THE Supreme Court of Nigeria has mandated the 36 State Governors to submit their individual defence in response to the lawsuit brought against them by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government is advocating for full autonomy for the 774 local governments in the country.
Additionally, the court directed the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, to provide his response within two days of receiving their defences.
Justice Garba Lawal, leading a seven-member panel, issued this directive while ruling on a request for a shortened timeframe made by the AGF.
The decision was based on the pressing national importance of the case and the lack of objection from the Attorneys General of the states.
The Supreme Court emphasized that all necessary filings and exchanges must be completed promptly, setting June 13 for the hearing of the case.
Those eight states whose Attorneys General were not present during the recent proceedings will be served with a new hearing notice.
FG Vs States
In the matter between the Federal Government and the states, the former, represented by Fagbemi, is seeking complete autonomy for all local government areas.
The Federal Government’s lawsuit specifically seeks an order that prohibits state governors from unilaterally dissolving democratically elected local government leaders.
Furthermore, it seeks a directive for funds allocated to local governments to be channeled directly to them from the federation account instead of through joint accounts controlled by governors.
The suit also requests a stoppage on the appointment of caretaker committees to run local government affairs in place of elected officials.
Finally, the Federal Government seeks an injunction barring the governors from utilizing funds meant for the local governments in the absence of a democratically elected system in place.
In the 27 grounds it listed in support of the suit, the Federal Government argues that the constitution recognizes federal, state, and local governments as the three tiers of government and mandates a democratically elected local government system.
Failure to establish this system, as per the Federal Government, violates the constitution and undermines its sanctity.
“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 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.”
