Supreme Court dismisses Osun’s suit over withheld LG funds for lack of jurisdiction

The Supreme Court, in a split judgement of six to one, on Friday dismissed a suit instituted by the Attorney-General of Osun State against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) over the alleged unlawful withholding of statutory allocations meant for the state’s 30 local government councils.

Delivering the lead judgement, Justice Mohammed Idris held that the Osun Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice lacked the legal capacity to file the action on behalf of the local governments.

According to the court, only duly elected and inaugurated local government officials possess the standing to sue or be sued regarding matters that directly affect their councils.

While affirming that the Federal Government acted unconstitutionally by withholding the local government funds, the apex court emphasised that such actions violate the clear provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

Justice Idris admonished the Federal Government, noting that its conduct amounted to a “grave breach,” and insisted that allocations must be released directly into the statutory accounts of the respective councils.

He further dismissed the AGF’s allegations of contempt against Osun State, pointing out that the Federal Government itself had acted in greater contempt by failing to disburse funds as required by law.

However, Idris clarified that since there was no evidence showing that the local governments had formally authorised the Osun Attorney-General to sue on their behalf, the suit could not stand.

Read also: Lagos sues National Assembly to Supreme Court over alleged breach of lottery ruling

In a lone dissenting opinion, Justice Emmanuel Agim faulted the majority decision, insisting that the Osun Attorney-General was properly positioned to initiate the action.

He described the Federal Government’s decision to withhold council funds as not only unconstitutional but dangerous, stressing that such conduct could paralyse the operations of local governments across the state.

Despite agreeing that the Federal Government acted improperly, the majority of the Supreme Court held that the procedural defect in the filing of the suit rendered it incompetent, leading to its dismissal.