By Remi Aiyede | The Supreme Court ruling of 11th July 2024 affirmed that democratic governance at the local level is a constitutional requirement for local government areas (LGAs) to access allocations from the Federation Account.

This means that federation allocations to LGAs in states without elected local officials are to be withheld. Following this landmark decision, many states moved swiftly to organise local government elections, which were conducted by the State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs).

Prior to the ruling, only 14 of Nigeria’s 36 states had democratically elected local councils, with 462 LGAs in 22 states run by caretaker committees. Since the ruling, 26 states have held LGA elections (including states where new local elections have fallen due). However, these elections have been widely criticised. Civil society groups like Yiaga Africa labeled the wave of local elections a “travesty of democracy,” while multiple newspaper editorials described the processes as a “façade” a “charade” or a “joke”.

This paper interrogates the resurgence of local elections in light of the Supreme Court’s decision and the broader implications for grassroots democracy in Nigeria. It asks why SIECs were largely inactive before the ruling, why recent elections lack credibility, and whether this momentum can be channeled toward genuine democratic development.

Drawing on foundational frameworks—from the 1978 Constitution Drafting Committee to the Dasuki Committee and the Political Bureau—the paper explores the original rationale behind democratic local governments in Nigeria. It underscores how the recent “façade elections” at the local level deviate from this vision and identifies key challenges, offering actionable recommendations for building authentic local democracy in Nigeria.

Importance of Democratic Local Governance in Contemporary World

Discussions on multilevel governance often focus on the autonomy of local authorities under national and international pressures. While this is significant, it is equally important to consider how democracy functions below the regional or state level. Communities, neighborhoods, and local authorities play a crucial role in grassroots democratisation.

Democratic local governance fosters civic engagement, strengthens civil society, and cultivates democratic norms. Elections at this level enable peaceful transitions of power and are central to democratic consolidation (Mozaffar, 2002). When conducted freely and fairly, elections build trust, stabilise institutions, and uphold the social contract. Conversely, flawed elections erode legitimacy, incite instability, and can trigger violence—threatening the foundations of local democracy.

Local governments vary globally, especially in federal systems where they often enjoy significant autonomy. These decentralised structures can serve as laboratories for political innovation, promoting democratic practices and fulfilling commitments under regional and international charters. Even in more centralised contexts, local leadership and participation are crucial to effective governance (Kersting, Caulfield, Nickson, Olowu, and Wollmann 2009; Sisk, 2009).

Joseph Schumpeter defined democracy as a system where individuals gain power through competitive elections—a defining feature of liberal democracies (Schumpeter, 1976 [1942]; Powell, 2000). Elections at every level are fundamental to participatory governance, and credible local elections are especially critical for effective local democracy.

Thus, local elections are not mere formalities but vital to the health of democratic systems. Their quality determines whether they unify communities or deepen divisions. This emphasizes the need to protect electoral integrity.

Local governments, being closer to citizens, enable more responsive governance. They are better suited to address local issues—such as infrastructure, education, and health—while ensuring transparency and reducing corruption. Decentralisation also promotes inclusion and national cohesion by giving diverse communities a stake in governance.

Periodic local elections are key to accountability and good governance. They allow citizens to evaluate and, if necessary, replace leaders. This process creates a feedback loop that ensures leaders remain responsive and encourages transparency.

Regular elections also introduce fresh perspectives, foster innovation, and ensure leadership remains in touch with community needs. They offer peaceful avenues for resolving grievances, enhancing political stability and social cohesion. In places plagued by conflict, such as parts of Nigeria, entrenched local democracies could provide a foundation for peace.

Periodic local elections are critical for responsive leadership, citizen empowerment, and continuous democratic renewal. They affirm that power belongs to the people and that public officials are accountable stewards of that trust.

Nigeria, like many other countries, has embraced democratic local governance to bring government closer to the people, improve service delivery, and strengthen democratic principles. When effectively implemented, this system supports resilient societies and sustainable development. But exactly how has this been envisioned for Nigeria?

The Vison and Contradictions of Democratic Local Governance in Nigeria

Democratic local governance in Nigeria is rooted in the status of the local councils as the third tier of government within the federal structure. The 1976 Local Government Reform aimed to standardise council structures nationwide, creating a uniform, single-tier system with population thresholds between 150,000 and 800,000 people. This reform ignored urban-rural distinctions, merging villages and small towns while fragmenting large cities—resulting in disjointed governance and poor urban planning (Gboyega 1981, 1998; Suberu 2024).

The reform’s foundation was laid by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) and debated by the Constituent Assembly (CA) during the Murtala/Obasanjo regime. Its urgency was driven by the need to establish councils in time to serve as electoral colleges for the 1977 Constituent Assembly elections. The reform aimed to:

• Deliver services aligned with local preferences;
• Foster local leadership;
• Mobilise grassroots resources; and
• Link local, state, and federal governments (Phillips 1980).

Local governments were also expected to be uniform across the country and entitled to a share of national revenue. The 1976 reforms introduced key democratic principles—direct elections, financial autonomy, and defined responsibilities—later enshrined in the 1979 and 1999 constitutions. However, their implementation has been undermined by political interference, weak accountability, and inconsistent compliance by the states, particularly during the Second Republic when states treated local councils as extensions of their authority.

These concerns were echoed in the Dasuki Committee (1985) and the Political Bureau Report (1987), both of which upheld the CDC’s vision and emphasized democratic local councils. While post-1999 reform efforts—including the Obasanjo and Jonathan national conferences—reiterated the need for elected councils, their recommendations remain unimplemented.

The Political Bureau went further, outlining a tiered structure for local governance:

• Village/neighbourhood committees (base level);
• Development areas (intermediate level);
• Local government councils (apex level).

This model aimed to foster civic responsibility, enhance local productivity, and reshape public perceptions of government as a participatory, not exploitative, institution:

It would transform government in popular perception into an institution owned and directed by the people for the promotion of their welfare. This institutional restructuring should also stimulate the people to organise for production and for their welfare. The people should organise to produce for their own needs through the various functional units that will be established. They should also contribute to raising the productivity of government in the field by acting as a “watchdog” over government officers in the field. Finally, this reformulation should bring about a profound transformation in the concept of government in the Nigerian context. Government would cease to be perceived by the people as an instrument of control with primary responsibility for the exploitation of the people (Political Bureau, 1987:125).

Since 1999, however, these principles have been largely ignored. State governors have captured the local government system, using it to consolidate power, divert local government funds, and entrench political patronage as godfathers. They created development areas, not serving as functional intermediaries, but as additional local councils run by unelected caretaker committees. Grassroots structures like village committees have been sidelined.

Ironically, elected local governments persisted under military rule, with elections held in 1996 and 1998. Olowu and Wunsch (1996, 69) provide details of effort to expand the authority and responsibility of local government, 1988-1991. Yet, in democratic Nigeria, governors routinely suppress local elections, installing caretaker committees in defiance of court rulings (see Aiyede 2024).

The July 2024 Supreme Court ruling reinforced constitutional mandates by declaring that only elected local governments can access allocations from the Federation Account. However, the subsequent elections in 26 states were marred by vote-buying, violence, and political manipulation. Civil society groups like Yiaga Africa labelled them a “travesty of democracy” (Yiaga Africa 2024). Table 1 and Table 2 below show that the LGA elections conducted before and after the Supreme Court ruling maintain the same character: the ruling party (or the party anointed by the sitting governor) in the states wins almost all the seats irrespective of the level of political diversity in the states. In other words, the ruling by the Supreme Court is yet to affect the credibility of local elections.

A major obstacle is the lack of autonomy of the SIECs, which are often underfunded, politically influenced, and led by partisan appointees. The chairpersons of SIECs have decried undue interference, including governors dictating procurement and operations of the electoral commissions (Itodo 2024).

State governors resist genuine local elections for three main reasons:

1. Resource control: Caretaker committees allow tighter control over local finances.
2. Political leverage: Manipulating local structures strengthens their grip on power.
3. Patronage opportunities: Increased revenue flows provide avenues for rent-seeking and rewarding allies (Kyburz 2017).

In balancing control and legitimacy, governors have consistently chosen the former, undermining local democracy. The way forward requires renewed intergovernmental dialogue, strict enforcement of constitutional provisions, and revitalisation of grassroots participation—returning to the principles first laid out in the CDC, Dasuki Committee, and Political Bureau reports.

Table 1: Results of LGA Elections Conducted after Supreme Court’s Ruling

S/N	State	Election Date	Winning Party (Council Seats Won)
	Adamawa	July 13, 2024	PDP (Won all 21/21 LGAs)
	Delta	July 13, 2024	PDP (Won all 25/25 LGAs)
	Ebonyi	July 20, 2024	APC (won all 13/13 LGAs)​​
	Bauchi	August 17, 2024	PDP (won all 20/20 LGAs)
	Kebbi	August 31, 2024	APC (won all 21/21 LGAs)
	Kwara	September 21, 2024	APC (won all 16/16 LGAs)​
	Imo	September 21, 2024	APC (won all 27/27 LGAs)
	Enugu	September 21, 2024	PDP (won all 17/17 LGAs)​
	Sokoto	September 21, 2024	APC (won all 23/23 LGAs)
	Anambra	September 28, 2024	APGA (won all 21/21 LGAs) ​
	Akwa Ibom	October 5, 2024	PDP (won 30/31 LGAs; APC won 1)​
	Rivers	October 5, 2024	APP (won 22/23 LGAs; 1 voided later) ​ The elected LGA chairmen have now been sacked by the Supreme Court
	Benue	October 5, 2024	APC (won all 23/23 LGAs)​
	Jigawa	October 5, 2024	APC (won all 27/27 LGAs)
	Plateau	October 9, 2024	PDP (won all 30/30 LGAs)
	Kogi	October 19, 2024	APC (won all 21/21 LGAs)​
	Kaduna	October 19, 2024	APC (won all 23/23 LGAs)​
	Kano	October 26, 2024	NNPP (won all 44/44 LGAs)​
	Cross River	November 2, 2024	APC (won all 18/18 LGAs) ​
	Nassarawa	November 2, 2024	APC (won all 13/13 LGAs)
	Abia	November 2, 2024	ZLP (won 15/17 LGAs; YPP won 2)
	Ogun	November 16, 2024	APC (won all 20/20 LGAs)​
	Zamfara	November 16, 2024	PDP (won all 14/14 LGAs)
	Ondo	January 18, 2025	APC (Won all 18/18 LGAs)
	Katsina	February 15, 2025	APC (won all 34/34 LGAs)​
	Osun	February 22, 2025	PDP (won all 30/30 LGAs) ​

Sources: traditional and online media outlets

 

Table 2: LGA Elections before the Supreme Court Ruling and Reported Dates of Upcoming LGA Elections 

S/N	State	Previous Election Date	Winning Party (and LGAs won)	New/Upcoming Election Date
	Lagos	July 24, 2021	APC (won all 20 of 20 LGAs)	July 12, 2025
	FCT	February 12, 2022	APC & PDP (each won 3 of 6 Area Councils) ​	February 21, 2026
	Niger	November 10, 2022	APC (won 22 of 25 LGAs) ​	November 1, 2025 ​
	Edo	September 2, 2023	PDP (won all 18 of 18 LGAs) ​	–
	Taraba	November 18, 2023	PDP (won all 16 of 16 LGAs) ​	–
	Ekiti	December 2, 2023	APC (won all 16/16 LGAs) ​
	Borno	January 20, 2024	APC (won all 27 of 27 LGAs)​	–
	Bayelsa	April 6, 2024	PDP (won all 8 of 8 LGAs)​	–
	Oyo	April 27, 2024	PDP (won all 33 of 33 LGAs)​	–
	Gombe	April 27, 2024	APC (won all 11 of 11 LGAs)​	–
	Yobe	June 8, 2024	APC (won all 17 of 17 LGAs)​

Sources: various traditional and online media

How Poorly Conducted Local Elections Compound Governance Crisis

When local government elections are poorly conducted, the resulting leadership often fails to reflect the will of the people. This disconnect breeds a legitimacy crisis that strikes at the heart of democratic governance. Without genuine representation, governance at the grassroots level loses credibility, weakening both citizen engagement and the overall development of communities. The consequences are far-reaching, undermining not only local institutions but also the broader democratic project. The resultant deficits in turn compound the democratic and development challenges of the local communities in various ways, some of which are elaborated below. 

Erosion of Trust and Civic Engagement

Public trust is the lifeblood of effective governance. It fosters participation, transparency, and mutual accountability between citizens and their representatives. But when local officials are seen as illegitimate—elected through flawed processes or installed by political fiat—that trust begins to erode. As faith in leadership fades, civic engagement dwindles. Citizens retreat from the public sphere, feeling alienated from decisions that affect their daily lives.

Local officials, acutely aware of their shaky mandate, often avoid meaningful engagement with the very people they are meant to serve. Rather than inspiring confidence, they become increasingly cautious and detached. The result is stagnant governance, marked by a lack of innovation, poor responsiveness, and policies divorced from the lived realities of constituents.

Between Credibility and Complicity

To regain public trust, local leaders must deliver concrete results: visible projects, inclusive policies, and responsive governance. Yet many, particularly those who owe their positions to rigged elections or political patronage, choose a different path. Rather than earn legitimacy through performance, they align themselves with their powerful benefactors, state governors or political "godfathers", whose priorities rarely reflect those of the local communities.

In this arrangement, local officials become mere extensions of higher authorities, advancing external agendas rather than addressing grassroots concerns. The disconnect deepens, citizens grow further disillusioned, and the cycle of poor governance continues, fuelled by a leadership that is neither accountable nor responsive.

Democracy Undone at the Grassroots

Local government should be the closest expression of democracy, where people feel the tangible effects of governance and participate directly in shaping their communities. Yet in Nigeria, this principle is frequently ignored. Many state governors sidestep local elections altogether, preferring to install "caretaker committees" filled with loyalists who serve party interests rather than public ones.

These unelected bodies hollow out the democratic essence of local government. Decision-making shifts away from communities and into the hands of power brokers, undermining the values of accountability, transparency, and social capital. As officials become accountable to those who appointed them rather than to the electorate, the democratic contract at the local level unravels, leaving citizens disenfranchised and distrustful.

Disappearing Funds and Financial Manipulation

The structure of Nigeria’s revenue allocation is clear on paper: 52.68% to the Federal Government (FG), 26.72% to the states, and 20.60% to the LGAs from statutory revenue; and 15% to FG, 50% to the states and 35% to LGAs from the VAT pool. But in practice, this allocation rarely benefits local councils as intended. State governments often seize control of local funds through the State Joint Local Government Account (SJLGA), doling out money to LGAs at their discretion.

Despite efforts by the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit to ensure direct funding to local governments, resistance from the Nigerian Governors’ Forum stymied progress. Between 2008 and 2018, a staggering ₦14.7 trillion—approximately $38 billion USD—meant for local governments was largely diverted into state coffers, according to data from the office of the Accountant General of the Federation. Recent data from Agora Policy also shows that N32.72 trillion accrued to the LGAs between May 1999 and December 2024. It is difficult to see the impact of such amount in the local communities, assuming that the allocations actually got to the LGAs.

The opaque financial arrangement fuels corruption. The "envelope system," where local officials exchange bribes for funds, thrives under the SJLGA. Without transparent budgeting or public audits, funds are misused, services are under-delivered, and accountability becomes a distant ideal (see Hassan and Iwuamadi 2023).

Service Delivery in Crisis

The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the consequences of dysfunctional local governance. In a time when local institutions should have led public health efforts, many were conspicuously absent. Frustrated, underfunded, and undermined, local health workers were unable to respond effectively. The pandemic became a stark reminder of the cost of neglecting local institutions—and a clarion call for reform (Hassan 2020).

Civil society and citizens alike must demand greater transparency and accountability. Local governance must be reimagined not as a political reward system, but as a legitimate platform for community-driven development.

Long-Term Implications for Democracy

The erosion of trust and accountability at the local level does not stay contained. It ripples outward, weakening democratic institutions across the board. Disillusioned citizens disengage from political life altogether, creating a vacuum in which corruption thrives and reform becomes ever more difficult.

Yet, for all their flaws, local elections are not without merit. Even imperfect contests bring some democratic benefits. They encourage party formation, raise voter awareness, and prompt strategic recalibration by political actors. Election tribunals offer some, even if limited, avenues for redress; and primaries at the local level create opportunities for political participation.

In this context, flawed elections, while far from ideal, are preferable to none. They preserve a semblance of democratic competition and keep the door open—however narrowly—for future reform. Still, opposition parties often struggle to compete fairly, outmatched by incumbent parties backed by state power and resources.

Credible Elections as Irreducible Minimum for Effective Local Governance

Countries adopt democratic local governments to improve governance, promote citizen participation, and enhance accountability. True local governance goes beyond devolving power—it empowers citizens to actively shape service delivery and development in their communities(see Olowu 1988).

While local democracy can take various forms, its core principles remain constant: regular and credible elections, peaceful transitions of power, inclusive representation, and respect for civil, political, economic, developmental, and environmental rights. In many contexts, including Nigeria, cultural dynamics also shape local governance. Balancing traditional leadership with democratic values requires respect for heritage alongside a commitment to inclusion (Kersting et al 2009).

The crisis in local governance in Nigeria is not merely a matter of poor administration—it is a fundamental threat to Nigeria’s democratic future. Without free and fair local elections, without fiscal autonomy, without trust and transparency, the promise of democracy remains unfulfilled at the grassroots. The challenge now is to rebuild legitimacy from the ground up, restore faith in local institutions, and return power to the people—where it rightly belongs.

In Nigeria, local elections are critical to democratic consolidation, as emphasized by key government bodies like the CDC, the Political Bureau, and numerous reform commissions since 1999. Yet, in practice, these elections have often failed to meet democratic standards.

For local democracy to thrive, elections must be free, fair, and transparent—reflecting the will of the people. Elected officials should build trust within their communities and safeguard local governments from undue external influence. Only then can local governance become truly accountable, responsive, and development-focused.

However, frequent manipulation of local elections has eroded democratic foundations. Despite clear constitutional provisions and Supreme Court rulings affirming the financial and administrative autonomy of local councils, many state governors continue to undermine this mandate. Such actions not only violate the rule of law but also weaken democratic institutions.

Upholding local autonomy requires unwavering adherence to constitutional principles and a renewed commitment to the separation of powers. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling is a significant step forward, but its impact depends on consistent enforcement and respect for legal norms.

To move beyond the prevailing culture of impunity, Nigeria must foster intergovernmental dialogue and negotiation to resolve conflicts constructively. Strengthening the SIECs is also essential—they must be adequately funded and be staffed by impartial professionals to ensure elections serve the people, not political elites.

Too often, local officials prioritise loyalty to appointing authorities over community interests, leading to poor representation and disengaged citizens. This undermines governance and development at the grassroots. Yet, an active and empowered civil society can help reverse this trend and by adopting the three-tiered local governmnt structure recommended by the Political Bureau in 1987.

Reinvigorating grassroots organisations—neighbourhood groups, community-based organisations, and age-grade associations—can foster accountability, amplify citizen voices, and restore faith in local governance. By empowering communities and neighbourhoods, Nigeria can begin to rebuild democratic legitimacy from the ground up.

Recommendations for More Credible Local Elections and Governance   

Nigeria has to restore public trust and build a more inclusive, accountable, and effective system of local governance. Achieving this requires bold reforms in how local elections are managed, how citizens are engaged, and how power is shared across all levels of government, especially at the local level. The following measures offer a pathway toward credible local elections and stronger democratic institutions at the grassroots.

Reforming Local Election Management

Credible local elections are the bedrock of democratic governance, yet Nigeria's local polls have long suffered from irregularities, manipulation, and lack of transparency. A central issue lies with the State Independent Electoral Commissions, which often operate under the influence of state governors. To address this, three key proposals have emerged:

• Reform SIECs by ensuring fixed tenures, transparent appointments, and financial independence to reduce state interference.
• Transfer local election responsibilities to INEC, leveraging its experience with national elections for more standardised, credible outcomes.
• Create a new federal electoral body, the National Independent Local Government Electoral Commission (NILGEC), solely responsible for local government elections across Nigeria.

The Senate has recently advanced the NILGEC proposal with a bill introduced by Senator Sani Musa (Niger East). While this move aims to centralise and professionalise local election management, it risks undermining federalism by removing election control from the states. A more balanced alternative is to empower and reform SIECs through constitutional and legislative changes—ensuring they are well-funded, independent, and professional.

To improve SIECs’ performance, state governments should:

• Guarantee financial autonomy, potentially through a first-line charge on consolidated revenue.
• Strengthen legal frameworks to protect SIECs from political interference.
• Establish transparent performance evaluations, including regular audits and public reporting.
• Provide comprehensive training on electoral best practices, conflict resolution, and technology use.

Enhancing Voter Education and Participation

Tackling voter apathy requires widespread civic education and inclusive outreach efforts. Citizens must understand the importance of local governance and feel empowered to participate. Strategies should include:

• Community engagement through schools, religious groups, and civic organisations.
• Use of digital platforms—social media, SMS, and mobile apps—to share election information.
• Grassroots mobilisation via town hall meetings and door-to-door campaigns.
• Civic education in school curricula to build early political awareness.
• Voter education in local languages to ensure wider reach.
• Youth-targeted programmes that connect governance with young people’s lived experiences.

Leveraging Technology

Expanding the use of technology in elections—such as electronic voting, digital result collation, and real-time transmission—can significantly reduce fraud and improve transparency. These tools also increase public confidence in the electoral process when implemented with integrity and oversight.

Strengthening Civil Society and Media Involvement

Civil society organisations (CSOs) and the media are critical to ensuring election integrity. Their active involvement in monitoring elections, advocating for reform, and holding officials accountable enhances transparency and deters malpractices. Post-election reviews involving CSOs and journalists can identify gaps and recommend improvements.

Deepening Local Autonomy and Power Devolution

For local councils to be truly responsive, they must be empowered. This means devolving more powers and resources from state governments, allowing local councils to address community needs directly. Strengthening administrative and financial autonomy will reduce dependency and foster genuine grassroots development.

Encouraging Opposition Participation

Democratic competition cannot thrive without a level playing field. Providing financial and logistical support to opposition parties at the local level can help break the dominance of ruling parties and encourage more robust political engagement.

Creating an Election Integrity Index

Ongoing initiatives like the Election Integrity Index by Yiaga Africa can offer valuable insights into the quality of local elections across states. This tool can track progress, highlight persistent issues, and guide targeted electoral reforms using data-driven analysis.

Improving Electoral Offenses and Judicial Oversight

To maintain faith in the electoral process, tribunals must resolve disputes swiftly and fairly. A specialised tribunal for prosecuting electoral offenses at the local level would ensure accountability. Citizens should also have clear channels to report irregularities and provide feedback, reinforcing a culture of transparency.

Promoting Inclusion

Affirmative action policies and targeted support are essential to increase the participation of women, youth, and people with disabilities in local governance. A truly democratic system must reflect the diversity of the communities it serves.

Ensuring Electoral Security

Finally, collaboration with security agencies is critical to maintaining a safe electoral environment, especially in areas vulnerable to violence. A secure voting space protects the rights of all citizens and encourages participation.

 
Aiyede is a Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan & an Extraordinary Professor at the School of Public Management and Administration, University of Pretoria.

References

Aiyede, E. R. 2024. Beyond Financial Autonomy: The Imperative of Moving from Local Government to Local Governance in Nigeria, Agora Policy Note 2024. https://agorapolicy.org/research/policy-note/169-beyond-financial-autonomy-the- imperative-of-moving-from-local-government-to-local-governance-in-nigeria.htm

Norbert Kersting, Janice Caulfield, R. Andrew Nickson, Dele Olowu, Hellmut Wollmann (eds) (2009) Local Governance Reform in Global Perspective.  VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

Federal Ministry of Information 1976. Report of the Constitution Drafting Committee Containing the Draft Constitution, Vol. I (Lagos: Ministry of Information)

Federal Republic of Nigeria (1976). Guidelines for Local Government Reform. Kaduna: Government Printer.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (1979) Report of the Constitution Drafting Committee Vol. 1 (Lagos; Ministry of Information, 1976), pp. xli – xliii.’

Federal Republic of Nigeria (1979). Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Lagos: Federal Government Press.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (1987). Report of the Political Bureau, Lagos: Government Printer.

Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Lagos: Government Printer.

Hassan, Idayat 2020. Local Governance in Nigeria: An Unsettling State of Affairs, Urbanet 01 September available at https://www.urbanet.info/local-governance-nigeria-unsettling-state-of-affairs/

Hassan, Idayat and Kelechi C. Iwuamadi 2023. Decentralisation, Governance and Corruption at the Local Level: Evidence from Nigeria. Available at https://africaportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Decentralization_Governance_and_Corruption_YVFXG73.pdf

https://www.urbanet.info/local-governance-nigeria-unsettling-state-of-affairs/

Itodo, Samson 2024. Constitutional Disempowerment of State Electoral Commissions and its Impact on Local Government Elections in Nigeria. The Cable, 30 July. Available at https://www.thecable.ng/constitutional-disempowerment-of-state-electoral-commissions-and-its-impact-on-local-government-elections-in-nigeria/

Kyburz, Stephan 2017 “Local Elections, State Capture, and Development in Nigeria: Is Manna from Heaven Devilish?” Available at https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=CSAE2018&paper_id=923

Mozaffar, Shaheen 2002. Patterns of Electoral Governance in Africa’s Emerging Democracies. International Political Science Review, 23(1): 85-101.

Olowu, D. (1988). African Local Governments as Instruments of Economic and Social Development. The Hague: International Union of Local Authorities.

Phillips, Claude S. 1980. Nigeria's New Political Institutions, 1975-9, The Journal of Modern African Studies, 18 (1), 1-22

Preliminary Report on Recent Local Government Elections  available at https://yiaga.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Local-Government-Elections_A-travesty-of-Electoral-Democracy.pdf

Schumpeter, J. (1976; 1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London: George Allen and Unwin.

Sisk, T. D. 2001. Democracy at the Local Level: The International IDEA Handbook on Participation, Representation, Conflict Management, and Governance.  International IDEA.

Wunsch, J.S., Olowu, D. (1996) Regime Transformation from Below: Decentralisation, Local Governance, and Democratic Reform in Nigeria. Studies in Contemporary International Development 31, 66–82.

Yiaga Africa 2024. Local Government Elections: A Travesty of Electoral Democracy?