The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a landmark judgment today regarding a suit filed by the Federal Government seeking to grant full autonomy to Nigeria’s 774 Local Government Areas.
This development follows the court’s decision on June 13 to reserve judgment after all parties involved had submitted their final briefs of argument. The case has sparked significant debate, particularly among the states, who have raised objections to the Federal Government’s legal standing in this matter.
The controversy centers on whether the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has the locus standi (legal right) to initiate such an action on behalf of the local governments. Several states have filed preliminary objections, seeking the dismissal of the suit and arguing that the AGF is overstepping his bounds.
The Ondo State government, for example, has characterized the AGF as “a busybody and a meddlesome interloper” interfering in local government affairs. Ondo State contends that Section 232 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to hear disputes only when there is a direct conflict between the federation and the states involving legal rights or facts critical to both parties.
Further, Ondo State argues that the funds in question belong to local governments, which are a separate tier of government established by the Constitution, and are not subject to Federal Government control. They cite Section 162(3) of the Constitution, which mandates that the federation account’s funds be distributed among the federal, state, and local governments as prescribed by the National Assembly, without Federal Government discretion.
Other states, including Lagos and Taraba, support this view, emphasizing that they already have democratically elected local government officials and asserting that the Federal Government’s suit constitutes an abuse of judicial process.
Imo State, through its Attorney General, Mr. C. O. C. Akolisa, has also informed the court of its plans to organize local government elections, which have been delayed only due to ongoing litigation.
