May 30, (THEWILL) – The Supreme Court has ordered the 36 states of the federation to, within seven days, file their respective defences to a suit filed by the Federal Government, seeking full autonomy for the 774 local government areas (LGAs) in the country.
A seven-member panel of Justices of the Court, led by Justice Garba Lawal, issued the order on Thursday while ruling on an application for an abridgement of time argued by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN, on behalf of the Federal Government.
The apex court also ordered the AGF to, upon receipt of the defences, file a reply within two days.
Noting that the decision of the court was predicated on the national urgency of the suit and the non-objection from the Attorneys-General of the 36 states of the federation, Justice Lawal held that filing and exchange of all processes must be completed within the time.
The court ordered that the eight states (Borno, Kano, Kogi, Niger, Ogun, Osun, Oyo and Sokoto) that were not in attendance at Thursday’s proceedings must be served with fresh hearing notice.
Meanwhile, the case has been adjourned until June 13 for hearing of the suit.
THEWILL reports that the apex court orders followed a suit marked SC/CV/343/2024, filed on May 20 by the AGF on behalf of the Federal Government, seeking full autonomy for the 774 local governments in Nigeria
In the suit, the AGF prayed the apex court for an order of injunction restraining the Governors, their agents and privies from receiving, spending or tampering with funds released from the Federation Account for the benefit of local governments when no democratically elected local government system is put in place in the states.
While seeking an order permitting the funds standing in the credits of local governments to be directly channelled to them from the federation account in line with the provisions of the Constitution, the Federal Government further prayed for an order restraining Governors from constituting caretaker committees to run the affairs of local governments as against the Constitutionally recognised and guaranteed democratic system.
Consequently, it prayed the court for an order restraining the state governors from unilateral, arbitrary, and unlawful dissolution of democratically elected officials of local governments.
The suit further prayed the court to “invoke sections 1, 4, 5, 7 and 14 of the Constitution to declare that the State Governors and State Houses of Assembly are under obligation to ensure a democratic system at the third tier of government in Nigeria and to also invoke the same sections to hold that the Governors cannot lawfully dissolve democratically elected local government councils.
“Invoke sections 1, 4, 5, 7 and 14 of the Constitution to declare that dissolution of democratically elected local government councils by the Governors or anyone using the state powers derivable from laws enacted by the State Houses of Assembly or any Executive Order is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.”
Raising a 27-point argument, the Federal Government contended that “Nigeria, as a federation, was a creation of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, with the President, as Head of the Federal Executive Arm, swearing on oath to uphold and give effects to provisions of the Constitution.
“That the Governors represent the component states of the Federation with Executive Governors who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution and to at all times, give effect to the Constitution and that the Constitution, being the supreme law, has binding force all over the Federation of Nigeria.
“That the Constitution of Nigeria recognises federal, state and local governments as three tiers of government and that the three recognised tiers of government draw funds for their operation and functioning from the Federation Account created by the Constitution.
“That by the provisions of the Constitution, there must be a democratically elected local government system and that the Constitution has not made provisions for any other systems of governance at the local government level other than the democratically elected local government system.
“That in the face of the clear provisions of the Constitution, the Governors have failed and refused to put in place a democratically elected local government system even where no state of emergency has been declared to warrant the suspension of democratic institutions in the state.
“That the failure of the Governors to put democratically elected local government system in place is a deliberate subversion of the 1999 Constitution, which they and the President have sworn to uphold.
“That all efforts to make the Governors comply with the dictates of the 1999 Constitution in terms of putting in place, a democratically elected local government system, has not yielded any result and that to continue to disburse funds from the Federation Account to Governors for non-existing democratically elected local government is to undermine the sanctity of the 1999 Constitution.
“That in the face of the violations of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal Government is not obligated under section 162 of the Constitution to pay any State, funds standing to the credit of local governments where no democratically elected local government is in place.”
About the Author
