The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in the case instituted by the Osun State government challenging the Attorney General of the Federation for withholding local government funds due to it.

Justice Uwani Abba- Aji, who led a seven- man panel of Justices, reserved judgement, to a date that will be communicated to the parties, after taking arguments from parties in the suit.

In the suit, the Attorney General of Osun State, is seeking an order of the apex court directing the AGF to immediately release the statutory allocations to chairmen and councillors of the 30 LGA of the state.

Counsel for the the plaintiff, Musibau Adetunbi, who invoked Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, based on a letter according recognition to the disputed APC chairmen, also sought an order stopping the AGF from further withholding, seizing monthly allocations and revenues, to the credit of the constituents local governments, having democratically elected chairmen in place.

The grouse of the Osun Attorney General was that the AGF was wrong in his letter recognizing APC LGA chairmen when the matter was pending before the court.

He also predicated his case on the ground that the election that brought in the APC officials as local government chairmen, had been nullified by a Federal High Court and upheld by the court of appeal In Abuja.

While presenting the case of the plaintiff, Adetunbi asked the Justices of the apex court to uphold his argument and grant all the reliefs sought by his client.
Opposing the Suit, counsel for the AGF, Akin Olujimi, urged the apex court to dismiss the case on various grounds.

Among others, Olujimi argued that the plaintiff lacked the legal authority to bring the case before the Supreme Court to invoke the original jurisdiction.

He also contended that the apex court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit because it was not competent to be presented directly to it, as done by the plaintiff.

He further argued that the suit did not disclose any cause of action, adding that the tenure of the disputed council chairmen will run till October 22nd this year and the proper thing was for the funds to be released to them to run their councils.

He argued that the Osun AG had engaged in abuse of court processes by filing cases in different courts on the same subject with the same parties.

He therefore urged the court to refuse the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and dismiss the suit.

A chieftain of the All Progressives Congress, APC, in Taraba State, David Kente, has denied wooing Governor Agbu Kefas of Taraba into the party.

Kente made the denial on Tuesday in a Telephone interview with newsmen in Jalingo.

He, however, declared that Kefas has the right to join the APC or any other political party of his choice.

“Let me make it clear that, as a critical stakeholder in the APC in Southern Taraba and from Wukari Local Government area where the governor comes from, he has not informed me of his decision to join the party as we speak.

“I was surprised when people started accusing me of clearing the ground for his defection into the party.

“He did not and has not informed me of his intention to join the APC. For me, it is still in the realm of rumours,” he said.

Kente also hinted that he was under immense pressure from various groups in the State and may be compelled to contest the governorship election in 2027.

He said that he went out of his way to support the present governor of the state to win elections under the platform of the Peoples Democratic party, PDP, in 2023, despite being in the opposition party.

He, however, lamented that the government has not met the people’s expectations in its first two years in office and has grossly undermined his efforts and sacrifices.

“As a critical stakeholder, I contributed to the victory of the governor in the last election.

I want to put it on record that I am a loyal member of the APC and I have been sincere since I joined the party. I know that I played a key role towards the emergence of my younger brother, Kefas as the governor of the state in 2023.

“And I have paid a very high price for that because I am excluded from the APC government completely. I am also aware that just a few weeks ago, I said I won’t be contesting against Kefas in 2027, except if that became the overwhelming position of the people of Taraba,” he added.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, was Monday, asked to issue an order of perpetual injunction, restraining former President Goodluck Jonathan from presenting himself to any political party in the country for the purpose of contesting the 2027 presidential election.

The court was equally urged to bar the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, from accepting from any political party, Jonathan’s name or publishing same as a duly nominated candidate for the presidential contest.

While ex-President Jonathan was cited as the 1st defendant in the matter, both INEC and the Attorney General of the Federation, were listed as 2nd and 3rd defendants, respectively.

Specifically, the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/ 2025, hich was brought before the court by a lawyer, Mr. Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, posed a lone question for the court to determine:

“Whether in view of the combined provisions of the entirety of Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and their conflated interpretation, the 1st Defendant is eligible, under any circumstances [whatsoever] to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria?”

Upon the determination of the question, the plaintiff, sought four principal reliefs, to wit:

“A declaration of this Honourable Court that upon an intimate reading and complete understanding of the entirety of Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended the first Defendant [GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN] is ineligible to stand for or occupy the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“A declaration of this Honorable Court that in view of the entirety of Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended the 2nd Defendant [the INEC] lacks the constitutional power to receive from any political party the name of the first defendant or publish same as the candidate of any political party for the election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria holding in 2027 and other years to come.

“An order of perpetual injunction of this Honourable Court restraining the first Defendant [Goodluck Ebele Jonathan] from presenting himself to any political party in Nigeria for nomination as its candidate for the general election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria holding in 2027 and other years to come.

“An order of perpetual injunction of this Honourable Court restraining the 2nd Defendant [INEC] from either accepting from any political party in Nigeria the name of the 1st Defendant [Goodluck Ebele Jonathan] or publishing same as a candidate for election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria holding in 2027 and other years to come.”

As well as, “an order of this Honourable Court directing the 3rd Defendant [Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation] to ensure compliance with the decisions and Orders of this court.”

In an affidavit of facts that was deposed to in support of the suit by one Emmanuel Agida, the plaintiff told the court that he is an advocate of constitutionalism and the rule of law.

He told the court that the 1st defendant was first sworn in as President on May 6, 2010, following the death of then President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua on the May 5,2010, having previously been the Vice-President.

The plaintiff said he recently saw on various national dailies and television stations, reports on Jonathan’s intention to contest for the presidency in 2027.

“That the Plaintiff believes that the 1st defendant, having completed the unexpired term of late President Yar’Adua and subsequently served a full term after the 2011 election, has exhausted the constitutional limit of two tenures as President.

“That if the court does not intervene timeously, a political party may present the 1st defendant as its presidential candidate in the 2027 general election, thereby breaching the Constitution.”

On his locus standi (legal right) to institute the action, the plaintiff maintained that part of his duties, as a lawyer, is to forestall a violation of the constitution and to uphold the rule of law.

“There are chances that one of the political parties in Nigeria may favour the 1st defendant to stand as its presidential candidate in the forthcoming 2027 general elections to be conducted and overseen by the 2nd Defendant.

“If unchallenged, the 1st defendant may enter the 2027 presidential race on the platform of one of the political parties in Nigeria and may possibly emerge the winner of the said election.

“In the event the 1st defendant is returned as elected and sworn as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria come in 2027, it will mark the 3rd time the 1st defendant will be taking oath of office as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“In the event the 1st defendant is returned as elected and sworn as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria come in 2027, the plaintiff as a Nigerian citizen, would become one of the those under the governance control of the 1st defendant [who by virtue of his office would be saddled with the responsibility of executing the laws of the country].

“As a Nigerian lawyer trained in Nigerian constitutional law, the plaintiff has come across a provision in the Nigerian constitution stating that a person who was sworn-in as President to complete the term for which another person was elected as President shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.

“The plaintiff knows that the 1st defendant was indeed, on the 6th May, 2010, sworn in as President to complete the term for which (former) President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was elected as President as a consequence of the demise of the former President on the 5th day of May, 2010.

“The 1st defendant after being sworn in on 6th May, 2010 to complete the term of late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, was subsequently elected into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and sworn in on the 27th May, 2011.

“I know that if the 1st defendant eventually wins the forthcoming 2027 general election as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (which is for a term of 4 years spanning 2027 to 2031), he will have exceeded 8 years being the cumulative maximum years a Nigerian President is to stay in office.

“As a Nigerian Lawyer trained in Nigerian constitutional law, the plaintiff knows of a provision in the Nigerian constitution stating that the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of the same Constitution.

“The plaintiff being a lawyer committed to the reign of constitutionalism, an unrepentant apostle of the rule of law and a known crusader for democratic governance especially in Nigeria, does not wish to be governed by any person or group of persons who may have taken control of the Government of Nigeria in a manner not contemplated by the Nigerian constitution.

“The plaintiff has instituted this suit in the public interest, in the defence of the rule of law and accentuation of the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the integrity of the Nigerian Constitutional order.

“It will be in the interest of justice for this Honourable Court to grant the prayers contained on the face of this Originating Summons,” the affidavit further read.

No date has been fixed for hearing of the suit.