Atlantic Post

In a controversial and unprecedented move, the Supreme Court of Nigeria recently ruled in favour of granting financial autonomy to local governments, a decision that the Nigerian Indigenous Nationalities Alliance for Self-determination (NINAS) has vehemently condemned. According to NINAS, this ruling effectively cedes control of Nigeria to Fulani interests, drawing parallels to the 1979 constitution orchestrated by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, which they claim hijacked the country’s sovereignty for the Caliphate. The statement issued by NINAS on July 14, 2024, outlines their deep concerns about the implications of this judgment and its potential to further destabilize an already distressed federation.

The Supreme Court Judgment: A Background

On July 11, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a NINAS, this ruling effectively cedes control of Nigeria to Fulani interests, drawing parallels to the 1979 constitution orchestrated by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, which they claim hijacked the country’s sovereignty for the Caliphate.judgment on the financial autonomy of local governments in Nigeria. This ruling came in response to a suit brought by the Federal Government against the thirty-six states of Nigeria. The court’s decision aims to address the monumental corruption associated with the state/local government joint accounts by granting local governments financial independence. Proponents argue that this will enhance accountability and facilitate development at the grassroots level.

However, NINAS perceives this ruling as a veiled attempt by the Federal Government to exert greater control over local governments. They argue that this move is not genuinely about curbing corruption but rather a strategic ploy to manipulate the political landscape ahead of the 2027 general elections.

NINAS’s Critique: A Deeper Analysis

NINAS contends that the zeal with which the Federal Government pursued this case before the Supreme Court raises suspicion. They argue that the ruling is part of a broader strategy to circumvent failed attempts at constitutional amendments aimed at creating RUGA settlements and other land-grab schemes favoring Fulani populations. According to NINAS, the Federal Government’s enthusiasm for local government autonomy is driven by ulterior motives, primarily the consolidation of political power and control over Nigeria’s grassroots structures.

One of the critical issues raised by NINAS is the condition attached to the direct federal allocation to local government councils. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) will now take over the conduct of elections for local governments from the state independent electoral commissions (SIECs). This, NINAS argues, translates to the Federal Government controlling both the finances and electoral processes of local governments, effectively undermining the sovereignty of the people and centralizing power.

The Political Calculations Behind the Judgment

NINAS links the Supreme Court’s ruling to the political machinations surrounding the 2027 general elections. They cite the ongoing power struggle in Rivers State between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, now Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, as indicative of the broader political dynamics at play. NINAS suggests that controlling local governments is crucial for influencing grassroots political structures, which are pivotal for electoral success.

The group argues that President Bola Tinubu, along with key allies like Wike and Senate President Godswill Akpabio, is leveraging this judicial route to secure an advantage in the upcoming elections. By taking control of local government finances and elections, they aim to ensure a smooth political landscape conducive to their ambitions, at the expense of the people’s sovereignty.

Historical Parallels and the Fulani Conquest Agenda

Drawing historical parallels, NINAS compares the current situation to the imposition of the 1979 constitution by Olusegun Obasanjo, which they claim was designed to entrench Caliphate control over Nigeria. They argue that just as Obasanjo’s actions in 1979 hijacked Nigeria’s sovereignty, Tinubu’s current maneuvers are ceding control of the country to Fulani interests.

NINAS’s statement highlights the broader Fulani conquest agenda, facilitated historically by British colonial policies and perpetuated through various legislative and judicial means. They argue that the recent Supreme Court judgment represents a final onslaught in this agenda, seeking to capture absolute control of grassroots governance structures across Nigeria.

The Ministry of Livestock Development: Another RUGA in Disguise?

Adding to their concerns, NINAS points to the creation of the Ministry of Livestock Development by the Tinubu administration. They argue that this ministry is yet another attempt to advance the Fulani agenda, disguised as a development initiative. NINAS asserts that previous efforts to establish grazing routes, reserves, and other schemes under various guises have all been part of a broader strategy to appropriate lands for Fulani populations.

NINAS vows to mobilize the Indigenous Peoples of Nigeria to resist any federal initiatives that involve land appropriation for private livestock businesses, which they view as tantamount to RUGA. They call for vigilance and collective action to safeguard the sovereignty and autonomy of Nigeria’s diverse communities.

The Struggle for Federalism and Regional Autonomy

At the heart of NINAS’s critique is a call for a return to true federalism and regional autonomy. They argue that the current unitary structure, perpetuated by the 1999 constitution, has strangled the states and rendered them impotent. The Supreme Court’s judgment on local government autonomy, they contend, extends this strangulation to local governments, further entrenching centralized control.

NINAS criticizes prominent Nigerian lawyers and advocates of federalism who have supported the judgment, accusing them of betraying the cause of regional autonomy under the guise of anti-corruption measures. They argue that genuine federalism requires dismantling the imposed unitary constitutional arrangements and restructuring Nigeria into a truly federal union.

The Way Forward: NINAS’s Transitioning Proposition

In light of these developments, NINAS proposes a radical solution: the wholesale decommissioning of the 1999 constitution and a transition towards a restructured Nigeria. They argue that this is the only viable path to halt the Fulani conquest agenda and ensure a peaceful and orderly constitutional reconstruction of Nigeria.

NINAS’s 5-point transitioning proposition includes measures to restore the sovereignty of Nigeria’s constituent components and establish a framework for a new political order. They emphasize the urgency of this transition, warning that failure to address the current crisis could lead to a catastrophic dissolution of the Nigerian union.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

NINAS’s statement concludes with a call to action for all Nigerians to recognize the gravity of the current situation and unite in defense of their sovereignty. They argue that the Supreme Court’s judgment on local government autonomy is not just a legal issue but a fundamental challenge to the nation’s democratic principles and federal structure.

As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, the stakes have never been higher. The battle for control of local governments is not merely about financial autonomy but about the very future of the Nigerian state. NINAS urges Nigerians to remain vigilant, informed, and ready to resist any attempts to undermine their sovereignty and autonomy.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment on local government autonomy has ignited a fierce debate about the balance of power in Nigeria. NINAS’s critical position highlights the deep-seated concerns about the centralization of control, the historical parallels to past constitutional manipulations, and the urgent need for a return to true federalism. As the nation navigates this contentious issue, the voices of those advocating for regional autonomy and sovereignty must be heard and heeded.

---