The Nigerian Constitution promises that local governments will be democratically elected and guaranteed as the third tier of government. On paper, this positions local government chairmen as important leaders with direct responsibility for grassroots development. The Constitution even assigns them a share of national revenue through allocations from the Federation Account. In theory, this should give them both legitimacy and resources to govern effectively. Yet, in practice, this promise of autonomy is far weaker than it appears.
Local government chairmen do not have the independence that the constitutional text seems to grant. Their elections are conducted by State Independent Electoral Commissions, which are appointed by the governors. The finances of local governments are also channelled through State–Local Government Joint Accounts, which means that federal allocations often pass through the hands of governors before reaching the councils. This design places the chairmen in a position of dependency rather than empowerment.
Governors as Gatekeepers of Local Power
Among the three levels of executive authority in Nigeria, governors are the most decisive in shaping the fate of local governments. They control the commissions that run local elections, and in many cases they also influence whether local government councils remain in office. While the Constitution speaks of elected councils, governors across the country have often dissolved them and replaced them with caretaker committees. Although the legality of such actions has been challenged, the practice has persisted.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
This makes governors the real gatekeepers of local power. They decide how much of the federally allocated resources actually reach the councils, and they often set the tone for what local governments can achieve. In some states, this has led to stifled grassroots development, as local councils become extensions of state politics rather than autonomous institutions that serve citizens directly.
The President’s Indirect Role
Compared to governors, the President has a more distant relationship with local government chairmen. The federal government plays a role in ensuring that money is set aside for local governments through the Federation Account, and in times of crisis, the National Assembly can intervene in state matters at the President’s prompting. However, under normal circumstances the President cannot directly supervise or control local government chairmen.
The absence of direct federal oversight leaves local councils caught between two levels of authority. While the President can shape the total size of their allocations, the real disbursement is filtered through state governments. This makes the President’s influence over chairmen more symbolic than practical. For everyday operations, chairmen look to their governors rather than to Abuja.
A Fragile Balance and Its Consequences
The result is a fragile balance where local government chairmen depend on governors for survival, while the President has only indirect levers of influence. The structure weakens the role of local councils and undermines the spirit of grassroots democracy. Citizens who expect services from their local government often discover that these councils lack both the funds and the freedom to act.
If Nigeria is to deepen its democracy and ensure development reaches the grassroots, the power dynamics between President, governors, and local government chairmen need to be re-examined. There is a case for strengthening financial autonomy at the local level and ensuring that elections are free from state capture. This would require reforms that limit the ability of governors to control the flow of funds and the outcome of council elections.
Until then, local government chairmen will remain the weakest link in the chain of Nigerian governance. Governors will continue to act as the decisive players in local affairs, while the President will remain a distant figure with limited capacity to shape outcomes on the ground. What the Constitution promises as a three-tiered system of government is in reality a two-tiered structure, with the third tier dependent on the mercy of the second.
