_Opinion | By Kenechukwu Maduike (Mgbọrọgwụ Ọjị Anaedo)_
In recent months, Nnewi has found itself once again at a familiar crossroads; where law, history, custom, and politics collide. The disagreement over who should produce the next Local Government Chairman is not just about ambition or power. It is deeper than that. It touches on how we understand tenure, rotation, fairness, and change in a system already weakened by unstable laws.
To understand the current tension between Umudim and Nnewichi, one must first understand the foundation upon which this issue stands.
Local Government in Nigeria: Autonomous in Name, Controlled in Practice
Nigeria’s Constitution recognises Local Governments as the third tier of government. But in reality, Local Governments operate largely under the control of State Governments. States determine how LGs are structured, funded, and administered. Even elections into LG offices are conducted under state laws, not federal ones.
This means that Local Government Chairmen and Councillors do not have a nationally fixed tenure like the President or Governors. Their tenure depends on what each State House of Assembly provides in its Local Government or Electoral Laws.
This is important because it establishes one key fact:
- Tenure at the Local Government level is a creature of state law.
The Question of Tenure: How Many Years Is a “Tenure”?
For many years, most Nigerians assumed that all elected officials serve four years. This assumption comes from the federal and state levels, where four years is clearly fixed in the Constitution.
- However, at the Local Government level, this has never been uniform. Different states have operated:
- 3-year tenures.
- 2-year tenures.
- and sometimes even caretaker systems without elections.
So when people talk about “tenure,” especially at the LG level, it is important to ask:
Tenure as defined by which law, and at what time?
The 2024 Supreme Court Ruling: What It Said and What It Did Not Say
In 2024, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a landmark judgment on Local Government autonomy. Among other things, the Court emphasised that democratically elected Local Government officials should not have their mandates arbitrarily cut short, and that LG councils should ideally enjoy stability similar to other elected offices.
- This ruling has been widely interpreted as affirming a four-year tenure for Local Government officials.
- However, one crucial point must be made clear:
- The Supreme Court did not directly amend state laws.
- It did not specifically strike down Anambra State’s Local Government tenure law.
In law, a Supreme Court interpretation becomes binding, but *state laws remain in force until they are challenged and set aside by a competent court* . This creates a legal tension, but not an automatic illegality.
Anambra State and the Two-Year Tenure.
In 2024, Anambra State amended its electoral law and fixed the tenure of Local Government Chairmen and Councillors at *two years* . This was the law under which the last Local Government election was conducted.
Whether one agrees with the wisdom of that law or not, one fact remains undeniable:
- The last Local Government election was held under a validly enacted Anambra State law prescribing a two-year tenure.
No court has nullified that law so far. - The Nnewi Rotation Agreement of 1997: The Moral Compass
Long before the current constitutional confusion, the people of Nnewi had already chosen order over chaos. In 1997, the four quarters of Nnewi entered into an agreement to rotate major elected offices including Local Government Chairman among themselves.
The agreement was simple in spirit:
● Each quarter takes a turn
● Each quarter produces the office holder for one tenure
However, the agreement did not define how many years constitute one tenure.
At the time, this omission did not seem dangerous. Laws were relatively stable. Four years was assumed. But history has shown that assumptions are fragile things.
The Current Crisis: Two Interpretations of “Tenure”
Umudim’s Position…
Umudim argues that:
● A tenure in Nigeria is traditionally four years
● The Supreme Court affirmed four years in 2024
● Their two-year period is therefore incomplete
● They should return to complete the remaining two years
This argument draws strength from national democratic norms and a sense of moral injury caused by a shortened term.
Nnewichi’s Position…
Nnewichi argues that:
● The 1997 agreement says one tenure per quarter
● It does not say “four years”
● Umudim contested and served under a two-year law
● One lawful tenure has been completed
● Rotation must move forward
This argument relies on *the letter of the agreement*, the *law in force at the time* , and Igbo customary ideas of fairness and order.
The Principle That Matters Most: You Don’t Change Rules Mid-Game.
In both Igbo tradition and modern law, there is a shared principle:
_Rules must not be changed on someone’s head._
Igbo people say it plainly; you do not adjust laws to favour or disadvantage a particular person or group while the process is ongoing. Any amendment must apply after, not during, the cycle.
To amend the 1997 agreement now in a way that allows one quarter to take the office twice before others have had their turn would create a dangerous precedent. Tomorrow, another quarter may demand reinterpretation. Trust will collapse.
So, Where Does Justice Truly Lie?
Legally:
● Tenure is defined by the law under which the election was held
● Umudim served a complete, lawful tenure
● The Supreme Court ruling does not retroactively extend that tenure
Customarily and morally:
● Rotation is about turn-taking, not year-counting
● One quarter, one turn preserves balance
● Changing the agreement mid-rotation undermines communal trust.
This does not mean Umudim’s grievances are imaginary. They are real. But the remedy cannot be to interrupt the rotation.
Recommendations: The Path of Wisdom
1. Allow the rotation to continue let Nnewichi take its turn.
2. Immediately convene a four-quarter summit to amend the 1997 agreement clearly:
i. Define tenure length explicitly
ii. State what happens when state laws change
3. Insist that future amendments apply prospectively, never retroactively.
4. Seek political balance and reassurance, not electoral repetition.
Final Thoughts
The Nnewi issue is not about Umudim versus Nnewichi. It is about whether we choose order over impulse, rules over convenience, and peace over short-term advantage.
When laws are unclear, wisdom must step in. And wisdom, in Igbo land, has always taught us one thing:
“Ike adịghị n’iji ihe were mee onwe ya; ike dị n’usoro.”
Strength is not in force, but in order.
Nnewi has always chosen order. It must do so again.
Written by
Kenechukwu Maduike
(Mgbọrọgwụ Ọjị Anaedo)
Thursday, January 22, 2026.