The case was presided over by a seven-member panel of justices, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, who announced that the court would communicate the judgment date to the parties at a later time. The decision to reserve judgment came after both parties—the Osun State Government, represented by its Attorney-General, Mr. Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), and the Federal Government, represented by former AGF Chief Akin Olujimi (SAN)—presented and adopted their respective briefs of argument before the court. The arguments centered on constitutional obligations, the legitimacy of democratically elected local government officials, and the propriety of the Federal Government’s actions in withholding and redirecting funds meant for Osun State’s local councils.
Background and Context of the Dispute
The dispute stems from a contentious issue involving the allocation of funds to Osun State’s 30 Local Government Councils. The Osun State Government, under the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), alleges that the Federal Government, through the AGF, has unlawfully withheld funds meant for the state’s local councils and attempted to divert these allocations to officials of the All Progressives Congress (APC) who were ousted from office. The state argues that these actions contravene existing court judgments that affirmed the legitimacy of the local government councils elected on February 22, 2025.
The Osun State Government’s position is rooted in its claim that the Federal Government’s actions undermine the rule of law and the autonomy of local governments as enshrined in Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended). Specifically, the state contends that the AGF’s decision to redirect funds to sacked APC officials violates rulings by the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, which had nullified the elections that brought those officials into office. These court rulings, according to Osun State, established the legitimacy of the current PDP-led local councils and invalidated the claims of the APC officials.
The suit filed by Osun State seeks ten reliefs, including a declaration that the AGF is constitutionally obligated to comply with these judicial pronouncements and ensure that statutory allocations are disbursed to the legitimate, democratically elected local government councils. Additionally, the state is requesting a court order to restrain the AGF from releasing funds to the ousted APC chairmen and councillors. The state further seeks a perpetual injunction to prevent the Federal Government from withholding or diverting statutory allocations in the future, as long as democratically elected councils remain in place.
Arguments Presented by Osun State
During the hearing, Mr. Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), representing Osun State, passionately argued that the AGF had acted arbitrarily and in defiance of judicial authority. He informed the court that, despite the pendency of the suit before the Supreme Court, the AGF had issued a directive on March 26, 2025, instructing the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to release the withheld allocations to the sacked APC officials. Adetunbi described this move as an attempt to “destroy the res” (the subject matter of the litigation), arguing that it was a deliberate effort to undermine the judicial process and favor one of the contending parties.
Adetunbi emphasized that the Osun State Government was fortunate to secure a court order that halted the release of the funds, thereby preserving the status quo pending the determination of the suit. He urged the Supreme Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the state, asserting that the AGF’s actions constituted an overreach of constitutional powers and a violation of the principles of federalism and separation of powers. According to Adetunbi, the AGF’s directive to the CBN was not only unlawful but also a direct affront to the judiciary, as it disregarded subsisting court judgments that had settled the issue of the legitimate local government officials in Osun State.
The Osun State Government’s legal team further argued that the withheld allocations are critical for the functioning of the local councils, which are responsible for delivering essential services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure development at the grassroots level. By diverting these funds, the Federal Government, through the AGF, was effectively crippling the ability of the local councils to fulfill their constitutional mandates, thereby depriving the people of Osun State of their rights to effective governance.
The Federal Government’s Defense
In response, Chief Akin Olujimi (SAN), representing the Federal Government, raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit and urging the Supreme Court to dismiss it. Olujimi argued that the court’s original jurisdiction had not been properly invoked, as the dispute did not meet the threshold for matters that could be directly brought before the Supreme Court. He characterized the case as a political conflict between the APC and the PDP over control of local government positions, rather than a constitutional matter warranting the apex court’s intervention.
Olujimi further contended that the APC local government officials, whose elections were nullified by the lower courts, were still entitled to serve out their three-year terms, which he stated would expire on October 22, 2025. He accused the Osun State Government of frustrating these officials by filing multiple lawsuits to prevent them from performing their duties. According to Olujimi, the state’s actions were an abuse of the judicial process and lacked a valid cause of action. He also argued that the Osun State Government lacked the locus standi (legal standing) to institute the suit, as the matter was essentially a dispute between political actors rather than a constitutional issue between the state and the Federal Government.
The former AGF’s legal team maintained that the Federal Government’s actions were within its constitutional powers and that the AGF’s directive to release funds to the APC officials was based on the recognition of their legitimate tenure. Olujimi urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that it was an attempt by the Osun State Government to politicize a matter that should be resolved through administrative or political channels rather than judicial intervention.
The Court’s Proceedings and Decision to Reserve Judgment
After listening to the arguments from both sides, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, leading the seven-member panel, announced that the court would reserve its judgment and communicate the date for the ruling to the parties at a later time. The decision to reserve judgment reflects the complexity of the issues raised in the suit, including questions of constitutional interpretation, federal-state relations, and the enforcement of judicial pronouncements.
In a related development, the Supreme Court struck out another suit, marked SC/379/2025, which Osun State had filed prior to the AGF’s directive to release the withheld allocations to the APC officials. The striking out of this earlier suit suggests that the court may have consolidated the issues into the current suit (SC/CV/775/2025) to avoid duplicative litigation and ensure a comprehensive resolution of the dispute.
Implications of the Case
The outcome of this case is likely to have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s federal structure and the autonomy of local governments. At its core, the dispute raises critical questions about the balance of power between the Federal Government and the states, as well as the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. The Osun State Government’s argument that the AGF’s actions violate subsisting court judgments underscores the importance of judicial authority and the need for all tiers of government to respect court rulings.
Furthermore, the case highlights ongoing tensions between Nigeria’s two dominant political parties, the APC and the PDP, particularly in the context of local government elections and control of grassroots governance. The outcome of the suit could set a precedent for how similar disputes are resolved in other states, particularly those involving conflicts over local government funds and the legitimacy of elected officials.
For the people of Osun State, the resolution of this case will directly impact the ability of their local councils to deliver essential services. The withheld allocations, if released to the legitimate councils, could enable improvements in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other critical areas. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the Federal Government could embolden further interference in local government affairs, potentially undermining the autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court prepares to deliver its judgment, stakeholders across Nigeria are closely watching the case, recognizing its potential to shape the dynamics of federalism, local government autonomy, and judicial authority. The Osun State Government’s suit against the Federal Government represents a critical test of Nigeria’s commitment to the rule of law and the principles of democratic governance. Whether the court will uphold the state’s position or side with the Federal Government remains to be seen, but the decision will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on the nation’s political and legal landscape. For now, the people of Osun State and the broader Nigerian public await the court’s ruling, which will determine the fate of the withheld local government allocations and the broader question of constitutional compliance.
