Recently, Vice Chairmen of Local Governments in Delta State, under the banner of the Association of Local Government Vice Chairmen (ALGOVC), made a bold and unprecedented move. They demanded statutory functions that would give meaning and relevance to their offices.
Their agitation is far from misplaced. It reflects a long-ignored structural flaw in Nigeria’s governance architecture: the systemic treatment of deputies as ceremonial placeholders whose usefulness only surfaces if the substantive officeholder becomes absent or incapacitated; an exception rather than a rule.
For decades, this lack of defined responsibility has reduced deputies across the tiers of government to bystanders in the business of leadership. They are provided with prestige, perks, and respectability, yet are denied the fundamental tool that gives public office value: purpose. Thus, to many observers, the recent push by local government vice chairmen in Delta State came as a surprise, but also as a refreshing departure from passive acceptance of redundancy.
During a visit to the Chief Adviser to the Governor, Chairman of ALGOVC and Vice Chairman of Oshimili North Local Government, Hon. Uju Okolo, lamented that their offices have become nothing more than glorified spaces without specific roles.
She called for an amendment of the local government laws to provide them with well-defined and measurable responsibilities. Her assertion is brutally honest and an indictment of a system that creates offices without empowering them to deliver value.
It is indeed commendable that these vice chairmen are not content with being ornaments in public governance. Their quest to contribute meaningfully to grassroots development should not be derided. In other jurisdictions, deputy roles are properly structured, ensuring continuity in governance, deeper community engagement, and shared administrative burdens.
But their demands also indict them because according to the laws, both the local government chairmen and their deputies have similar qualifications, tenure and are subject to the same constitutional provisions, including assignments.
Does it now mean that the vice chairmen are now aware of their duties, thus clamouring for more work? Scratch that.
Still, their demands invite scrutiny. For years, vice chairmen across the country largely tolerated their vague existence. So why now? Why this sudden hunger for responsibility? Is it because local governments are now experiencing improved financial autonomy?
A cynical observer might suspect that the motivation is tied to expected financial flows that accompany functional responsibilities. It is valid to ask these questions because, in Nigeria, public office is too often seen as a conveyor belt of personal wealth rather than an avenue for public service.
However, questioning motive should not invalidate a right demand. The more important task is ensuring that expanded roles do not create fresh layers of rivalry, institutional conflict, or political sabotage. Governance is complex enough; the grassroots cannot afford a leadership battleground between chairmen and their deputies.
What is required is a balanced restructuring; one that assigns responsibility, not rivalry. Chairmen themselves are overstretched with political duties, administrative oversight, and development pressures. Their offices rely heavily on aides who sometimes lack the legitimacy to lead. It is only logical for the constitutionally recognised second-in-command to fill these productivity gaps. But this must go hand-in-hand with collaboration, not competition.
Vice chairmen must not wait solely for the law to change before proving their capacity. They should actively engage their chairmen, propose community-driven policies, monitor local projects, champion citizen engagement, and help drive the MORE Agenda of the current administration. Leadership is not merely bestowed; it is demonstrated.
As reforms are considered, the law must clearly articulate what vice chairmen should do: governance oversight, participation in budget and project monitoring, representation in key programmes, and coordination of social development initiatives.
At the same time, local government chairmen must open the space and involve their deputies in decisions, empower them with assignments, and treat them as partners in progress rather than political subordinates to be sidelined.
When a vice chairman or chairwoman resumes in the morning, the desk should not be empty. Files should be waiting. Communities should be expecting. There must be work to do, real, meaningful work, because idleness in public service is an affront to democracy and a disservice to the people.
This agitation presents a rare opportunity to modernise local governance. It challenges the pervasive culture of waste; waste of talent, electoral mandate, and public resources. The vice chairmen have spoken, not merely to secure relevance, but to remind the system that leadership must be functional to be respected.
Their demand deserves careful consideration and immediate action. Empower them, but require accountability. Give them responsibilities, but insist on delivery and accountability. Strengthen their offices, but safeguard harmony with the local government chairmen.
Because in the end, governance cannot afford redundancy. At the grassroots, where the needs of the people are most urgent, every leader must be useful, and every office must matter.
