Abuja — The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has called on the Supreme Court to compel the Osun State Government to return seven months’ worth of local government (LG) allocations to the Federal Ministry of Finance.

Click Here to Join Our Whatsapp Channel 

Fagbemi made the demand in a formal response filed by his legal counsel, Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, in reaction to a suit instituted by the Osun State Government through its Attorney General. The state had accused the Federal Government of withholding statutory allocations due to its 30 local government councils for March 2025.

 

In the suit, marked SC/CV/379/2025, Osun claimed the Minister of Finance, Wale Odun, cited directives from the AGF as the reason for the non-disbursement of funds. However, Fagbemi categorically denied the allegation and challenged the legitimacy of the legal action.

 

According to a counter-affidavit filed by Taye Oloyede, Special Assistant to the President, the AGF maintained that neither he nor the Finance Minister ordered the withholding of the LG funds.

 

Fagbemi further criticized Osun State for allegedly disobeying an earlier Supreme Court judgment delivered on July 11, 2024. He described the state’s legal action as an abuse of court process and argued that Osun had no legal right to sue on behalf of local government councils.

 

He dismissed the state’s reliance on the 2004 Supreme Court judgment in AG Lagos State v. AG Federation, arguing that the circumstances were entirely different.

 

In a five-pronged preliminary objection, the AGF submitted that:

 

1. Osun State lacks the legal standing (locus standi) to institute the suit on behalf of local governments.

 

 

2. Only local government councils can seek redress for withheld allocations.

 

 

3. The case does not raise a valid constitutional dispute to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

 

 

4. The plaintiff has no right of appeal against the Supreme Court’s earlier decision.

 

 

5. The state should not be heard while allegedly in contempt of court.

 

 

 

“The plaintiff has unlawfully assumed the role of a ‘watchdog’ over local government funds without any constitutional mandate,” the AGF argued.

 

The legal battle promises to test the boundaries of constitutional responsibility between state and federal governments, particularly in the administration and protection of local government autonomy.