The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), has urged the Supreme Court to order the Osun State Government to refund seven months’ worth of local government allocations to the Minister of Finance.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

This demand was contained in a response filed by Fagbemi’s counsel, Chief Akin Olujimi (SAN), in reaction to a suit earlier instituted by the Osun State Government through its Attorney General.

In the suit, marked SC/CV/379/2025, Osun alleged that the Federal Government failed to release the statutory allocation due to its 30 local government councils for March 2025. The state claimed that when it queried the Ministry of Finance about the delay, the Minister of Finance, Wale Odun, allegedly stated he was acting on the directive of the AGF.

However, Fagbemi refuted the allegation, challenging the legitimacy of the suit and accusing the Osun State Government of contempt for allegedly disregarding a July 11, 2024 Supreme Court judgment.

He further argued that Osun’s reliance on the 2004 case of AG Lagos State v. AG Federation—where the Supreme Court ordered the release of withheld funds to Lagos—was irrelevant to the current situation.

In a counter‑affidavit deposed by Taye Oloyede, Special Assistant to the President on Legal Matters, the AGF maintained that neither he nor the Finance Minister ever instructed the withholding of Osun’s allocations. Oloyede stated that during a meeting held on May 22, 2025, the Finance Minister also denied issuing or receiving any such directive.

According to Oloyede, Osun failed to provide evidence that the President ordered any withholding or that the state’s local governments had submitted the required account details to the Finance Ministry for direct payments.

He also pointed out that the councils currently administering Osun’s LGAs were elected under the former APC-led administration and remain in office until October 2025. Therefore, the state lacked both the legal authority and the consent of the LG councils to initiate the suit.

The affidavit further alleged that Osun intended to channel the allocations into state‑level health and education programs, which directly contravenes the Supreme Court’s ruling that forbids state governments from managing LG funds.

Oloyede highlighted that an earlier Federal High Court judgment in Osun’s favour had already been overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Fagbemi insisted that Osun was in contempt of the landmark July 11, 2024 Supreme Court ruling in AGF v. Attorney General of Abia State & Others, which ordered that LG allocations be paid directly to councils without state interference. Osun, listed as Defendant No. 29 in that case, had acknowledged the ruling but allegedly continued to receive and spend LG funds between July 2024 and February 2025.

Describing the current suit as a “calculated attempt” to secure judicial backing for its violations, Fagbemi branded Osun’s actions as “egregious contempt” and urged the Supreme Court to enforce its authority by ordering Osun to refund all LG allocations collected during that seven‑month period. These funds, he said, should be remitted to the Minister of Finance for onward transfer to the respective local governments.

In a five‑point preliminary objection, the AGF further contended that:

• Osun is not entitled to be heard due to contempt;

• It has no right of appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision;

• The matter does not constitute a genuine dispute to trigger the court’s original jurisdiction under Section 232(1) of the Constitution;

• The state lacks locus standi to sue on behalf of local governments;

• And only the councils themselves—not a state government—can seek redress for unpaid allocations.

He concluded, “If any local government has been wrongly deprived of its funds, it is the council itself—not the state government—that has the right to sue.”

Meanwhile, it was gathered that the Osun State Government has filed to withdraw the suit. However, Olujimi confirmed that until the application for withdrawal is formally heard by the Supreme Court in September, the matter technically remains pending.