The Ondo State Government filed a formal lawsuit in the Supreme Court against the Attorney General of the Federation, requesting autonomy for all 774 local governments across the nation. The Apex Court is requesting that the lawsuit be dismissed in its entirety.

In response to the federal government’s lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of the Federation and the Minister of Justice, the Ondo State Government, like other State Governments, argued that the federal government lacked the legal standing to bring the lawsuit on behalf of the local governments.

The federal government was characterised as a busybody and a meddling intruder by the Ondo State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr. Olukayode Ajulo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, in the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed in response to its participation in the local government’s operations.

Based on 27 grounds of objection, the Ondo State Government—one of the 28 defendants in the FG suit—filed an objection.

In his request for the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction over his lawsuit, which he filed in flagrant violation of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution, Section 1 of the Supreme Court Act 3, 2002, and Order 3, Rule 6 of the Apex Court, Ajulo, on behalf of Ondo State, among other grounds, contended that the Attorney General of the Federation cannot unilaterally rewrite the Nigerian Constitution.

Read Also: Ondo Government Requests Supreme Court to Reject AGF’s Suit on Local Government Autonomy

According to the notice of objection, Section 232 of the Constitution only allows the Supreme Court to invoke its original jurisdiction in cases involving disputes between the states and the federal government that involve any legal or factual issue that affects the existence or scope of the respective parties’ legal rights.

The Ondo State Government claimed that the money complained of in the complaint belong to local governments established by the Constitution as a separate and independent tier of government independent of the federal government, and that the federal government lacks locus standi to maintain the suit.

The Ondo State Government asserted, citing Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution, that any funds remaining to the credit of the federation account will be divided among the federal, state, and local government councils in each state on the terms and in the manner that the National Assembly may specify. It further stated that the federal government’s terms and conditions will not affect the distribution of funds among the three separate tiers.

He went on to say that the 1999 Constitution’s Section 162(8) provides that “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 also said that the federal government’s terms and conditions regarding the distribution or use of the aforementioned funds by local governments, particularly in Ondo State, are not applicable.

The Ondo State Government asserted that in accordance with Sections 7 (1) and 162 (8) of the Constitution, its State House of Assembly passed a law to establish the local government system, manage it, and address related issues. This law is known as the Local Government Administration, Conduct of Local Government Election and Allied Matters, Cap 87, Volume 2, Laws of the Ondo State of Nigeria, 2006; as a result, the government insisted that under the combined provisions of the Constitution, the federal government is not obligated to allocate or distribute funds standing to the credit of Ondo State local governments, nor has it been obligated to do so under any laws.

It added that the proper and necessary parties for the purpose of invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction are not before the court, characterising the federal government as an encroaching meddling party in the local government’s affairs because it has no right or interest affected or likely to be affected by the action it filed the complaint against.

Because the Supreme Court is not the appropriate forum for matters raised by the federal government against the state, it described the FG’s request for autonomy for local governments as an affront to the principles of the rule of law, democracy, separation of powers, and true federalism, as clearly outlined in the Constitution. It further stated that the suit constituted a flagrant abuse of the court’s process.