The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved judgment in a case filed by the Osun Government against the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) for withholding statutory allocations due to its 30 local government councils.
The apex court reserved the judgment after taking arguments from Mr Musbau Adetunbi, SAN, counsel to the Osun government and Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, counsel to the AGF.
Justice Uwani Aba-Aji who led the seven-man panel of justices that heard the matter said the date for the judgment delivery would be communicated to all parties when ready.
The state government had sued the Attorney-General of the Federation for withholding its statutory allocations due to its 30 local government councils since March 2025.
Adetunbi noted that the state government had 10 reliefs, 11 grounds and an affidavit of 35 paragraphs.
The state government had filed an application to withdraw an earlier one filed against the AGF on the subject matter.
In the originating summons, the state is asking the apex court to compel the Federal Government to release all seized funds and to stop what it described as “an unconstitutional and arbitrary seizure” of local government revenues.
He argued that the AGF had ignored subsisting judgments of the Federal High Court, Osogbo delivered November 30, 2022 and the Court of Appeal (June 13, 2025), which affirmed the legitimacy of council chairmen and councillors elected on Feb. 22.
The state said the AGF, in a March 26, 2025 letter had advised that the funds be withheld pending resolution of a local government crisis.
But the state government maintained that the appeal court ruling had already settled the matter, nullifying the October 2022 polls conducted under the previous administration.
Among reliefs being sought by the Osun government is a declarations that the AGF lacks constitutional power to seize local government funds, that his actions contravene valid court judgments.
It also prayed that all withheld allocations be released directly into the accounts of the duly elected councils. It also wants a perpetual injunction restraining future seizures.
It claimed that the seizure, suspension, withholding and/or refusal to pay the allocations and revenues due to the constituent local government councils of the plaintiff state is unconstitutional, unlawful, wrongful and ultra vires the powers of the defendant.
The state also raised five issues for the Supreme Court’s determination, including whether the AGF is constitutionally bound under Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to enforce the rulings of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, and whether his March 26, 2025 directive to withhold funds can stand in the face of the appellate judgment.
The state had also simultaneously filed another suit at the Federal High Court, Osogbo, challenging the Chief Judge’s decision to transfer an earlier case on the same funds from Osogbo to Abuja for hearing by a vacation judge.
It warned that proceeding with the Abuja case while the apex court is seized of the matter could result in conflicting judgments.
The state government described the Federal Government’s actions as “an affront to the rule of law,” insisting that only the Supreme Court can conclusively resolve the constitutional issues. He cited precedents such as A.G. Kano State v. A.G. Federation (2007) and RMAFC v. A.G. Rivers State (2023).
The state had equally accused the AGF of “self-induced urgency,” noting that he delayed responding to originating processes for over 80 days before filing an affidavit of urgency on Aug. 13.
It argued that the Chief Judge’s transfer order “casts the lot of the court with the AGF” and risks creating a perception of bias.
The state government argued that the AGF was wrong in his letter recognizing APC Local Government chairmen when the matter was pending before court of records.
It also predicated its case on the ground that the election that brought in the APC officials as Local Government chairmen and Councillors had been nullified by a Federal High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
However, in opposition, the AGF represented by Akin Olujimi SAN argued a preliminary objection where he urged the apex court to dismiss the case of the plaintiff on various grounds.
Among others, the Olujimi argued that the plaintiff lacked locus standing (Legal power) to bring the case before the Supreme Court to invoke the original jurisdiction because the matter is between two political parties
