The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed September 29 to hear a motion by the Osun State Government challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain a suit on withheld local government funds.

At Monday’s proceedings, Osun State argued that the matter should be transferred back to the Osogbo Division, as the vacation of the court ended on September 16.

The motion, filed by the state’s lead counsel, Musibau Adetumbi (SAN), was predicated on two grounds: that the fiat granted by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) for the case to be heard in Abuja during vacation has lapsed, and that a letter from the Chief Judge’s office assigning Justice Emeka Nwite to hear the substantive suit is of doubtful validity, having been signed by a person described only as “Personal Assistant to the Personal Assistant of the Chief Judge.”

Adetumbi urged the court to first determine the validity of the letter before proceeding to the substantive matter.

However, counsel for the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Dr. Muritala Abdulrasheed (SAN), and for the Accountant-General of the Federation, Tajudeen Oladoja (SAN), opposed the application, arguing that it was a ploy to delay proceedings.
They stressed that the tenure of the affected APC local government chairmen and councillors will expire on October 22, rendering the case academic if not heard expeditiously.

After hearing arguments, Justice Nwite fixed September 29 to hear the state government’s objection and other jurisdictional issues before moving to the substantive suit.
Earlier, the court struck out the AGF’s name from the suit following its discontinuance by the plaintiff, who noted that another case against the AGF is pending before the Supreme Court.

The suit, filed by Osun State Attorney-General Oluwole Jimi-Bada, seeks to restrain the CBN and Accountant General from opening or operating accounts for APC local government chairmen elected in October 2022, whose election was declared illegal by the Federal High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The state government argues that the chairmen and councillors have been lawfully removed from office and should not receive allocations.