Table of Contents
The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Tuesday reserved its judgment in a case brought by the Osun State Government, which seeks to prevent the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) from releasing withheld local government funds to chairpersons elected under the All Progressives Congress (APC) platform.
Justice Uwani Aba’aji postponed the judgment after hearing arguments from Musbau Adetumbi, SAN, representing the Osun State Attorney General, and Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, who represented the AGF.
Justice Aba’aji, who led a seven-member panel of Justices during the proceedings, announced that the date for the judgment delivery in the case numbered SC/CV/773/2025 would be communicated to both parties once it is determined.
In the case, the Osun Attorney General sought an order from the apex court directing the AGF to promptly release the statutory allocations to chairpersons and councilors who were legitimately elected for the 30 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Osun State.
Additionally, the plaintiff, relying on the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction based on a letter from the AGF recognizing the disputed APC chairpersons, also requested an order to prevent the AGF from further withholding, suspending, or seizing monthly allocations and revenues due to the local governments that have democratically elected chairpersons.
The Osun Attorney General argued that the AGF erred in recognizing APC LG chairpersons while the matter was still pending in a court of record.
He also based his case on the assertion that the election that led to the APC officials being elected as LG chairpersons and councilors had been nullified by a Federal High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
Adetumbi, while presenting the plaintiff's case, urged the seven Justices to accept his arguments and grant all the reliefs sought by his client.
In contrast, the AGF, represented by Akin Olujimi, SAN, raised a preliminary objection, urging the apex court to dismiss the plaintiff's case on several grounds.
Among other points, Olujimi contended that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case before the Supreme Court to invoke original jurisdiction because the matter involved two political parties.
He further argued that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case, as it was not properly presented directly to the apex court by the plaintiff.
The senior lawyer asserted that the case did not present a valid cause of action, noting that the tenure of the disputed council chairpersons continues until October 22, and that the appropriate course of action would be to release the statutory allocations to them for the operation of the councils.
Likewise, he claimed that the Osun State Attorney General had abused court processes by filing cases in approximately seven high courts regarding the same subject and parties.
He therefore urged the court to deny the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and dismiss the case entirely.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the main issue in the case brought by the Osun State Government?
The main issue was to restrain the Attorney General of the Federation from releasing withheld local government funds to chairpersons elected on the APC platform.
What did the Osun Attorney General request from the Supreme Court?
The Osun Attorney General requested an order for the immediate release of statutory allocations to the elected chairpersons and to prevent the AGF from further withholding these funds.
What were the arguments presented by the AGF's representative?
The AGF's representative argued that the plaintiff lacked standing, that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the disputed council chairpersons' tenure was still valid until October 22.
