Speeches

Executive/Legislative Parley Towards A Legislative Agenda For Lagos State

Apr 5, 2008 - I am greatly delighted to welcome all participants to this Executive/Legislative parley designed to forge a common legislative agenda for Lagos State. This event is indeed a landmark in the history of Lagos State. It is the first time that our national and state legislators will be holding a joint retreat with members of the Lagos State Executive Council to deliberate on matters of pivotal interest to this state. Of course the necessity and significance of this parley is self evident. More than ever before, the elected and appointed public office holders of Lagos State at all levels must bond together and work in the best interest of the state with a common vision, a common mission and a common passion. This has become imperative if we are to effectively meet the immense responsibilities that lie on our shoulders as leaders of a global Mega City.

Those of us who have been elected or appointed to serve the people of this state at various levels are truly privileged. We are repositories of the trust and confidence of our people. It is our responsibility to strive at all times to justify the tremendous faith invested in us directly or indirectly by the electorate. This parley will no doubt equip us all to work together with greater focus and sense of purpose to achieve our shared objective of birthing a new Lagos State that works; a Lagos State that compares with the best global Mega cities and guarantees the prosperity, security and happiness of our people.

Any State or organization we all know is an artificial entity, which requires human beings to think and create value for it. As leaders of our people we must naturally be at the forefront of thinking for Lagos State; shaping and implementing public policies that meet current challenges and anticipating future ones. Given the strategic place of Lagos State in the political economy of Nigeria, our brief most certainly goes beyond thinking for Lagos State alone. We must necessarily be involved in thinking for Nigeria; significantly influencing public discourse and helping to evolve national laws that can best accelerate the country’s progress. This is particularly so because we have made a conscious decision as a state to benchmark ourselves not against other states in Nigeria but against other global Mega Cities and countries. The implication is that we must constantly be at the vanguard of championing necessary constitutional changes and the enactment of laws that can help us achieve this objective as a state within the frame work of our nation.

Lagos State has no doubt been the worst victim of the defects in the practice of federalism in Nigeria. We are empowered as a state to make laws for the territory under our jurisdiction but lack the complementary control over the coercive apparatus to enforce such laws. The pittance we receive as statutory allocation is completely disproportionate to the amount of revenue derived from Lagos to the national coffers. Current taxation laws make it impossible for us to derive maximum benefit from the sheer concentration of businesses and industries, which make huge profits from this State. Our intra-state water ways are being grossly violated and illegally abused to the extent that the state is unable to derive the benefits that ought to accrue from this resource. These are only a few of the anomalies we must act in concert to correct urgently so that the potentials of Lagos can flower fully.

In spite of the federal character of our constitution, several vestiges of unitarism still remain as a carry over from military rule. These unitary practices severely hamper the autonomy and rights of states as components of the Nigerian federation and impede their capacity to effectively discharge their responsibilities and promote rapid development. The truth of the matter is that our declared national objective of ranking among the top 20 economies in the world by Y2020 will remain a mirage unless we effectively decentralize powers, resources and responsibilities in the Nigerian polity in accordance with the dictates of true federalism.

The greater the centralization of resources and responsibilities in a plural society like ours, the greater the opportunities for needless bureaucracy and corruption that are formidable obstacles to development. The more resources are concentrated in an all powerful center, the more states and local governments are incapacitated to effectively discharge their responsibilities as agents of development. Yet, the states and local governments are where the people live. It is only when their potentials are unleashed as units of government closest to the people that any meaningful development can be recorded. We should always bear this in mind as a fundamental guiding principle as we do all we can to deepen the content of federal practice in our country as a necessary condition for accelerated progress.

The current democratic government, which we run, offers us a unique opportunity to canvass and actualize necessary constitutional changes that will strengthen the federal features of our polity. Of course, this will involve a lot of hard work; a lot of effort to convince others on the correctness of our logic and the superiority of our ideas and intense lobbying of others to see our point of view. But first and foremost, we must be clear in our minds about the constitutional amendments we intend to canvass and the new laws we want to propose for enactment as a state by the National Assembly. We also need to come up with a workable plan of action for the realization of our objectives.

It is in our interest as a state to champion the cause of greater financial and economic autonomy for the component states of Nigeria. This is because the attendant empowerment of states as true units of development will hopefully stimulate new growth poles around the country and gradually reduce the current pressure on Lagos as the only magnet of economic attraction for millions of Nigerians.

Without any doubt, legislation occupies the pivotal position in the actualisation of a new economic and social order for Lagos State. It is therefore imperative that a cohesive and coordinated legislative plan is conceived and articulated by our administration for gradual implementation. Within our present constitutional framework, this must of necessity include federal legislation as it affects the fortunes and outlook of Lagos State. For this reason our legislative mission at both federal and state levels should complement each other and pursue the same lofty objectives.

Our distinguished representatives in the National Assembly and honourable members of the State House of Assembly are veritable partners in this endeavour. Working together we will capture the essence and further the best interests of the people of Lagos State.

Legislation in the years preceding the constitutional change of government in 1999 had been heavily infested with offensive statutes which encroach on the legislative autonomy of States under the 1999 Constitution and also harmful to economic, social advancement and welfare of Lagos State.

It is important for our representatives to give careful consideration to any legislative proposal seeking to establish, for example, federal regulatory agencies. This cannot be over emphasised as the general public may still unsuspectingly acquiescent to neo military concepts of a “mighty Federal government.” Oftentimes, such legislation may cover matters within the residual or concurrent jurisdiction of States under the 1999 Constitution.

The need to challenge Bills, the provisions of which are beyond the legislative competence of the Federal Government cannot be stressed enough. First, the process of declaring a law beyond Federal Legislative competence unconstitutional is time consuming. It also involves a huge expenditure on the part of the State. Second, the State Government may not be able to undertake certain projects or carry out certain activities while the unconstitutional legislation remains in force. Public funds may be at jeopardy and private investors may be discouraged from partnering the State Government to deliver essential social goods where the unconstitutional legislation covers the subject matter in issue.

I will now briefly highlight some essential aspects of our common Legislative Agenda.

Repatriation of taxes collected by the Federal Government on behalf of State Governments

Section 163 of the Constitution provides that “Where under an Act of the National Assembly, tax or duty is imposed in respect of any matters specified in item D of Part II of the Second Schedule to this Constitution, the net proceeds of such tax or duty shall be distributed among the States on the basis of derivation . . .“ Matters so specified in item D, Part II of the Second Schedule to the Constitution are –any tax or duty on capital gains, incomes or profits of persons other than companies; and documents or transactions by way of stamp duties.

At the moment, the Federal Government, acting through the Federal Inland Revenue Service, collects capital gains and income taxes on persons employed in the Armed Forces and the Nigerian Police other than in a civilian capacity. It also collects Stamp Duty on documents executed by corporate bodies. Under section 163(b), “where such tax is collected by the Government of the Federation or other authority of the Federation, there shall be paid to each State at such times as the National Assembly may prescribe, a sum equal to the proportion of the net proceeds of such tax or duty that are derived from that state.”

The effect of section 163(b) of the Constitution is that these taxes, i.e., income tax and capital gains collected from individuals in the Armed Forces and Police as well as Stamp Duty collected from companies, ought to be returned to the States from which the tax or duty was derived, i.e., the States in which the taxpayer individual was resident or in which the underlying transaction of the document stamped took place. Thus far, the Federal Government has not been complying with this constitutional provision and the National Assembly has not made the Act to facilitate that compliance. This is particularly unfortunate in the light of a subsisting judgment of the Supreme Court.

In Attorney General of the Federation v. Attorney General of Abia State and 35 Ors, [2002]6 M.J.S.C. 1 the Court (per Ogundare J.S.C.) held affirmed that whatever revenue collected pursuant to item D of the Second Schedule from any State by the Government of the Federation ought to be paid back to that State. The court held further that there could be no justification for refusing to pay this revenue to the States. However, the Supreme Court could not order payment as the necessary legal provision had not been made by the National Assembly.

Consequently, a legislation proposing an Act of the National Assembly directing that the revenue be paid back to States titled “State Tax Distribution Act” is commended for the attention of our representatives.

Amend or Repeal the Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 28 Of 1998

The Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Decree No. 28 of 1998 is a legislation issued by the Federal Military Government to curtail the power of States and Local Government Councils. This Decree is still retained as existing law and published in the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 as the Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Act. The provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Decree purport to prohibit States and Local Government from collecting taxes other than those listed in their favour. In that process, it clearly jettisons the residual taxing powers conferred on State Legislatures by the 1999 Constitution. The Act also imposes a further limit on State and Local Government powers by prescribing how they should go about collecting or administering their due taxes. Clearly, this Act interferes with the autonomy of States and is beyond the legislative competence of the National Assembly under the 1999 Constitution. Legislative action is therefore required at the National Assembly to amend or repeal the Act.

Repeal the Value Added Tax Act
As we have contended ever so often, sales and consumption taxes are matters which fall within the residual legislative jurisdiction of State Houses of Assembly. This is simply because they are not on the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative Lists. The position under the 1999 Constitution is identical to that of the 1979 Constitution which received the highest judicial confirmation in the case of The Attorney General, Ogun State v. Alhaja Ayinke Aberuagba & 7 ors. [1985] 1 NWLR, 395.

We all know that the Value Added Tax (VAT) Decree No. 102 was promulgated by the military in 1993 when the Constitution was on suspension. The legislation was however retained as Value Added Tax Act with the coming into force of the 1999 Constitution. As all the relevant provisions of the 1979 Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Aberuagba case, remain unchanged in the 1999 Constitution, the implication is that the VAT Act is liable to be repealed or declared invalid to the extent that it runs contrary to the 1999 Constitution. Also, any legislation of the State House of Assembly which charges a sales or consumption tax is constitutionally valid. To settle this issue once and for all, the Lagos State Government has recently instituted an action at the Supreme Court to declare the Value Added Tax Act unconstitutional.

Review of the Land Use Act

There have been clamours recently for the reform of the Land Use Act. While some are seeking the reform of the Act others are agitating for its repeal! The Land Use Act was designed to solve some problems. The Act was meant to bring sanity into the chaotic land market in Nigeria when most people who purchased land from the so called landowners purchased nothing but a lawsuit. It was also designed to make land easily available to Government and private concerns for developmental purposes. Without any doubt, the Land Use Act has successfully dealt with some of the problems that preceded its promulgation.

First, the Act has unified the land tenure system in Nigeria. Second, it has substantially reduced the problems associated with the activities of land speculators. The Act not only vests the control and management of land in the Governor, it also regulates activities relating to land transactions and places certain limitation on the size of land that an individual can hold in an urban area. The Land Use Act has removed the problems associated with acquisition of land by the Government by creating a regime that allows the government to acquire land subject to payment of compensation in clearly defined circumstances. Easier access to land by the Government has assisted in the early take-off of Government projects and to a considerable reduction of the cost of such projects. Any attempt to review the system must therefore be considered very carefully.

The proponents of repeal have not put forward an alternative. They have attacked the consent provisions of the Land Use Act as if they were a new concept. Meanwhile, consent provisions have been there under the Land Tenure Law applicable to the Northern Nigeria before the promulgation of the Land Use Act. It is the way by which the Governor, as trustee of land, can monitor transactions and ensure that applicable taxes are paid and all regulations and processes are complied with.

It is because of the foregoing positive effects of the Land Use Act that the Lagos State Government does not support a repeal of the Act. We urge our representatives to support any initiative that would ensure that the objectives of the Act are better achieved while retaining the framework for land management and administration under the Act.

Repeal of National Sports Lottery Act

Our position with respect to the National Sports Lottery Act, under which an exclusive lottery license was granted to the National Sports Lottery Plc to carry on lottery operations in any part of Nigeria, is that the Act is outside the legislative jurisdiction of the National Assembly. Lottery, Pools Betting etc. have always been and still remain within the residual legislative ambit of States under the 1999 Constitution. The position that the National Sports Lottery Act is unconstitutional has been recently vindicated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Edet v. Chagoon ( 2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1070) 85. In that case the Court of Appeal held that Pools Betting and Casino Gaming (Prohibition) Act is not within the legislative competence of the National Assembly. The Court also confirmed that pools betting and casino are matters not listed on the Exclusive and Concurrent Lists and therefore fall within the residual competence of States. Pools betting and lottery belong to the same class of items, all being games of chance.

It is therefore necessary to propose a Bill for the repeal of the the National Sports Lottery Act.

Repeal of the National Inland Waterways Authority Act and Defects in the Proposed National Inland Waterways Agency Bill

The provisions of the National Inland Waterways Authority Act and the proposed National Inland Waterways Agency Bill are unconstitutional to the extent that they encroach on the legislative competence of States to regulate activities of their intra-state, as distinct from international and inter-state, waterways. Our position is that the power to legislate on intra-state waterways is vested in the States pursuant to items 29 and 36 on the Exclusive Legislative List. Sections 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, and 29 of the National Inland Waterways Authority Act therefore contravene the provision of the 1999 Constitution.

For this reason, we should support any initiative to repeal the National Inland Waterways Authority Act. However, the proposed National Inland Waterways Agency Bill is not a viable alternative. The Bill is an unconstitutional contraption which encroaches seriously on State jurisdiction.

Derivation Principle in the Distribution of Taxes Collected by the Federal Government

The major taxes in Nigeria derive mainly from the Exclusive Legislative List as follows:
Item 16 – Customs and excise duties
Item 25 – Export duties
Item 58 – Stamp Duties
Item 59 – Taxation of incomes, profits and capital gains, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution.

This seems to be a short list, but it is the basis for all the following major tax laws, i.e., –
• Customs & Excise Management Act;
• Stamp Duties Act;
• Petroleum Profits tax Act;
• Companies Income Tax Act;
• Education Tax Act;
• Personal Income Tax Act; and
• Capital Gains Tax Act.

However, these taxes are made chargeable by the Federal Government mainly for the purpose of harmonisation and uniformity. In spite of the fact that the enabling laws are made by the National Assembly, State Governments are authorised to collect some of the taxes from a specified category of taxpayers and spend the proceeds as they wish. Thus Personal Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and Stamp

Duties due from individuals and unincorporated organisations are payable directly to the State Government while corporate bodies pay to the Federal Government. This underscores one very important aspect of our tax system – the power to impose or charge the tax is not necessarily coterminous with the power to collect and spend.

The second way by which these taxes are shared is that where the Federal Government is authorised to collect, the proceeds go into a Federation Account for onward allocation to the Federal Government, State Governments and Local Government Councils in accordance with the formula determined from time to time by the National Assembly (item A on the Concurrent List).

In this regard, it is important to note that the allocation formula does not give due recognition to the state of origin (derivation principle) except in 2 instances:

1. Where under an Act of the National Assembly, tax or duty is imposed in respect of personal income, capital gains and stamp duties and collected by the FIRS, the net proceeds of such tax or duty is to be distributed among the states on the basis of derivation (See section 163(b) of the Constitution).

2. In the case of petroleum profits or the proceeds of other ‘natural resources’, 13% goes back to the state of origin on the basis of derivation.

In an attempt to widen the scope of derivation, Lagos State argued in the Resource Control Case that natural resources meant any material in its natural state which, when exploited, has economic value. On that basis, Lagos State laid claim to a share of revenue derived from its ports and wharves on the basis of derivation. However, the Supreme Court preferred a narrow definition of ‘natural resources’, holding that all “claims relating to wharves, ports, piers, pier licenses, collection of rates, harbour dues, shipping dues, quarries, sea, livestock, fish, hide and skin, horns, groundnuts, beans, mangoes, grains, pepper, cotton, and gum Arabic, are untenable as they do not fall under the definition of ‘natural resources’ See Attorney General of the Federation v. Attorney General of Abia State and 35 Ors ([2002] 6 NWLR (part 764) 1 at 759 to 760 per Uwais CJN).

In spite of this, our position is that the activities in any State which generate money for the federation account should be attributable to that State. Indeed, the money so contributed is derived from within the territory of that State. On that basis alone, entitlement to a share on the basis of derivation should arise. To us, the ultimate objective should be to see that all States that contribute to the Federation Account have a special share of money derived from their territory.

To achieve this, the proviso to Section 162(2) of the Constitution needs to be amended to extend the concept of derivation to all revenues flowing into the Federation Account. In that case, the formula for sharing centrally collected revenue like companies’ income tax, customs and excise duties and education tax would recognize the principles of derivation, having regard to the location of the person, property, activity or transaction which has been subjected to tax.

Need For an Act of the National Assembly to List the New Local Government Areas in Lagos State

With a population currently estimated at 18 million, Lagos State is the most populous State in Nigeria. It also has the fastest rate of population growth. However, in terms of number of Local Government Councils, it ranks 18th among the 36 States of the Federation.

Following popular demand and specific requests made by Local Government Councillors and members of the Lagos State House of Assembly, the State Government followed through the process prescribed by the 1999 Constitution for the creation of new Local Government Councils.

To date, neither of the two Houses of the National Assembly has faulted the process adopted by the Lagos State House of Assembly or expressly refused the request for consequential amendments. However, the then Federal Government opposed the process and precipitated a legal action instituted by the State Government at the Supreme Court. Following the court judgment, the current legal position is captured by Uwais CJN in AG. Lagos v. AG. Federation [2004] 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 1 (as he then was) in the following terms:

“As I have already shown, the creation of new local government areas or councils is supported by the provisions of the Constitution. In other words the taking of such a step or act by Lagos State is not unconstitutional as thought by the President. The Constitution fully recognises the step taken except that there is still one more step or hurdle to be taken or crossed by the National Assembly for the Plaintiff to actualise the creation of the new local government areas.” at pages 91-92 para. H-A.

According to the Supreme Court, Lagos State has to go a step further by getting the National Assembly to pass an Act which will amend section 3 (6) of the Constitution for the new local government areas to be accommodated by the Constitution. This important final step remains to be taken and we urge members of the National Assembly to assist in realising the dream of rapid development for Lagos State.

In this regard, it is essential that list of Local Government Councils be removed from the 1st Schedule to the Constitution as they are not federating units. States should be free to determine what number they want. Also, States should be free to determine what roles to assign to their Local Governments, instead of the uniform prescription in the 4th Schedule to the Constitution.

Unconstitutional Provisions in Federal Highways (Use of Right of Way, Control and Prohibition of Advertising) Regulations 2005 and Federal Roads Maintenance Agency Act as amended

The Federal Highways (Use of Right of Way, Control and Prohibition of Advertising) Regulations 2005 was made pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Highways Act. The objectionable provisions are contained in paragraphs 8 to 11 and 13 to 18 of the Regulations. The substance of the said provisions is that the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) has been saddled with the responsibility to control and regulate out-door advertising on any Federal Highway. This is in conflict with the Constitution.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 specifically provides in paragraph 1(k)(i) of the Fourth Schedule that the main functions of a local government are “Control and regulation of- out-door advertising and hoarding”. Section 7(5) of the Constitution provides that the functions to be conferred on Local Government Councils shall include those set out in the Fourth Schedule. The implication of the foregoing provisions is that the functions of regulating out-door advertising and hoarding is to be conferred on local government by a Law made by the Lagos State House of Assembly. The Supreme Court in the leading judgment delivered by Uwais CJN in Knight Frank Rutley v. AG Kano State (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 556) 1 held that the Kano State Government acted ultra vires in entering into a contract with the appellant to do what only the Local Government Councils were entitled to do under the 1979 Constitution and the Kano State Local Government Edict 1977. The provisions of the Regulations should therefore be urgently amended to reverse this unconstitutionality.

The Federal Roads Maintenance Agency Act (the FERMA Act) as amended in section 14, provides that the fund of the Agency shall consist of 5% user charge on pump price of petrol and diesel of which 40% will accrue to FERMA and 60% to be utilized by the established State Roads Maintenance Agency. The levies imposed by the section as a source of revenue for the Agency tantamount to an imposition of tax. An age long principle is that there must be no taxation without representation. The tax imposed here is not within the taxing power of the Federal Government under item 59 on the Exclusive Legislative List. Item 59 empower the National Assembly to tax incomes, profits, and capital gains. The user charge of 5% imposed on pump price of petrol and diesel is at best a sale tax which is a residual matter for States, not being a matter on the Exclusive Legislative List. The Act should be further amended and the provision of section 14 should be deleted.

Special Status for Lagos State

For many years now, Lagosians have rightly felt that there was a cogent basis and an overwhelming moral, economic, socio-political and historical rationale behind Lagos State’s unyielding quest for a special position in the national scheme of things.

Lagos State was created on May 27, 1967 by virtue of the States (Creation and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 14 1967, which restructured Nigeria’s federation into 12 states. Since independence, and prior to the movement of the federal capital to Abuja in 1990, Lagos had always been a dual administration area due to its status as Federal Capital and the sheer scale of its importance both as administrative and commercial capital of the country. It thus required herculean administrative effort backed by enormous funds and effective political control to enable the State to function with effective management of law and order, regulation of business and social activities, management of land, delivery of social services, provision and maintenance of infrastructure, etc.

After independence, the Lagos municipality (the Federal Capital Territory) was administered by the Federal Government through the Federal Ministry of Lagos Affairs while the Lagos City Council governed the City of Lagos. Similarly, the Western Regional Government administered the former colony provinces of Ikeja, Agege, Mushin, Ikorodu, Epe and Badagry. These provinces were yet to be part of Lagos State and therefore, the Lagos administration was much less burdened than it is today.

When the new capital federal territory was being created on February 3, 1976, it was duly recognized that although Lagos was to lose its capital territory status, it would remain for the foreseeable future the nation’s premier entrepot and economic and commercial capital. This much was expressed as policy by the late General Muritala Muhammed in a broadcast proclaiming Abuja as the Federal Capital Territory in these immortal words:

“Lagos will in the foreseeable future remain the Nation’s commercial capital and one of its nerve centers. But in terms of servicing the present infrastructure alone the committed amount of money and effort required will be such that Lagos State will not be ready to cope. It will even be unfair to expect the State to bear this heavy burden on its own. It is therefore necessary for the Federal Government to continue to sustain the substantial investment in the area. The port facilities and other economic activities in the Lagos area have to be expanded. There is need in the circumstances for the Federal Government to maintain a special defense and security arrangement in Lagos which will henceforth be designated a special area. This arrangement will be carefully worked out and written into the constitution. Kaduna and Port Harcourt are to be accorded similar status and designation”

Unfortunately, this policy statement was never implemented. As soon as the federal government moved to Abuja, all attention was concentrated on the new city to the detriment of the proposed special areas. Yet thirty two years on, the sentiments expressed by the late national hero resonate even more loudly and urgently. A special constitutional arrangement of special status and dedicated funds to Lagos has become a non-negotiable imperative for the health and survival of the State and ultimately of the nation.

Lagos has an area of 358,861 hectares or 3,577 sq. km. Although smallest in land area, it indisputably has the highest population of about 18 million, well over 10% of the national population estimate. To put it more graphically, one in ten of all Nigerians resides and makes his or her living in Lagos. The rate of population growth in the State, mainly by migration from other parts of the country and indeed from other nations, is about 300,000.00 persons per annum. With the highest population density in Africa, Lagos and its environs is expected to hit the 24.5 million-population mark by 2015 (UN study 1999). The state’s potential to become the largest metropolitan concentration of black people in the world underscores its uniqueness and the pressing need for Lagos to be accorded sufficient administrative and financial capacity to justify that status in terms of public services, infrastructure and security.

It therefore becomes even more important to advocate and publicize the uniqueness of the State so that it could be accorded the special recognition it deserves to make it a symbol of modernity and inclusiveness, a monumental showpiece for the black race. It has a pivotal importance in the political and economic calculations in the Nigerian project. At the moment, Lagos contributes about 60% of National Gross Domestic Product of Nigeria. This shows how strategic the State is to the national wellbeing and how vital it is for the State to be given Category A status in terms of revenue sharing and administrative autonomy to enable it to optimize its role as the premier Black metropolis in the world.

It should be noted also that Lagos State is the only state in Nigeria that has remained intact from the original 12 of 1967. Thus, it has moved downwards from a position of 1/12 to 1/37 (including the FCT). Yet the share of Lagos State from the Federation Account has not reflected this fundamental factor. Instead, its net contribution to the national revenue is given very little consideration in terms of VAT proceeds, and the only impact it feels from hosting the ports and other industrial activities, is environmental degradation and damaged infrastructure. It is unfortunate that the main revenue beneficiary of these activities have not deemed it fit to invest a reasonable share of the benefits back into the source of its largesse.

Equally unfortunate is the fact that, in spite of this historical and moral connection, we are not being given any consideration in the disposal of Federal Government property in Lagos State. The land over which these pieces of property were built belonged to indigenous families of Lagos State and, now that they are no longer required for public use, we strongly believe that they should be disposed in such a way as to benefit the State and its peoples. Being situated in Lagos State, we also believe that the reversionary interest in the said property should be held by the Governor for the benefit of all Lagosians. This is more so with the public buildings like the Tafawa Balewa Square, National Theatre, Federal Secretariat Complex, etc all of which have acquired landmark status and a special place in the history of Lagos State. For these reasons, we are currently engaged in discussions with officials of the Federal Government towards an amicable resolution of the disputed issues.

Conclusion

The foregoing facts highlight the need for our concerted efforts towards the evolution of a legislative agenda for Lagos State. The list of items can not be exhausted in one session of this nature. What must be of importance is the provocation of thoughts about the clear role and functions of States in a federal system of government, and the understanding by all participants of the precise relationship between States and the Federal Government within a federal structure.

Once it is understood and appreciated by all and sundry that the choice to federate is ideally that of the states; that the Federal Government exists for them and not vice versa; that unless the states donate powers in the 68 items of the Exclusive Legislative List to the Federal Government, the Federal Government cannot exercise them and that it is within the province of the States to withdraw or modify those powers, then a clear understanding of the federal structure of government would have started to emerge. All concerned would also become more vigilant to ensure that un-permitted incursions into the residual powers of States are not permitted whether by legislative or executive actions.

Thank you.

Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN
Governor of Lagos State