In a significant ruling delivered on Thursday, the apex court struck out the suit filed by the Osun State Attorney General, declaring that the state lacked the legal standing to initiate the case on behalf of its 30 local government councils.
The judgment, delivered by a seven-member panel, ended months of legal tension and offered clarity on the roles of state governments and local councils in matters involving federal allocations.
Court Rules Osun Lacks Locus Standi
Reading the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that the Supreme Court could not entertain the case as filed.
The judgment, delivered by a seven-member panel, ended months of legal tension and offered clarity on the roles of state governments and local councils in matters involving federal allocations.
Court Rules Osun Lacks Locus Standi
Reading the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Idris held that the Supreme Court could not entertain the case as filed.
According to him, the Osun State Government did not possess the locus standi — the legal right — to institute a suit on behalf of the local government councils, which are recognised as autonomous entities under Nigerian law.
Justice Idris explained that the constitution gives local governments the capacity to sue and be sued independently, and therefore, any challenge against the withholding of their funds must be initiated by the councils themselves, not the state government.
He further noted that the Supreme Court can only serve as a court of first instance in matters strictly between a state and the Federal Government. In this situation, the real aggrieved parties were the local governments, not the state government acting on their behalf.
The judgment was backed by six of the seven justices on the panel, with only one dissenting.
Public Interest Argument Rejected
The Osun State Attorney General had argued that the case was filed in the public interest, claiming the state had a duty to protect its local councils and ensure smooth government operations. However, the Supreme Court dismissed that argument.
Justice Idris maintained that public interest could not override the clear constitutional provisions defining the independence of local governments. He therefore ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Justice Idris explained that the constitution gives local governments the capacity to sue and be sued independently, and therefore, any challenge against the withholding of their funds must be initiated by the councils themselves, not the state government.
He further noted that the Supreme Court can only serve as a court of first instance in matters strictly between a state and the Federal Government. In this situation, the real aggrieved parties were the local governments, not the state government acting on their behalf.
The judgment was backed by six of the seven justices on the panel, with only one dissenting.
Public Interest Argument Rejected
The Osun State Attorney General had argued that the case was filed in the public interest, claiming the state had a duty to protect its local councils and ensure smooth government operations. However, the Supreme Court dismissed that argument.
Justice Idris maintained that public interest could not override the clear constitutional provisions defining the independence of local governments. He therefore ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Although the court dismissed Osun’s suit, it advised the Federal Government to fully comply with its earlier ruling on the financial autonomy of local government councils.
The apex court reminded the parties that it had previously delivered a landmark judgment mandating full fiscal independence for all 774 local government areas across Nigeria.
It urged the Federal Government to ensure that local councils receive their allocations directly, without interference from any state authority.
This latest development follows an earlier case filed by the Osun State Government in 2025, where it sought to restrain the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Accountant General of the Federation, and the Attorney General of the Federation from opening or managing bank accounts for local government chairpersons elected in 2022.
The state government challenged the legitimacy of the accounts, arguing that the elected chairmen — who assumed office through an APC-only election — should not operate accounts independently of the state treasury.
This latest development follows an earlier case filed by the Osun State Government in 2025, where it sought to restrain the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Accountant General of the Federation, and the Attorney General of the Federation from opening or managing bank accounts for local government chairpersons elected in 2022.
The state government challenged the legitimacy of the accounts, arguing that the elected chairmen — who assumed office through an APC-only election — should not operate accounts independently of the state treasury.
That matter, too, deepened tensions between the state and federal institutions over local government autonomy.
The controversy around local government administration in Osun State has not been limited to courtrooms.
The controversy around local government administration in Osun State has not been limited to courtrooms.
Earlier this year, Legit.ng reported the killing of Remi Abbas, a reinstated council chairman from Irewole Local Government, who was attacked while attempting to resume office following a Court of Appeal judgment.
Several APC-backed chairmen faced violent resistance from PDP supporters as they tried to reclaim their seats on February 17, 2025.
Several APC-backed chairmen faced violent resistance from PDP supporters as they tried to reclaim their seats on February 17, 2025.
The clashes highlighted the politically charged atmosphere surrounding local government control in the state.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to shape future conflicts between state governments and the Federal Government regarding local government funding.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to shape future conflicts between state governments and the Federal Government regarding local government funding.
By reaffirming the autonomy of local councils, the ruling strengthens their legal independence and sets a clear constitutional boundary.
0 Comments