The Ondo state government has faulted the competence of the suit filed before the Supreme Court by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) on the local government autonomy.
In a notice of preliminary objection filed for the state by its Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Olukayode Ajulo (SAN), Ondo state, argues that it is not within the constitutional powers of the AGF, who filed the suit in the name of the Federal Government, to query how a state runs its LGs or administer their funds.
It is also Ondo state’s contention that it is only either the National Assembly or the state House of Assembly that can query the manner Local Governments are being administered and how their funds are deployed.
While describing the FG as a meddlesome interloper in the matter of LG administration, Ondo State also argued that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.
It added that the plaintiff has been unable to establish that a dispute exists between it and the 36 states to warrant the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as required under Section 232(1) of the Constitution.
Ondo State, listed as the 28th defendant in the suit, urged the apex court to decline jurisdiction over the case.
In a separate motion, Ondo State equally faulted the averments contained in some paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of the originating summons and urged the court to strike them out.
It stated that the affected averments contravened the provision of Section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended).
In the preliminary objection, Ondo State is contending that the Supreme Court “lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit, same having been filed in flagrant violation of Section 232(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (‘the Constitution’), Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act. No. 3, 2002 and Order 3 Rule 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended 2014).
“Section 232(1) of the Constitution only permits the invocation of the original jurisdiction of this honourable court where there is a dispute between the federation/plaintiff and the defendants/states which involves any question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of the legal right of either the federation or the defendants/states depends.
“The proper parties in any action where the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is invoked are persons listed in Section 232(1) of the Constitution and Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act. No. 3, 2002 vis-à-vis the respective legal rights of the parties, and no other person whatsoever – whether natural or artificial – is allowed to be a party to the suit under any guise whatsoever.
“The federation/plaintiff has no locus standi to institute and/or maintain this suit as the funds complained of in the instant suit belong to the local government councils created by the Constitution as a distinct and different tier of government independent of the Plaintiff.
“The legal import of Section 162(3) of the Constitution is to the effect that any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the local government councils in each state on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.
“The distribution of the said funds between three distinct tiers of government is not subject to the discretion or any terms and conditions of the plaintiff
“By the provision of Section 162(5) of the Constitution, the amount standing to the credit of the local government councils in the Federation Account shall be allocated to the states/defendants for the benefit of their local government councils on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.
“The allocation of the said funds to the states/Defendants for the benefit of their respective local government councils is not subject to the discretion or any terms and conditions to be prescribed by the plaintiff.
“By the provision of Section 162(8) of the Constitution, the amount standing to the credit of the local government councils of a State shall be distributed among the local government councils of that state on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of the state.
“The distribution or usage of the said funds of the local government councils of the states, particularly the 28th defendant (Ondo State), is not subject to the discretion or any terms and conditions to be prescribed by the plaintiff.
“By the provision of Section 7(1) of the Constitution, the government of every state – not the plaintiff – shall ensure the existence of democratically elected local government councils under a Law made by the State House of Assembly, and the said law shall provide for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.
“Pursuant to Sections 7(1) & 162(8) of the Constitution, the State House of Assembly of the 28th defendant enacted a law to provide for local government system, establishment and administration of local government and for ancillary matters, which law is cited as the Local Government Administration, Conduct of Local Government Election and Allied Matters Law, Cap. 87, Vol. 2, Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria, 2006.
“By the combined provisions of the Constitution, the plaintiff has no right or obligation on the allocation and distribution of the funds standing to the credit of the local government councils of a state, particularly the 28th defendant.
“The Constitution has not placed any obligation or right on the federation/plaintiff in respect of the terms and manner such funds of the local government councils in either the Federation Account or State Joint Local Government Account should be allocated or distributed.
“The Constitution has also not placed any vested interest in the federation/plaintiff for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of the local government councils of the various states, particularly the 28th defendant.
“There is no dispute between the federation/plaintiff and the defendants/states which involves any question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of the legal right of the federation depends.
“The federation/plaintiff has no right or interest which is affected or is likely to be affected by the action complained of by the Plaintiff.
“Where there is any issue or dispute on the terms and manner the states handle the funds standing to the credit of the local government councils in the Federation Account being allocated to the states for the benefit of such councils, it is the National Assembly – and not the plaintiff – that the Constitution has vested with the right and interest to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the issue against the states and/or S
States Houses of Assembly by virtue of Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act No. 3, 2002, having regard to the clear and unequivocal wordings of Section 162(5) of the Constitution.
“The plaintiff is a meddlesome interloper in this matter.
“The proper and necessary parties for the purpose of invoking the original jurisdiction of this honourable court in respect of this matter are not before the court.
“As can be gleaned from the affidavit in support of the plaintiff’s originating summons, this suit is brought in the official capacity of the federation/plaintiff to preserve our democracy and the rule of law, and not to seek personal redress in respect of any of its personal rights and obligations.
“The judicial powers of the Supreme Court sitting in its original jurisdiction cannot be invoked to determine a suit that is filed only for the protection of the Constitution from an alleged abuse by the defendants and for the protection of democracy and the rule of law, that raises for determination general questions about the constitutionality of laws of States Houses of Assembly and/or actions of governors of states in respect of their local government councils, that have no nexus with the civil rights and obligations of the plaintiff.
“The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not cover a situation where a party named in Section 232(1) of the Constitution seeks to protect any of the provisions of the Constitution from being contradicted by perceived conflicting laws on Local Government Administration of the various States Houses of Assembly, particularly the 28th defendant’s State House of Assembly.
“Where there is a perceived offensive law, as purportedly alleged by the plaintiff in respect of the respective laws of the various Houses of Assembly of the defendants, there are procedures and mechanisms available within the legislature for an amendment of such provision or an entire repeal of the law, but not for another organ of the government (plaintiff) to interfere.
“The plaintiff has no power to interfere with the constitutional responsibilities of the State House of Assembly of the 28th defendant to make law for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of its local government councils, or in any manner seek to influence the performance thereof.
“This suit is an affront to the principles of the rule of law, democracy, separation of powers and true federalism as clearly outlined in the Constitution.
“This suit constitutes a gross abuse of the process of this honourable court.
“The issues and concerns raised in the subject matter of this suit vis-à-vis the allocation of the funds standing to the credit of the local government councils can only be strictly entertained and determined under the original jurisdiction of this honourable court between the National Assembly and the states or the National Assembly and the states Houses of Assembly as provided for under the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002, having regard to the clear and unequivocal wordings of Section 162(5) of the Constitution.
“The hearing and entertainment of this suit as presently constituted in the original jurisdiction of this honourable court will not only set a bad precedent but also lead to a floodgate of actions instituted via the original jurisdiction of this honourable court contrary to the intendment of Section 232 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act 2002 by a person not listed, designated or contemplated by the said laws.
“This honourable court is not the appropriate forum for the determination of this suit, considering the manner the suit has been constituted.”
Credit: The Nation
Leave a Reply