The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, has fixed September 29 to hear a motion by the Osun State Government challenging the court’s jurisdiction over a suit on withheld local government funds.
At Monday’s proceedings, the state, through its lead counsel Musibau Adetumbi, SAN, argued that with the court vacation ending on September 16, the case should be transferred back to the Osogbo Division for proper hearing and determination.
Adetumbi’s motion was based on two grounds: first, that the fiat granted by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) for the matter to be heard in Abuja during vacation had lapsed; and second, that a purported letter from the Chief Judge’s office authorizing Justice Emeka Nwite to determine the matter in Abuja was invalid.
The lawyer questioned the integrity of the letter, noting it was signed by someone described as the “Personal Assistant to the Personal Assistant of the Chief Judge,” a designation he called “unknown to law.”
He urged the court to rule on the validity of the letter before proceeding to the substantive case.
Counsel for the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Dr. Muritala Abdulrasheed, SAN, and for the Accountant General of the Federation (AGF), Alhaji Tajudeen Oladoja, SAN, opposed the motion.
They argued the state’s application was a tactic to delay the matter, warning that the tenure of the elected APC chairmen and councillors ends on October 22, which could render the case academic if not promptly heard.
Justice Nwite, after hearing arguments, fixed September 29 to first decide on jurisdiction before addressing any other issues.
Earlier, the judge struck out the AGF’s name as the third defendant after the plaintiff discontinued the matter against him, citing a related case already pending before the Supreme Court.
The substantive suit, filed by Osun Attorney General Oluwole Jimi-Bada, seeks to restrain the CBN and Accountant General of the Federation from opening or operating accounts for APC chairmen elected in October 2022—elections in which only APC candidates participated. The state insists those chairmen were sacked by a Federal High Court judgment affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The plaintiff is also asking for an interim injunction to prevent the disbursement of allocations to the removed officials, arguing that releasing funds to them would undermine subsisting court rulings.
