The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Six key takeaways from Supreme Court’s ruling on LG allocations

    Six key takeaways from Supreme Court’s ruling on LG allocations

    The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, July 11, that henceforth, the federal government must directly pay any funds allocated to the local governments in the federation to the local government areas managed by democratically elected officials.

    In a leading judgment by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the apex court also ruled that it is unconstitutional for state governments to withhold and utilize the allocation meant for the LGAs without transferring the same to them as specified in Section 162(3) of the constitution.

    Here are key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s ruling on LG allocations

    1. Unconstitutional Practice: The court declared that it is illegal and unconstitutional for governors to continue receiving and seizing funds allocated to LGAs, a practice ongoing for over two decades.

    2. Violation of the Constitution: The apex court found that this practice violates Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

    Read Also: JUST IN: Supreme Court bars FG from paying allocations to LGs with unelected officials

    3. Direct Payment of Funds: The court ordered that funds meant for LGAs must be paid directly from the federation account to the LGAs, rather than through the states.

    4. Democratic Governance Mandate: The court emphasized that LGAs must be governed by democratically elected officials, declaring the appointment of caretaker committees by governors to run LGA affairs as unconstitutional.

    5. Obligation of States: The ruling underscores that the 36 states are obligated to ensure democratic governance at the third tier of government.

    6. Dismissal of Governors’ Objections: The court dismissed the preliminary objections filed by state governors challenging the competence of the suit filed by the Federal Government to secure financial autonomy for the LGAs.

  • JUST IN: Supreme Court bars FG from paying allocations to LGs with unelected officials

    JUST IN: Supreme Court bars FG from paying allocations to LGs with unelected officials

    The Supreme Court has held that it is illegal for Governors to dissolve democratically elected Local Governments.

    It orders the Federal Government to henceforth withhold allocations to Local Governments governed by unelected officials appointed by the Governor.

    Read Also: BREAKING: Supreme Court rules LG allocations should be paid directly from Federation Account

    The apex court also barred the Federal Government from further paying LG allocations through the State Governments since the practice has been abused by Governors, who retain the funds and utilise them as they please to the detriment of the LGAd for which the monies are meant.

    The pronouncements were made in the ongoing judgment of the Supreme Court in the LG autonomy suit filed by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi SAN on behalf is the Fed Govt.

    Details shortly…

  • BREAKING: Supreme Court rules LG allocations should be paid directly from Federation Account

    BREAKING: Supreme Court rules LG allocations should be paid directly from Federation Account

    The Supreme Court has held that henceforth, the Federal Government should pay any money standing to the credit of the Local Governments in the Federation directly to the Local Government Areas managed by democratically elected officials.

    Read Also: FEC directs SGF to implement varsity lecturers removal from IPPIS

    In a lead judgment by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the apex court has also held that it is unconstitutional for State Governments to retain and use allocation meant for the LGAs on their behalf without transferring same to them as provided in Section 162(3) of the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court made these pronouncements in its ongoing judgment in the suit filed by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF)  seeking full autonomy for the LGAs.

    Details shortly…

  • Supreme Court strikes out dethroned monarch’s appeal

    Supreme Court strikes out dethroned monarch’s appeal

    The Supreme Court has struck out an appeal filed by Mr Micheal Onakoya, the dethroned  king  and Orijeru of Igbooye Land in Epe, Lagos State.

    The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal had affirmed the judgment of the lower court which dethroned him as king.

    In a judgment delivered on April 29, 2024 in suit SC//CV//969/2024, Justices Adamu Jauro, Chidiebere Nwaoma, Obande Festus Ogbuinya, Stephen Jonah Adah and Ohammed Baba Idri held that the appeal was filed out of time.

    The ruling of the Supreme Court was read by Justice Jauro, the presiding Justice.

    It stated in part: “The court observed that the Notice of appeal on page 442 of the record was filed on 29/06/2020 against the decision delivered by the Court of Appeal Lagos Division on 26th March, 2020 which was out of the time prescribed by Section 27 of the Supreme Court Act. Though the learned Prof. Yusuf Ali (SAN) for 7th respondent has urged the court to hear the appeal. We do not deem it proper to hear an incompetent appeal.

    “Consequent upon the foregoing the Notice of Appeal filed 29/06/2020 in Appeal No. SC/969/2020 is incompetent having been filed outside the time prescribed by the Section 27 of the Supreme Court Act and it is hereby struck out.

    “Notice of appeal struck out. No order as to costs.”

    The justices noted that the appellant’s counsel was not in court despite being duly served hearing notice for  proceedings which held on April 29, 2024.

    The 1st to 6th respondents in the appeal were represented by Babs Animashaun, and the 7th by Prof, Yusuf Ali (SAN) with Adams Olori Aje,  Alex Okoja, Sefinat Lamidi and Kehinde Salimon.

    The 8th and 9th respondents were represented by A.O. Muheed, Deputy Director, Lagos State with Florence Pius Anyador, a Chief State Counsel and O. Osusanya, an Assistant Chief State Counsel.

    Read Also: N25.7b fraud: Supreme Court okays six-year jail term for ex-Bank PHB MD Atuche

    The Court of Appeal,  Lagos Division had in March 2020  affirmed the judgment of a Lagos High Court sitting in Igbosere which dethroned Michael Onakoya as the traditional ruler and Orijeru of Igbooye land, Epe.

    Dissatisfied, the deposed king had approached the Court of Appeal and sought the order of the court to set aside the judgment of the lower court delivered  on April 19, 2016 by Justice Iyabo Kasali.

    But the three-man panel of the appellate court, Justice Mohammad Lawal, presiding, Justice Ugochukwu Ogakwu and Justice Jamilu Tukur, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal filed by the deposed monarch.

    The justices of the Court of Appeal held that the application filed by the former king of Igbooyeland was lacking in merit.

    In the judgment read by Justice Tukur, the justices of the upper court upheld the two issues raised for determination of the court by the first to sixth respondents and seventh respondents in their respondents briefs settled by T.A. Dairo and Yusuf Ali (SAN) respectively.

    The appellate court held that the first to six respondents have locus standi to institute the suit filed at the Lagos High Court.

    The justices of the appellate court also agreed and granted the relief sought by the respondents that the appellant/claimant, Micheal Onakoya, is not a member of the Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye land and is not entitled to be appointed as an Oba (king) on the platform of the ruling house.

    The appellate court refused to award any cost as it ordered parties to bear their respective cost.

    While Onakoya was the appellant, the respondents included Alhaji M.A. Quadri, Mrs. Oladipe Otunowo, Chief Gbenro Otunowo, Otunba Abdulwasiu Musa-Adebamowo, (Head of the Ewade Ruling House),  Lagos State Government and Attorney General of Lagos State.

    Justice Kasali, in her April 2016 judgment, granted all the claims of the claimants in the suit filed through their counsel, Tunde Oyende.

    She  declared that “The second defendant (Micheal Gbadebo Onakoya) is not a member of the Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye in Epe Local Government Area of Lagos State and is not entitled to be nominated to the stool of the Orijeru of Igbooye.

    “The court “perpetually” restrained Onakoya from parading himself as a member of the Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye, Epe,  the traditional ruler and Orijeru of Igbooye land of Epe Local government Area.

    She had  declared the nomination of the second defendant, Onakoya, to the stool of Orijeru of Igbooye as  illegal and of no effect.

    Justice Kasali had also declared: “That all the other defendants are hereby perpetually restrained from recognising the second defendant (Micheal Gbadebo Onakoya) as a member of the Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye.

    She held that :“The second defendant counter/claimant’s claim fails in their entirety and they are dismissed.”

    The trial judge also described as fraudulent, the documents used by the deposed monarch for his nomination, selection and subsequent recognition by government for the stool of Orijeru of Igbooye land.

    She agreed that the claimants were not aware of nor participated in the meetings purportedly held by the Ewade Ruling House in August, 1991 which culminated in his (Onakoya’s) unlawful nomination.

    She also agreed with the claimants that they were not aware of the presentation of the second defendant to the state government.

    “The members of Ewade Ruling House only became aware of the true but hidden and secret fact that the second defendant had assumed the stool of Igbooye, before he was deposed, on the platform of Ewade Ruling House when they saw the letter ref. EP. 181/134 dated 26th February, 2003 addressed to the second defendant “in care of Ewade Ruling House” in the course of frontloading processes in suit ID/1472/92: Adesada v. Lagos State Government which was decided on October 15, 2008 by this Honourable court”, the court held.

    Justice Kasali said it was necessary for trial courts to take a stand against illegality and ensure that justice is done at all times.

    Earlier, Justice Habib Abiru, (now a Justice of the Supreme Court) while a judge of of Lagos High Court had in 2008, in  suit no ID/1472/1992, dethroned the  embattled monarch from the stool of Orijeru of Igbooyeland.

    Justice Abiru declined to stay execution of his judgment in a ruling delivered on October 15, 2009 and likewise the trio of Justices C.C. Nweze, R.N. Pemu and F.O. Akinbami of the Court of Appeal on Februaryý 27, 2013 in a different applications filed by the deposed monarch.

    The Lagos State government had on May 17, 2016 banished the deposed monarch from Igbooye town following the two judgments by Justice Habib Abiru (now of the Supreme Court) delivered in October 2008 and Justice Iyabo Kasali delivered  in April 2016 after his dethronement as the Orijeru of Igbooyeland, Epe.

    The letter banishing Onakoya from Igbooye, Epe was signed by the then Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Community Affairs, Sanuth J.A.B. and also ordered him to stop parading himself as the Orijeru of Igbooye until another judgment setting aside the two judgments of the High Court.

    The letter advised him to stay away from the community in order to prevent any breakdown of law and order until situation is reversed.

    However, following his appeal to the state government, the banishment of the deposed monarch was reviewed and was allowed to return home based on provisions of section 37 of the Obas and Chiefs laws.

    The directive dated April 25, 2017 signed by Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Fola Padonu, instructed the deposed monarch to return to Igbooye “as an ordinary citizen of the community pending the final determination of your case; that you will not parade yourself in any manner whatsoever or act in any capacity and use of other regalia as an Oba within the administrative division where the community is located.

    “ It further  instructed him to ensure that his return “will not incite the breakdown of law and order, or in any way disturb the peace of the community”.

    He was also barred from engaging “in any act capable of disturbing the peace, order and good governance of the community and environs” among other directives.

  • Supreme Court backs notaries public society to transform practice

    Supreme Court backs notaries public society to transform practice

    The Supreme Court of Nigeria has backed efforts of the Society for Notaries Public (SNP) to professionalise and transform the practice.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Kayoode Ariwoola stated this at the launch of the Society and the induction of new members.

    Justice Ariwoola, represented by the Head of Notary of the Supreme Court, Hadiza Bamaiyi, said: “The Supreme Court relies on your expertise and professionalism to facilitate smooth transactions, resolve disputes, and promote economic growth.”

    Read Also: Obiano: Anambra funds paid into private companies’ accounts – Witness

    Urging the inductees to uphold notarial practice standards, President and Master-in-council of the SNP, Mrs. Marlies Allan, said the need to protect the ‘integrity and credibility of notarial services’ led to the formation of the Society.

    Former chief judge of Lagos State, Justice Ayotunde Phillips (rtd), described the event as ‘a new chapter’ in unifying and giving notaries public in the country a common voice. Phillips, who is life patron of the NPS, lauded the initiative to revolutionise the practice using technology.

    SNP’s honorary secretary Bamofin Muyiwa Ayojimi said the Society’s partnership with ToNote Techonologies aimed to make notarial services seamless and faster regardless of jurisdictions.

  • Supreme Court dismisses case by sacked Imo local govt chairmen

    Supreme Court dismisses case by sacked Imo local govt chairmen

    The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by former chairmen of Local Government Areas in Imo State.

    In a judgment on Friday, a five-member panel of the apex court was unanimous in holding that the appeal was without merit.

    Justice Sadiq Abubakar Umar gave the lead judgment in the appeal, marked: SC/537/2016 filed against the Imo State Governor and others by the ex-LG Chairmen led by Barrister Enyinna Onuegbu.

    Justice Umar affirmed the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, Owerri division, which equally upheld the  decision of the trial court that the suit was an abuse of court process.

    The Court of Appeal had held that a similar suit existed between the same parties on the same issue.

    Imo State’s Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, C. O. C. Akaolisa (SAN), who was in court on Friday, commended the apex court for its decision.

    Akaolisa said the decision has cleared the way for Imo State to conduct Local Government elections.

    He said the Imo State Government has been waiting for the outcome of the case to enable it conduct elections at the Local Government level.

    “The state government decide to await the Supreme Court’s decision in this case before conducting Local Government elections.

    Read Also: Alleged N1.2b fraud: Why Supreme Court freed firm linked with Saraki

    “We didn’t want to be seen to be disrespecting the court. It was out of respect to the court that we decided to wait.

    “Today, the court has dismissed the action filed by the former Chairmen, contending their tenure. The state is now free to conduct Local Government election.

    “The state’s election commission has already published notice of election. So, now, nothing is hindering us from conducting the election,” Akaolisa said.

    The immediate past Governor of Imo State,  Rochas Okorocha had,  in his maiden broadcast in June 2011, announced the sacking of the elected Local Government Chairmen, who assumed office under the tenure of his predecessor, Ikedi Ohakim of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Okorocha replaced the elected Chairmen with his appointed Transitional Committee Chairmen for  the 27 Local Governments in the state.

    While challenging the sack the ex-Local Government chiefs filed two suits, one at the state’s High Court and another at the Federal High Court.

    The trial court declared one of the cases an abuse of court’s process, a decision the ex-LG chiefs appealed.

    In its decision on November 20, 2016 the Court of Appeal, Owerri division, affirmed the decision of the High Court, which the ex-LG chiefs further appealed to the Supreme Court.

  • Alleged N1.2b fraud: Why Supreme Court freed firm linked with Saraki

    Alleged N1.2b fraud: Why Supreme Court freed firm linked with Saraki

    The Supreme Court has set aside the May 31, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the final forfeiture of N1,222,384,857.84 allegedly obtained by a firm, Melrose General Services Limited, from the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) through false claims.

    In a split decision of three-to-two, delivered last Friday, the Supreme Court, among others, held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to prove its claim that Melrose, linked with former Senate President, Bukola Saraki, unlawfully obtained the funds from the NGF.

    In the lead majority judgment, the Supreme  agreed with Melrose’s lawyer, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) that the EFCC did not discharge the burden placed on it by the law to establish with suffecient evidence that the funds were proceeds of criminal activities.

    Read Also: Saraki hails Supreme Court verdict on Melrose case over Paris Club Fund

    It held that the burden of proof could only shift to the appellant (Melrose) to prove that the source of the funds was legitimate after the EFCC has first established, on the balance of probabilities, that the funds are proceeds of criminal activities.

    Justices John Okoro, Adamu Jauro and Emmanuel Agim gave the majority decision in the appeal marked: SC/1519/2019, while Justices Obande Ogbuinya and Habeeb Abiru dissented.

    The EFCC had claimed that Melrose and some other firms obtained N3.5bn from the NGF by impersonating a consortium of consulting firms engaged by the NGF for the “verification, reconciliation and recovery of over-deductions on Paris and London Club Loans on the accounts of states and local governments between 1995 and 2002.”

    On April 27, 2018 the EFCC obtained an order from the Federal High Court in Lagos for the final forfeiture of the funds to the Federal Government.

    Melrose appealed to the Court of Appeal in Lagos, which in its judgment on May 31, 2019 affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court, following which the firm appealed to the Supreme Court.

  • Ondo faults AGF’s suit at Supreme Court on LGs autonomy

    Ondo faults AGF’s suit at Supreme Court on LGs autonomy

    •Describes AGF as meddlesome interloper in LGs administration
    •Insists no one can query how states run LGs or apply their funds

    The Ondo State Government has faulted the competence of the suit filed before the Supreme Court by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) on Local Governments autonomy.

    In a notice of preliminary objection filed for the state by its Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr. Olukayode Ajulo (SAN), Ondo State argues that it is not within the constitutional powers of the AGF, who filed the suit in the name of the Federal Government, to query how a state runs its LGs or administer their funds.

    It is also Ondo State’s contention that it is only the National Assembly or the state House of Assembly that can query the manner Local Governments are being administered and how their funds are deployed.

    While describing the FG as a meddlesome interloper in the matter of LGs administration, Ondo State also argued that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

    It added that the plaintiff has been unable to establish that a dispute exists between it and the 36 states to warrant the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as required under Section 232(1) of the Constitution.

    Read Also: WCQ: Pressure as Nigeria draw South Africa 1-1

    Ondo State, listed as the 28th defendant in the suit, urged the apex court to decline jurisdiction over the case.

    In a separate motion, Ondo State equally faulted the averments contained in some paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of the originating summons and urged the court to strike them out.

    It stated that the affected averments contravened the provision of Section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended).

    In the preliminary objection, Ondo State is contending that the Supreme Court  “lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit, same having been filed in flagrant violation of Section 232(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (‘the Constitution’), Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act. No. 3, 2002 and Order 3 Rule 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended 2014).

    “Section 232(1) of the Constitution only permits the invocation of the original jurisdiction of this honourable court where there is a dispute between the federation/plaintiff and the defendants/states which involves any question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of the legal right of either the federation or the defendants/states depends.

    “The proper parties in any action where the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is invoked are persons listed in Section 232(1) of the Constitution and Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act. No. 3, 2002 vis-à-vis the respective legal rights of the parties, and no other person whatsoever – whether natural or artificial – is allowed to be a party to the suit under any guise whatsoever.

    “The federation/plaintiff has no locus standi to institute and/or maintain this suit as the funds complained of in the instant suit belong to the local government councils created by the Constitution as a distinct and different tier of government independent of the Plaintiff.

    “The legal import of Section 162(3) of the Constitution is to the effect that any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the local government councils in each state on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.

    “The distribution of the said funds between three distinct tiers of government is not subject to the discretion or any terms and conditions of the plaintiff

  • Ondo faults AGF’s suit at Supreme Court on LGs autonomy

    Ondo faults AGF’s suit at Supreme Court on LGs autonomy

    …insists no one can’t query how states run LGs or apply their funds

    The Ondo state government has faulted the competence of the suit filed before the Supreme Court by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) on the local government autonomy.

    In a notice of preliminary objection filed for the state by its Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Olukayode Ajulo (SAN), Ondo state, argues that it is not within the constitutional powers of the AGF, who filed the suit in the name of the Federal Government, to query how a state runs its LGs or administer their funds.

    It is also Ondo state’s contention that it is only either the National Assembly or the state House of Assembly that can query the manner Local Governments are being administered and how their funds are deployed.

    While describing the FG as a meddlesome interloper in the matter of LG administration, Ondo State also argued that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

    It added that the plaintiff has been unable to establish that a dispute exists between it and the 36 states to warrant the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as required under Section 232(1) of the Constitution.

    Ondo State, listed as the 28th defendant in the suit, urged the apex court to decline jurisdiction over the case.

    In a separate motion, Ondo State equally faulted the averments contained in some paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of the originating summons and urged the court to strike them out.

    It stated that the affected averments contravened the provision of Section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended).

    In the preliminary objection, Ondo State is contending that the Supreme Court  “lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit, same having been filed in flagrant violation of Section 232(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (‘the Constitution’), Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act. No. 3, 2002 and Order 3 Rule 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended 2014).

    Read Also: Council autonomy battle rages at Supreme Court

    “Section 232(1) of the Constitution only permits the invocation of the original jurisdiction of this honourable court where there is a dispute between the federation/plaintiff and the defendants/states which involves any question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of the legal right of either the federation or the defendants/states depends.

    “The proper parties in any action where the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is invoked are persons listed in Section 232(1) of the Constitution and Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act. No. 3, 2002 vis-à-vis the respective legal rights of the parties, and no other person whatsoever – whether natural or artificial – is allowed to be a party to the suit under any guise whatsoever.

    “The federation/plaintiff has no locus standi to institute and/or maintain this suit as the funds complained of in the instant suit belong to the local government councils created by the Constitution as a distinct and different tier of government independent of the Plaintiff.

    “The legal import of Section 162(3) of the Constitution is to the effect that any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the local government councils in each state on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.

    “The distribution of the said funds between three distinct tiers of government is not subject to the discretion or any terms and conditions of the plaintiff

    “By the provision of Section 162(5) of the Constitution, the amount standing to the credit of the local government councils in the Federation Account shall be allocated to the states/defendants for the benefit of their local government councils on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.

    “The allocation of the said funds to the states/Defendants for the benefit of their respective local government councils is not subject to the discretion or any terms and conditions to be prescribed by the plaintiff.

    “By the provision of Section 162(8) of the Constitution, the amount standing to the credit of the local government councils of a State shall be distributed among the local government councils of that state on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of the state.

    “The distribution or usage of the said funds of the local government councils of the states, particularly the 28th defendant (Ondo State), is not subject to the discretion or any terms and conditions to be prescribed by the plaintiff.

    “By the provision of Section 7(1) of the Constitution, the government of every state – not the plaintiff – shall ensure the existence of democratically elected local government councils under a Law made by the State House of Assembly, and the said law shall provide for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.

    “Pursuant to Sections 7(1) & 162(8) of the Constitution, the State House of Assembly of the 28th defendant enacted a law to provide for local government system, establishment and administration of local government and for ancillary matters, which law is cited as the Local Government Administration, Conduct of Local Government Election and Allied Matters Law, Cap. 87, Vol. 2, Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria, 2006.

    “By the combined provisions of the Constitution, the plaintiff has no right or obligation on the allocation and distribution of the funds standing to the credit of the local government councils of a state, particularly the 28th defendant.

    “The Constitution has not placed any obligation or right on the federation/plaintiff in respect of the terms and manner such funds of the local government councils in either the Federation Account or State Joint Local Government Account should be allocated or distributed.

    “The Constitution has also not placed any vested interest in the federation/plaintiff for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of the local government councils of the various states, particularly the 28th defendant.

    “There is no dispute between the federation/plaintiff and the defendants/states which involves any question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of the legal right of the federation depends.

    “The federation/plaintiff has no right or interest which is affected or is likely to be affected by the action complained of by the Plaintiff.

    “Where there is any issue or dispute on the terms and manner the states handle the funds standing to the credit of the local government councils in the Federation Account being allocated to the states for the benefit of such councils, it is the National Assembly – and not the plaintiff – that the Constitution has vested with the right and interest to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the issue against the states and/or S

    States Houses of Assembly by virtue of Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act No. 3, 2002, having regard to the clear and unequivocal wordings of Section 162(5) of the Constitution.

    “The plaintiff is a meddlesome interloper in this matter.

    “The proper and necessary parties for the purpose of invoking the original jurisdiction of this honourable court in respect of this matter are not before the court.

    “As can be gleaned from the affidavit in support of the plaintiff’s originating summons, this suit is brought in the official capacity of the federation/plaintiff to preserve our democracy and the rule of law, and not to seek personal redress in respect of any of its personal rights and obligations.

    “The judicial powers of the Supreme Court sitting in its original jurisdiction cannot be invoked to determine a suit that is filed only for the protection of the Constitution from an alleged abuse by the defendants and for the protection of democracy and the rule of law, that raises for determination general questions about the constitutionality of laws of States Houses of Assembly and/or actions of governors of states in respect of their local government councils, that have no nexus with the civil rights and obligations of the plaintiff.

    “The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not cover a situation where a party named in Section 232(1) of the Constitution seeks to protect any of the provisions of the Constitution from being contradicted by perceived conflicting laws on Local Government Administration of the various States Houses of Assembly, particularly the 28th defendant’s State House of Assembly.

    “Where there is a perceived offensive law, as purportedly alleged by the plaintiff in respect of the respective laws of the various Houses of Assembly of the defendants, there are procedures and mechanisms available within the legislature for an amendment of such provision or an entire repeal of the law, but not for another organ of the government (plaintiff) to interfere.

    “The plaintiff has no power to interfere with the constitutional responsibilities of the State House of Assembly of the 28th defendant to make law for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of its local government councils, or in any manner seek to influence the performance thereof.

    “This suit is an affront to the principles of the rule of law, democracy, separation of powers and true federalism as clearly outlined in the Constitution.

    “This suit constitutes a gross abuse of the process of this honourable court.

    “The issues and concerns raised in the subject matter of this suit vis-à-vis the allocation of the funds standing to the credit of the local government councils can only be strictly entertained and determined under the original jurisdiction of this honourable court between the National Assembly and the states or the National Assembly and the states Houses of Assembly as provided for under the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002, having regard to the clear and unequivocal wordings of Section 162(5) of the Constitution.

    “The hearing and entertainment of this suit as presently constituted in the original jurisdiction of this honourable court will not only set a bad precedent but also lead to a floodgate of actions instituted via the original jurisdiction of this honourable court contrary to the intendment of Section 232 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act 2002 by a person not listed, designated or contemplated by the said laws.

    “This honourable court is not the appropriate forum for the determination of this suit, considering the manner the suit has been constituted.”

  • Council autonomy battle rages at Supreme Court

    Council autonomy battle rages at Supreme Court

    • States gets seven days to file defence as apex court fixes June 13 for hearing

    • Borno, Kano, Kogi, Niger, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Sokoto absent at proceeding

    Thirty-six governors have seven days to present their defence to the suit filed against them by the Federal Government over the management of funds belonging to local councils.

    The Supreme Court, which gave the order yesterday through a seven-member panel, led by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, also ordered the Federal Government to file its reply within two days of being served with the defendants’ responses.

    The court issued the orders yesterday in a ruling on an application by the federal government for abridgment of time for parties to file all relevant papers in relation to the suit.

    Arguing the federal government’s application, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), prayed the court to order the defendants to file their defence within five days in view of the urgent nature of the case.

    Read Also: President condoles with Jimi Agbaje over son’s death

    The Chairman, Body of Attorneys-General of the states of the Federation, Ben Odoh (who is also the Attorney-General of Ebonyi State) did not object to the request for abridgement of time.

    Odoh, however, requested that the defendants be given 15 days as against the five days requested by the federal government.

    Justice Garba, who read the ruling, said the court’s decision to restrict the defendants to seven days was predicated on the national importance and urgency of the suit and also, because the defendants did not object to the plaintiff’s request for abridgment of time.

    He added that the filing of all relevant processes and the exchange of same by parties must be completed within the time allocated.

    The judge then adjourned till June 13 for hearing.

     During yesterday’s proceedings, the attorneys-general of  Borno, Kano, Kogi, Niger, Ogun, Osun, Oyo and Sokoto states, were absent and not represented by any lawyer.

    Justice Garba ordered that the eight states that were absent should be served with fresh hearing notice against the next adjourned date.

    In the suit marked: “SC/CV/343/2024” filed by the AGF on behalf of the federal government, governors were accused among others, of arbitrarily running the local governments.

    It is also alleged that some governors run local government areas with appointed administrators as against elected officials prescribed by the Constitution.

    The federal government is praying the apex court for an order prohibiting governors “from unilateral, arbitrary and unlawful dissolution of democratically elected leaders for Local Governments.”

    It is also praying the Supreme Court for an order permitting the funds standing in the credits of Local Governments to be directly channeled to them from the Federation Account in line with the provisions of the Constitution, as against the alleged unlawful joint accounts created by governors.

    It wants an order stopping governors from constituting caretaker to run the affairs of Local Governments as against the constitutionally recognized and guaranteed democratic system.

    Also, the federal government wants an order of injunction restraining the governors, their agents and privies from receiving, spending or tampering with funds released from the Federation Account for the benefits of local governments when no democratically elected local government system is put in place in the states.

    The states were sued through their respective attorneys- general.

    The federal government premised its prayers on 27 grounds, to include that the country is a creation of the Constitution with President as Head of the Federal Executive arm of the Federation and has sworn to uphold and give effects to the provisions of the Constitution.

     “The governors represent the component states of the Federation with Executive Governors who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution and to at all times, give effects to the Constitution and that the Constitution, being the supreme law, has binding force all over the Federation of Nigeria.

    “The Constitution of Nigeria recognises federal, states and local governments as three tiers of government and that the three recognized tiers of government draw funds for their operation and functioning from the Federation Account created by the Constitution.

    “By the provisions of the Constitution, there must be a democratically elected local government system and that the Constitution has not made provisions for any other systems of governance at the local government level other than democratically elected local government system.

    “In the face of the clear provisions of the Constitution, the governors have failed and refused to put in place a democratically elected local government system even where no state of emergency has been declared to warrant the suspension of democratic institutions in the state.

    “The failure of the governors to put democratically elected local government system in place, is a deliberate subversion of the 1999 Constitution which they and the President have sworn to uphold.

    “All efforts to make the governors comply with the dictates of the 1999 Constitution in terms of putting in place, a democratically elected local government system, has not yielded any result and that to continue to disburse funds from the Federation Account to governors for non-existing democratically elected local government is to undermine the sanctity of the 1999 Constitution.”