The former Secretary to the Katsina State Government (SSG), Dr. Mustapha Mohammed Inuwa, has accused Governor Dikko Umaru Radda of withholding the state’s Local Governments funds despite the Supreme Court judgement.

Inuwa, while addressing some journalists Friday evening at his residence in Katsina, said Governor Radda continues to have control over the state’s 34 local government councils’ coffers in spite of the nation’s apex court ruling.

The Supreme Court judgement stopped state governments from collecting and withholding councils’ allocations from the federation account and ordered that the Accountant General of the Federation pay them directly.

But the longest-serving Katsina SSG described what he termed the continued withholding of the local governments’ funds by the state government as “unconstitutional, illegal and an impeachable offence.”

He said as the third tier of government, the local government is saddled with the responsibilities of ensuring the well-being of the people at the grassroots through the provision of basic social amenities, but the governor has usurped their functions.

The Katsina leader of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) further explained that it was illegitimate for the state government to determine projects to be executed in the 34 local government areas of the state.

He said: “There Is no local governments financial autonomy in Katsina. The governor (Radda) has withheld the local government funds and he is releasing the money to them at will that is why they are doing common projects.

“What the governor is doing is unconstitutional, illegal and an impeachable offence. It is wrong for the state government to determine what projects are executed by local governments.”

However, when contacted, Governor Radda’s Director General on Media, Maiwada Danmallam, dismissed Inuwa’s claims that the state government was withholding local government councils’ funds.

He reiterated that the state and local governments have constitutional power “to plan and execute development projects jointly as enshrined under section 7 subsection 3 of the 1999 Constitution.”

“Accusing the state of doing so only highlights a sincere or deliberate ignorance of the constitutional provisions guiding this matter as captured in Section 7 Subsection 3 of the 1999 constitution.

“And certainly the legibility and eligibility of Section 7 Subsection 3 in the legal aspect of this conversation is probably the reason why nobody is in court to challenge the applicability of the provision”, he said.

He said the state government had established the State Joint Planning Board for State and Local Governments as provided by the 1999 Constitution and the board is operating within the constitutional provisions. (THISDAY)

Update news