A debate has emerged on social media following a post by BadagryTalksOnlineTv questioning whether it is constitutional for a state governor to prevent an elected local government chairman from appointing supervisory councillors.

The post argues that such interference is unconstitutional, citing provisions of the Nigerian Constitution and past Supreme Court judgments that affirm local government autonomy.

The post relies primarily on Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees a system of democratically elected local governments. It maintains that supervisory councillors form part of the internal administrative structure of a local government and are traditionally appointed by the chairman, subject to confirmation by the council.

On this basis, the post concludes that a governor’s unilateral intervention would amount to an abuse of power, a violation of due process, and an infringement on democratic governance. It also references past positions attributed to the Attorney General of the Federation, which assert that governors lack the authority to suspend or remove elected local government officials.

Some respondents agreed with this constitutional interpretation. Afiscado West Awesu described such interference as a clear overreach of power, arguing that Supreme Court decisions have consistently limited the authority of governors over elected local councils.

He maintained that preventing chairmen from appointing supervisors undermines fair hearing and the independence guaranteed to local governments by the Constitution.

However, several other contributors shifted the discussion away from strict constitutional theory to the political realities of local governance in Nigeria. Prince Omotayo Samuel Adeniran questioned the legitimacy of many local government chairmen, asking whether they were genuinely elected by the people or emerged through party influence and state backing.

He argued that chairmen who did not enjoy popular mandate lacked the moral standing to insist on constitutional protections, adding that many supervisors function primarily as political rewards rather than public servants.

Quoting the principle that “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands,” he suggested that internal accountability at the local government level is as important as constitutional rights.

A more cynical view was expressed by Nunayon Viyon Ezekiel, who dismissed the controversy entirely, describing local government leadership within the ruling party as a product of “selection, not election.” From this perspective, he argued that chairmen who emerged through party arrangements should not be surprised if higher authorities also dictate the selection of supervisors.

Questions about performance and accountability also featured prominently. Prince Segun Hunjenukon acknowledged the constitutional argument but suggested that practical governance failures might explain state-level intervention.

He claimed that many local government officials are more focused on financial gain than service delivery, noting that local government budgets have grown significantly in recent years. In his view, state interference may be temporary and driven by concerns about how funds and responsibilities are being managed.

Others returned the discussion to legal fundamentals. Peter Adeniran Prince Olaitan argued that an elected local government chairman has a clear constitutional and statutory right to appoint supervisors, subject only to valid laws, due process, or court orders. He maintained that any blanket directive by a governor preventing such appointments would likely be unconstitutional and open to legal challenge.

Scepticism about the enforcement of constitutional principles was raised by Olorunnisola Gbesoevi, who suggested that the debate assumes the existence of a robust rule of law that does not always operate in practice. He pointed to the influence of political godfathers and questioned whether the Supreme Court has consistently acted to curb such interference, referencing broader national political developments.

Taken together, the responses reflect a familiar tension in Nigeria’s governance discourse: the gap between constitutional ideals and political reality. While the Constitution and judicial precedents appear to favour local government autonomy, many contributors argue that flawed electoral processes, political patronage, and weak accountability undermine those protections in practice.

The debate underscores ongoing questions about whether constitutional guarantees alone are sufficient to ensure genuine autonomy and effective governance at the local government level, or whether deeper political and institutional reforms are required.