On Friday, Justice Inynag Ekwo of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja dismissed a suit filed by the Attorneys General of 36 Federation States against the Federal Government over plans to deduct from state funds to settle debts owed consultants hired by the states and Local Governments in relation to Paris Club refunds.
Justice Ekwo ruled in a 51-page decision that the Attorneys General of the 36 states lacked locus standi (legal standing) to file the legal action against the federal government.
The judge, who maintained that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate to the court that they had the legal right to bring the action, also held that they (plaintiffs) lacked constitutional authority to challenge the decisions of their state governors, whom he said were appointed by the AGs.
States Attorneys General, according to Justice Ekwo, cannot challenge the constitutional powers of their state governors, and he concluded, “On the whole, I hold that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the legal action against the governors of their states.”
In light of the foregoing, I hereby issue an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for lack of locus standi,” Justice Ekwo held and agreed with the defendants that there was an agreement for $480 million in deductions from the federal allocation to state governments.
He stated that the plaintiffs, who are not members of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum or the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON), cannot challenge the two bodies’ actions.
He claimed that because the plaintiffs were complaining about the actions of state governors, they should have joined the Nigerian Governors’ Forum as respondents in the suit.
The court also ruled that the case of the AGs of the Federation’s 36 states constituted an abuse of court processes because the court could not seize the judgment that authorized the deduction of the judgment debt.
“Overall, I do not see merit in this case, and I make an order dismissing it for lack of merit,” Justice Ekwo concluded.
Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), counsel for the states’ AGs, praised the judge for delivering the judgment on time despite the volume of the processes filed.
“We appreciate your efforts in this matter. We congratulate your Lordship.”
Counsel for the respondents, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and 43 others, praised the Judge’s diligence in the judgment, which they said was the result of hard work.
In their suit, the plaintiffs ask the court to prevent President Muhammadu Buhari and others from implementing the planned deduction from state funds to settle the debt owed consultants hired by states and local governments.
While adopting his final submission, Sunday Ameh (SAN), representing the plaintiffs in the November proceeding, argued that the defendants misconstrued the core of his clients’ suit and faulted the defendants’ argument that the suit was challenging existing court judgments in favor of some of the consultants.
“We are not contesting the judgments; rather, we are claiming that the manner in which the Federal Government and its agencies are enforcing the judgments violates sections 120 and 162 of the Constitution,” he explained.
Ameh stated that his clients were not opposed to the federal government issuing promissory notes to the consultants (also sued as defendants) but became concerned when it (FG) issued a notice to begin deduction from the states’ accounts.
He went on to say that because the Federal Government agreed that the contractors were owed money for the services they provided, the debt should be settled without using funds from the states and local governments.
Ameh contended that the funds taken from the Federation Accounts belonged to the nation’s commonwealth, and that “if the Federal Government is inclined to pay the debt, it should look for another way to do so and leave the funds belonging to the state governments and local governments alone.”
Lawyers for the defendants, including Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Maimuna Lami Shiru (Acting Director, Civil Litigation, Federal Ministry of Justice), and Olusola Oke (SAN), questioned the suit’s competence and urged the court to dismiss it.
Olanipekun, who represented one of the consultants, Dr Ted Iseghohi-Edwards (14th defendant), characterized the plaintiffs as meddling interlopers, noting that the state governments claimed to be fighting for Local Governments, a distinct tier of government, without the consent of the third tier.
He asked the court to dismiss the suit because it was a waste of time and an abuse of the legal system.
Mrs Shiru contended that not only was the suit barred by statute, but the plaintiffs were also attempting the impossible by requesting that the court sit on appeal over judgments previously delivered by it and other courts of coordinate jurisdiction.
She also argued that the Federal Government’s decision to issue promissory notes to the consultants as a means of settling the debt owed them was legal, and that the plaintiffs could not disassociate themselves from the Nigeria Governors’ Forum’s (NGF) decision to hire some of the consultants.
Mrs Shiru represented the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Accountant General of the Federation (AGoF), the Ministry of Finance Incorporated, and the Debt Management Office (DMO), who were named as defendants one through six in the suit.
Source: AriseNews
