colonial administrators and the emirs. The system of Indirect Rule generally rested on a chain of structure, running from the reside colonial officers to the emir, down to the village head.
In discussing the origin of Nigerian federalism, Nwabueze (1988) approached it from two perspectives:
- Classical concept of federalism. In this approach; Nwabueze was of the opinion that there is a recognition of hitherto existing separate states to form a kind of union or unity with other independent states, surrendering their sovereignty, (giving in parts of their powers) while preserving parts of their independence. He then cited American federalism as a classic case in this regard where the decision to form a federation was taken by the independent states and the conditions for the federal compact were agreed upon and effectively articulated in the process.
- The second perspective he observed, is where states constituting a federation were not prior to the decision to form a federation, the decision to give up their independence either in part or in its entirety was not taken by the independent states. The decision, he argued, has often been that of external superior authority, which imposes the federal arrangement that only fits its own whims and caprices. He therefore fitted many British colonies like Nigeria into this kind of federal creation because, the British government as the colonial owner of Nigeria, initiated the process of integration (amalgamation) among hitherto existing independent Nigerian states and ethnic nationalities.
Historically, therefore, Nigeria as a political entity and as a federation, owes its federalism to the British government as evidenced in the 1914 amalgamation Act and became a federal state following the 1954 Littleton constitution. It was in this regard of the historical existence of Nigeria that Coleman, regards Nigeria as
An artificial creation of the British; the artificiality of Nigerian boundaries and the cultural differences among its people, succinctly point to the fact that Nigeria is a British creation...
The idea of Nigerian federal structure and its fiscal federalism has been enmeshed in multifarious contradictions and/or controversies. The issue has become a national question as socio-cultural groups, with varying ideological leanings, severally demonstrate their interest and concern especially on the issue of resource control. As a national question, the seriousness of Nigerian federalism has translated into a question of national unity, local autonomy, self-determination and equitable distribution of resources, opportunities, rewards, and power (Anifowose, et. al, 2004). However, given the rising concern endangering the peaceful co-existence of the multi-ethnic nationalities that confederated, beclouding the palpable need for the corporal existence of the Nigerian nation, some Marxist scholars and/o extremists, see the Nigerian federalism as presently constituted, a unworkable. This is because given the collaborative politics o emergent socio-cultural groups, the situation now canvases for the dissolution of the federal union because of greater conflict encapsulating the entire system (Okpata, 2008).
However, in its present status, Nigerian federalism has in true federalism advocacy, two re-structuring alternatives, hinged on the ethnic and class planks.
Meanwhile, in discussing Nigerian federalism, there are issues are challenges that have tended to weaken the existence of the federal structure and they include:
- The issue of evolving a fiscal structure that is conducive, rational and equitable for the allocation of the country’s resources among the different tiers and federating units.
- The need to evolve a strategic procedure for minimizing intergovernmental and inter-ethnic conflicts and curbing of ethnic militias.
- The promotion of national unity through the inculcation of national consciousness for national development, etc.
In fact one of the major issues in the federal structuring is the imbalance in the distribution of resources among the federating units oil government and this has become sensitive to the question of fiscal Federalism. As an issue in Nigerian fiscal federalism, it confers on the national government, the function of resource allocation, distribution and stabilization of the polity (Awa, 1976).
However, in doing this, the national government should recognize the need for inter-governmental relations because of the imperativeness that each tier of government must be assured of stable finances with which to discharge its constitutional responsibilities.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS IN NIGERIAN FEDERALISM.
Nigeria is a country where size, culture, linguistic diversity, historical particularism and considerable decentralization prevail (Beloft and Madison, 1985). It is believed that the more diverse the element within a political system, the better it is suited for federalism and the more homogeneous the political society, the better for unitary form. In the light of the above assertion, Inter governmental relations in Nigeria arose from the expression of various interests in the plural society. This led to the adoption of different systems of government, federal and unitary systems (Elekwa. 1980).
Meanwhile, what now obtains in most federal politics arc scribes of inter-governmental relationships on formal and informal bases and levels. However, in the Nigerian federal structure with a multiple decision of relational activities, Ayoade (1988), identified six levels of such relationship within a federal political structure. Thus, inter- governmental transactions in Nigeria, flows within the levels of:
- Federal State relations
- Federal- state-Local relations
- National-Local Relations
- Inter-State Relations
- State-Local Relations
- Inter-Local Relations {Bello-Iman,1995].
The concept of intergovernmental relations, deals with an important body of activities, or interactions occurring between governmental units of all types and levels within a federal system. It is the manner in which the units or the agents of the state associate with each other whether civilian or otherwise, especially under the federal structure.
For Abonyi (2006) an Intergovernmental relation is concerned with both vertical and horizontal relationships that exist between the various levels of government, and within the sovereign government of a particular country.
Intergovernmental relations are a series of legal political and administrative relationships, established among units of government and which possesses varying degree of authority and jurisdictional autonomy (Melkin 1976). Amitai Ezioni (1975), sees intergovernmental relations as the interactions that take place among the different levels of government within a given state.
Finally, Ogunna (1996) asserts that intergovernmental relations can be defined as the complex pattern of interactions, co-operations and inter-dependence between one or more levels of government lending their support to the constitutionality of the local government.
Meanwhile, intergovernmental relations has its root in Nigeria and America and it is traceable back to early 1930’s to late 1950’s with the establishment of advisory body on intergovernmental relations. Although this body was short lived between 1953 and 1955, it became a permanent nature of the American Federal System.
In Nigeria, intergovernmental relations both during the colonial era and the First Republic very much, exhibited traits of the principal/agent model as Local Government was constitutionally within practice functioned more as field administrative units of regional and later State Governments. Before the Second Republic in 1979, the State Governments were empowered in Section 7 (i) of the Constitution to enact legislation that would ensure the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of the Local Government Councils (Bello-Iman, 1995).
CONSTITUTIONAL EXISTENCE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS POWER RELATION WITH THE STATE
The constitutional existence of Local Government varies from one country to another. For instance, in Federations like America and Germany, the constitution recognized two tiers of government only, the state becomes the basic constitutional unit of local government because the 10* amendment of the American constitution reserves to the state, the power to determine for itself the nature, scope and functioning of local government within its jurisdiction. In Britain and France for example, the local government as the agent of the national government, comes into existence through parliamentary legislation and thus exercise such powers and functions as are allowed it by the parliament (Okoli, 1985).
The 1979 Nigerian constitution broke tradition… on local government, being the first on modern history to expressly prescribe the existence and functioning of local government. Local governments the \\orld over, arc therefore creations of the state including structure; functions; finance and powers, are all provided for by the law (Ezeani 2004; koli, 1985). Adamolekun cited in Njoku (1998), express the fact that the local government is technically a creature of the federal government as the third tier, its local prerogative defined by the constitution and legislation, meaning that the local government is a state subject in a federal system.
1 n his position (Bello-Iman, 1995) posited that:
No matter the model of intergovernmental relation, the local government does not have absolute independence nor seen as a sovereign unit in itself. This is because local governments are only infra-sovereign units of government, administratively decentralized by the sovereign nation-state.
Initiating the debate that local governments are the property of the state, Redford, et. al (1968:348) observed succinctly:
Municipal corporations (local governments) owe their origin to and derive their powers and rights wholly from the state. It breathes in the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy it, may abridge and control.
Nwangbo (2004) aptly affirmed that local government is the creation of state, which has the power to make and unmake it. According to him, the status of the local government is governed by the “Dillion rule” which was named after Justice Dillion of the Supreme Court of Iowa; as Maxwell (1969) stated. Justice Dillion declared the status of the local government that:
The first property of local governments to be understood is that they are legally creatures of the state. The local government that carryout most of the programmes and deal with most of the conflicts in urban areas are legally established as municipalities chattered by -either general of special act of the state legislature…ending the cities with a legal personality…
From the above statements, there are forceful expressions that local governments are generally created by and derived their powers from states especially in a democratic federalism; hence it is proper to assert that local governments are derivates of state government and not constitutional creation as expressed in the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.
However, in Nigeria the constitution transferred to the state, the legal existence and as a result, the local governments are state creation through laws passed by their various Houses of Assembly. Within the context of 1999 Nigerian Constitution, Section 7(1) provides 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 ensure their existence, under a law which provides for the establishment.
Structure composition finance and functions of such councils.
Meanwhile, the state and local government’s relations in democratic governance has legal instrument and provides for specific relationship: which derive its powers from a constitutional provision.
Countries like Nigeria, Canada, United Kingdom, America, Fran and Germany have governments with original powers and jurisdiction derived from the constitution of the country, while the local government units are dependent for their powers and functions on the state and central government. Local government depends on the central government for their powers and functions and that the mode of power and function sharer affect and determine, the function, power and place of local government power flow of any country (Njoku 1998).
For Bello-Iman (1996), the constitution and parliament usually delineate and regulate the activities of all levels of government consequently; both the powers and responsibilities of the various tiers government could be added to and subtracted from, over time. Bello-Iman at a global level, delineated three models of intergovernmental relations which include: Partnership, Principal/Agent and Dual models. The nature of State-Local relations can best be captured in the interpretation of 1 Principal/Agent which according to him, presents a hierarchical view of 1 relationship between both the, state and the local governments, her perceiving the local government as an agent or means of locally administering centrally determined services. In this model, the local government is grossly limited operationally, by central rules regulations.
THE NATURE AND DIMENSIONS OF STATE-LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS IN NIGERIA
The nature of intergovernmental relations between state and lo governments does not reflect true federalism. It is more or less mast servant relations in which the local governments subsist at the mercy of state government i.e. “It is the Giant Lilliputian relationship, resulting muzzling the horse that threaded the corn”. A few discussions on implications of the relationship between the local and state government will shade light on the problems associated with both the constitutional provisions and the state creation of the local government system in Nigerian federalism. The 1999 constitution unfortunately had some confusion, lapses, ambiguities and intrigues which directly or indirectly affect the performance of local government. Most of the crises of Intergovernmental relations bedeviling the local government effectiveness are the aftermath of the inherent loopholes and ambiguities in the constitution.
To support the argument that the constitution and Federal Government have helped in creating confusion as to who is responsible for local government existence in Nigeria, Bello-lman (1996) asserted that the Federal Government resorted to clearly spelling out the basis of local government especially as at 1987, thus the relationship between the states and local government became definitely super-ordinate. The Federal government of Nigeria due to the prevailing situation of the local government in 1988, adopted comprehensive measures which were aimed at radically reforming the structure, finance and administration of local governments to make them viable and effective.
The foregoing augment, implicates the local government effectiveness on the following areas:
- Existence of local government council
- Sources of revenue and general administration,
- Dissolution and expiration of council tenure, and
- The executive powers of the chairmen and their vices.
For instance, in the area of the existence of the local government councils as in section 7 subsection (1) of the 1999 constitution and in section 8 (3-5), the same constitution states the process for the purposes of creating local government councils.
The question of control revolves around finance. Nwankwo (1992) observed that under the new local government system, each local government council is expected to have two principal categories of revenue sources: Recurrent and capital revenue. Meanwhile section 149 subsections 4 and 5 provided for revenue allocation and disbursement to the 1 government in Nigeria, thus:
- The National Assembly shall make provisions for statutory allocation of public revenue to local government councils in the federation; and
- The House of Assembly of a state shall make provisions statutory allocation of public revenue to local government council within the state.
Okoli (1985) asserted that the above constitutional provisions placed the bulk of the financial burden of the local government both federal and state governments, however, it stands clear to reason that s: who ever pays the piper dictates the tune; government can exercise some measure of control over local government.
Meanwhile, section 162 (4-6) provides thus:
The amount standing to the credit of local government council the federation Accounts shall be allocated to the state for the benefit of Local government councils on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly;
- Each state shall maintain a special account to be called ” State Joint Local Government Account” into which shall be paid allocation the local government councils of the state from federation Account and from the government of the state;
- The amount standing and from the credit of the local government a state shall be distributed among the local government council; that state on such term and as prescribed by the House of Assembly of the state whose constitutional duty is to establish ” State Joint Local Government Account” into which these allocations are paid. Thus, what happens to the funds in the Joint Account is not the business of the constitution (Okoli, 1985).
This financial control or relationship between the local and the state governments brings the former to over dependence which reduces the autonomy of the local governments thus increasing undue control of the state on them. This gives the state the leeway for financial manipulations of the local government. Furthermore, in view of the principal agent relationship between the local and state governments, the local government is always rubbed of certain freedom, including revenue sources for effective performance. Onah (2004), observed that “no local government can pursue development plans; development activities; facilitate democratic self-governance; mobilize human and material resource; and link the local government to other tiers effectively, without predictable sources of fund.” For instance, the statutory allocations of the federal government which were to enable the local governments function in stimulating socio-economic development of the grass-root level, only trickle down on small percentage from the State Joint Local Government Account, amidst other revenue sources seized by the states. In essence, the excessive use of power in the supervisory relationship of the state in the disbursement of the statutory funds makes it extremely difficult to achieve the principal objective of ensuring rapid economic and rural development on the part of local government administration.
GENERAL IMPLICATIONS OF INTER-GOVERNMEP RELATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF NIGERIAN FEDERALISM
Effective intergovernmental relations will be result oriented relevant political actors will be willing to allow their actions to be guide the letters and spirit of the constitution. The absence of this indeed always was the problem of state-local government administration. This informed the manipulative and cynical intrigues of state and government relations.
For effective state-local government relations, it must evolve pattern of cooperative relationship between the two levels of governor within Nigerian democratic federalism. This pattern of relationship need assume vertical and horizontal form to promote harmony among levels rather than competitive federalism, which engenders jurisdiction conflict. This is because the key terms in the study of intergovernmental relations are co-operation, co-ordination or conflict of jurisdiction.
Fundamentally, the major element in effective state-] government relations is in the areas of administration and film Therefore, to ensure result oriented state-local government relations, sensitive area should be transferred to the legislative arm of nation government. This legislative control is design to ensure that the 1 amount of money flowing to the local government from both federal state sources as well as the internally generated revenue to the 1 government are effectively utilized and accounted for, within the f administrative oversight, this also will reduce the increasing appendage the local governments to the states.
Finally, the emerging structure of Nigerian federalism today pyramid where the federal government is at the apex, the state below and the local government at the base. In this order, each level of government has distinctive areas of jurisdiction as constitutionally provided, and every level of government should be constrained from both above and below to the extent of its constitutional objectives and joint undertaking. In the above circumstance, co-operative arrangement of the tiers of government will continue to share the bundle of domestic programmes while the federal government specifically takes on some of the foreign affairs as in the exclusive list.
Furthermore, local government allocation, should be contained in a “Consolidated Account” and shall be directly disbursed by the federal government under the supervision of the National Assembly. This again brings to focus the fact that the existence of local government be made a national or constitutional issue. For instance, in Britain and France the local government seen as the agent of National Government, comes into existence through parliamentary legislation and thus exercises such powers and functions as are allowed by the parliament.
CONCLUSION
Inter-governmental relation is a very sensitive area in all political systems, especially as it is conditioned by transient factors. Even in federal states, the situation is virtually the same. Under the present dispensation, where many states are trying to place severe restrictions on the autonomy of the local governments, the constitutional provisions are not respected indeed.Admittedly, there is an obvious division of functions between the three levels of government in Nigeria’s federal structure. However, the statutory provision, which states that the House of Assembly may assign any function to the Local Government within the state, somehow subordinates Local Government to the State Government. The governments deserve their autonomy, if they earn it and state govern must relax the current suffocating control maintained over the government. True to type, both the Federal and State Government! not only succeeded in stifling but also failed to support the government to engineer rural development as a socio-economic instrument. The position of this paper in respect of power relationship, be state and the local governments, is that the constitution accorded a different and separate existence and status to the two tiers of government and thus given the state undue control over the local governments. The situation has made the local governments mere cleaver ages, stooges c extension appendages of the state governments, while in the real federalism, both arc expected to be partners in progress. This co-opt: relations will in turn facilitate the participation of the local government the formulation of states development plans, thus that is the begging true inter-governmental relations in a democratic federalism.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Effective Intergovernmental relations in a democratic federalism must be based on certain unavoidable factors especially in Nigeria federalism:
Firstly, evolving a pattern of cooperative relationship partnership between the two tiers of government in Nigeria. This pall relationship is needed to promote harmony among the levels and to jurisdictional conflict that hinders corporate existence in a heterogenic and plural system like ours.
Secondly, the political class should be willing to allow their (to be guided by the letters and spirit of the constitution. The absence of this will continue to cause friction and conflict in the state-local government administration. This again will reduce the manipulative and cynical intrigues that overshadow the local government from effective performance.
Thirdly, local government administration should Endeavour to have strong forum that will enable them relate positively and effectively with other tiers of government. This is because ALGON the only forum, has been weakened with frequent changes of leaderships in the local government, hence apart from the elected officers, other permanent/career officers of the local governments should have formidable forum to relate with other tiers of government in other to assert local government autonomy.
Fourthly, local governments have been heavily deprived of their internal revenue sources, making them unavoidably dependent on the states and national governments. The revenue base of the local government should be expanded as well as the local councils themselves, be allowed certain freedom in their federal allocation for independent and self initiatives in fostering rural development policies and programmes.
Fifthly, effort should be made to maintain uniformity the unified local government system, to ensure standard and accelerated development. This is because uniformity appears to be elusive presently in the local government system, hence the state governments are their liberty to conduct elections of their local governments at different times; appoint caretaker committees/sole administrators after the dissolution of the local governments at will, without regards to any authority or rule. Such scenario is void of standard development and does not facilitate democratic self-governance in the local government.
Sixthly, local government allocations should be contained in a “Consolidated Account” and should be directly disbursed by the federal government under the supervision of the National Assembly. This again will underscore the fact that the existence of local government be made a Constitutional/National issue. For example, in Britain and France, the local government seen as the agent of National Government, comes into existence through parliamentary legislation and thus exercise such power (and functions as are allowed by the parliament.
Finally, the 1999 constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria, should be reviewed especially as it affects the Local government system the fourth schedule and m sections 7-8, in order to re-position the local government for effective intergovernmental relations that will enhance the socio-economic performance of the local government for rural development.
REFERENCES
BOOKS:
Awa, E.G. (1976) Issues in Federalism: Benin: Ethiopia Publishing House.
Awa, E.G. (1987). The Theory of Local Government, Benin: Ethiopia Publishing House.
Abonyi, N.A. (2006) Intergovernmental Relations in Democratic Federations. Enugu: John Jacobs Classical Publishers.
Akindele, S.T (1995) ‘ Inter-Governmental Institution in Nigeria: A Theoretical Appraisal of the Involvement of Local Governments “, in
Awotokun A.M. (ed) New Trends in Nigerian Local Government, Illc Ife: ObafemiAwolowo University.
Bello-Iman, I.B (1995) Local Government in Nigeria: Evolving a Third Tier of Government. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books, Pic.
K’llo-Iman, I.B, (1992) ” Intergovernmental relations with Reference to Local Government in Nigeria” in Ekoko A.E. et al, Proceedings of National Seminar on the Political Economy of Local Government reforms and Transition in the Third Republic. Ekpoma: Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Edo State University.
I gonmwam, J. A. (1990). Principles and Practice of Local Government in Nigeria Benin: S.M.O. Aka & Bros Press.
Slock, G. S (1991) The Politics of Local Government. London: Macmillan
Ofoeze, H.G (1999), Federalism: A Comparative Perspective. Enugu: John Jacob’s Classic Publishers ltd.
Okoli, F.C. (2000). Theory and Practice of Local Government. A Nigerian Perspective. Enugu John Jacob’s Classic Publishers Ltd.
Oriaku, K.K. (2004) Federalism, Nigeria and Democracy, cited in Obi E.A, and Obikeze, S.O. (2004) (ed), Federalism and National Integration in Nigeria. Onitsha: Book point Ltd.
Okoli, F.C.(1985). An introduction to the theory and practice of local government administration in Nigeria: Nigerian perspective. Enugu:John Jacob’s Classic Publishing Company.
Ogunna, A.E.C (1996) A hand Book on Local Government in Nigeria Owerri: Versatile Publishers.
Wheare, K.C. (1953) Federal Government: Third Edition London; OUP Oxford.
Wheare, K.C. (1963) Federal Government. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wrait, E.E. (1989), The Four Dimensional Administration: Deconcentration, Delegation, devolution and Decentralization Quarterly Journal of Administration vol. 5 No. 2.
JOURNALS/OFFICIAL GAZETTEES AND UNPUBLISHED WORKS:
Anifowose, Remi (2004) ‘ The State, Politics and Economy Under Obasanjo government, 1999. Unilag Journal of Politics Vol. 1 No.1 December, 2004.
Ayodele, J.A. (1988) “Intergovernmental Relations in Nigeria” in Quarterly Journal of Administration. Vol. xiv, No. 2.
Onah, P.O. 2004 Intergovernmental Relations and the Survival of the Local Governments in the 21” Century Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Administration and Local Government: UNN Volumcl2No. 1, May, 2004.
Elaigwu, Isaira (1993) Federal and Local Government in Nigeria. Ibadan: University Press Ltd.
Elekwa, N.N (1980):Local Government in National Development. Lecture Series, Nsukka: U.N.N.
Federal Government of Nigeria (1976). Guideline for Local Government Reform. Federal Gazzette, Ministry of Information Lagos.
Federal Government of Nigeria (1999) The Constitution of the Federal Republic.