…silence in the face of disobedience to court orders is not neutrality; it is complicity
By Chris Osa Nehikhare
Few policies have been preached more loudly by the federal government than local government autonomy. From policy statements to court-backed constitutional interpretations, the Tinubu administration claims to stand for grassroots democracy, fiscal independence and the protection of the third tier of government.
Yet, in Edo State, this rhetoric has been exposed as hollow. What we are witnessing is not a defence of local government autonomy, but its deliberate destruction—backed by political power at the centre.
Local government autonomy is not a favour granted by governors or political parties; it is a constitutional guarantee. Elected council chairmen and councillors derive their legitimacy from the ballot, not from executive goodwill. Any removal outside constitutionally prescribed procedures is illegal.
In Edo State, however, elected council chairmen and their deputies were summarily “impeached” through processes that bore no resemblance to due process. Strangers—individuals never elected by the people—were sworn in as council chairmen, in blatant violation of the Constitution.
This was not merely political recklessness; it was an assault on democracy at the grassroots.
The courts have since spoken clearly and repeatedly. At least nine such impeachments in Edo State have been overturned by competent courts. In unusually strong language, the courts described these impeachments as illegal, unconstitutional, and a nullity. Orders were made directing the reinstatement of the elected chairmen and their deputies. In a functioning democracy, that should have been the end of the matter.
Instead, Edo people witnessed something far more disturbing.
Despite clear court orders, the reinstated chairmen were prevented from resuming office. The Nigeria Police Force—constitutionally bound to enforce court judgments—refused to act, even when expressly directed by the courts. The illegal occupants of local government offices remained protected, shielded not by law, but by federal power. This refusal to enforce judgments did not occur in a vacuum; it happened under a federal government led by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
This is where the hypocrisy becomes unmistakable.
The same federal government that champions local government autonomy in Abuja has actively undermined it in Edo. The same administration that celebrates Supreme Court pronouncements on direct allocation to councils has tolerated—and effectively endorsed—the illegal seizure of local governments by unelected actors. Autonomy is defended when it is politically convenient and discarded when it threatens partisan control.
What does local government autonomy mean if elected chairmen can be removed unlawfully? What does constitutional supremacy mean if court orders can be ignored without consequence? And what value does democracy hold if federal institutions are deployed to protect illegality?
The implications for Edo people are severe.
More dangerous still is the precedent being set. If federal authority can be used to protect illegal local government takeovers in Edo today, it can be used anywhere tomorrow.
Democracy becomes conditional. The rule of law becomes selective. And elections become rituals devoid of meaning.
President Tinubu cannot claim commitment to constitutionalism while presiding over its violation. Silence in the face of disobedience to court orders is not neutrality; it is complicity. A federal government that truly believes in local government autonomy would insist on the immediate enforcement of court judgments, regardless of which party benefits.
Local government autonomy cannot exist where illegality is protected by power. Until the rule of law is restored at the grassroots, every promise of reform from the centre rings false.
As Edo State is being pressured to deliver 2.5million votes for President Tinubu, Edo people must reflect deeply. What exactly are they being asked to endorse? And why?
On this issue of local government autonomy alone, the moral and constitutional case against the continuation of the Tinubu administration is undeniable.
This is the third in a series of essays on why President Tinubu will not get 25000 (twenty five thousand) legitimate votes in the 2027 presidential election in Edo State.
The 4th in the series will be published on Monday, 23 February 2026.
