The Supreme Court has struck out a suit filed on behalf of the Osun State Government by the state’s Attorney General to compel the Federal Government to release the allocations due to Local Governments in the state.
In a majority judgment of six-to-one, the apex court held that the AG of Osun State lacked the locus standi (the legal right) to have filed the suit on behalf of Local Governments in Osun State who are legal entity with capacity to sue to assert their right.
The lead majority judgment was prepared and read on Friday Justice Mohammed Idris.
Justice Idris held that the plaintiff failed to establish that there was any cause of action capable of invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided under Section 232(1) of Construction.
Justice Idris further held that from the facts of the case, the issue in dispute was about the alleged failure of the Federal Government to release funds standing to the credit of Osun State Local Governments in the Federation account, and as such, there is no dispute between Osun State and the FG to have allowed the state’s AG to approach the Supreme Court.
While distinguishing this Osun case from that of the AG, Abia and others v. AG of the Federation, in which the Supreme Court ordered the direct payment of allocations to Local Governments across the federation, Justice Idris held that such suit over withheld Local Government funds ought to have been filed by the affected Local Governments.
Justice Idris however frowned at the failure of the Federal Government to put in place all necessary measures to give effect to the Supreme Court ‘s judgment in AG, Abia and others v. AG of the Federation, mandating direct payment of allocations to Local Governments across the federation.
He held that by the judgment, the Federal Government was under obligation to ensure that all funds standing to the credit of Local Governments in the federation account are sent directly to them without being withheld under any excuse.
Justice Emmanuel Agim wrote the dissenting judgment in which he disagreed with the position of the six other Justices on the seven-member panel.
(The Nation)
