The Ondo State Government has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss a suit filed by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), on behalf of the Federal Government, which seeks full autonomy for the 774 local governments in Nigeria.
In its preliminary objection filed on June 6, the Ondo State Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice, Olukayode Ajulo (SAN), described the Federal Government as a “meddlesome interloper” interfering in state and local government affairs.
The state government argued that the central government has no right or interest affected by the action it complained about. They added that the proper parties necessary to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction are not before the court and claimed that the Federal Government lacks the legal standing to file the suit on behalf of the local governments.
The objection, based on 27 grounds, contended that the Attorney General of the Federation cannot rewrite the Nigerian Constitution by asking the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction over a suit that violates Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution, Section 1 of the Supreme Court Act 3, 2002, and Order 3, Rule 6 of the Apex Court.
The AGF had accused all 36 state governments of misconduct in managing local government funds and affairs, demanding that the apex court grant local governments full autonomy and direct federal funds to the councils.
Ajulo, representing Ondo as the 28th defendant, stated that Section 232 of the Constitution permits the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction only where there is a dispute between the federation as the plaintiff and states as defendants involving questions of law or fact affecting legal rights.
Maintaining that the Federal Government has no locus standi to institute the suit, the Ondo government claimed that the funds in question belong to local governments, which are independent of the federal government.
The state government cited Section 7(1) and 162(8) of the Constitution, explaining that its State House of Assembly enacted laws for the local government system’s establishment and administration. Therefore, it argued, the federal government has no right or obligation concerning the allocation and distribution of local government funds in Ondo State.
Citing Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution, the Ondo State Government asserted 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 as prescribed by the National Assembly. This sharing is not subject to the discretion of the federal government.
Ajulo further highlighted that Section 162(8) of the Constitution states, “the amount standing to the credit of local government councils of a state shall be distributed among the local governments on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of the State.” He contended that the distribution of local government funds in Ondo State is not subject to federal discretion.
Insisting that Section 7(1) of the Constitution mandates state governments, not the federal government, to ensure the existence of democratically elected local councils, Ajulo described the FG’s push for local government autonomy as an affront to the principles of rule of law, democracy, separation of powers, and true federalism outlined in the Constitution.
Ajulo claimed that the FG’s suit constituted a gross abuse of the Supreme Court process because the court is not the appropriate forum for determining issues raised by the federal government against state governments.
The Ondo State Government has prayed for an order from the Supreme Court to strike out the FG’s suit for being grossly incompetent. The apex court will hear the matter on June 13.
