The Osun State Government has taken the Federal Government to the Supreme Court over what it describes as the illegal withholding of funds meant for its 30 local government councils since March 2025. This move marks a renewed legal effort after the state previously withdrew a similar suit.
Filed on Monday, the case is spearheaded by a legal team including senior advocates Mike Ozekhome and Musibau Adetunbi.
Osun seeks a Supreme Court order to compel the immediate release of the withheld allocations, denouncing the Federal Government’s actions as unconstitutional and arbitrary.
Central to Osun’s argument is the claim that the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, ignored two binding court rulings that affirmed the legitimacy of local government officials elected in February 2025.
Despite a letter from the AGF on March 26 advising that funds be withheld over a so-called “local government crisis,” Osun insists that the appellate court had already resolved the matter by nullifying previous elections held under the former administration.
The state maintains that the AGF’s directive amounts to a violation of the Constitution and a disregard for judicial authority.
The suit asks the Supreme Court to declare that the AGF lacks the constitutional power to withhold local government allocations, that his actions contravene existing judgments, and that the funds must be released directly to the elected councils. Osun also seeks a perpetual injunction to prevent future occurrences of such seizures.
In its filings, Osun emphasizes the AGF’s obligation under Section 287 of the Constitution to enforce court rulings.
The state is also contesting the Chief Judge’s decision to transfer a related case from the Federal High Court in Osogbo to Abuja, arguing that parallel proceedings could lead to conflicting outcomes.
Supporting affidavits describe the Federal Government’s conduct as a direct challenge to the rule of law, referencing previous constitutional cases to bolster the argument.
Osun further accuses the AGF of manufacturing urgency by remaining silent for more than 80 days before filing an expedited application, a move the state views as undermining judicial neutrality.
As of now, the Supreme Court has yet to schedule a date for the hearing.
Advertisement
