ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The Attorney General (AG) of Osun State has filed a notice of withdrawal of the suit he instituted against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant General of the Federation (AGF), challenging the alleged plan release of the withheld local government allocations to the “court-sacked” local government chairmen and councillors elected during the tenure of former Governor Adegboyega Oyetola.

Counsel to the Osun AG, Musibau Adetumbi (SAN), while moving the application yesterday, said the aim of the suit, which sought to safeguard the money, had been defeated as the allocation had been moved out of the CBN by the defendants.

“On September 29, 2025, when the matter was heard, I told the court that our primary aim was to safeguard the money. Between then and now, we are sure that, notwithstanding the pendency of the case and order of status quo, the money was moved out of the CBN,” Adetumbi said.

He told the court that the notice of discontinuance was filed pursuant to Order 51 Rule 2 of the Federal High Court Rules, adding that any further arguments in the matter would amount to an academic exercise.

As against the submission of the defendants, Adetumbi said the court-sacked local government chairmen and councillors elected on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC), assuming without conceding that they had a tenure, lapsed on Wednesday, October 16, 2025.

In their various submissions on the notice of discontinuance filed by the plaintiff, counsel to the defendants – CBN, Dr. Muritala Abdulrasheed (SAN), and that of the AGF, Tajudeen Oladoja (SAN) – did not oppose the application but faulted the averments in an affidavit of facts attached to the application.

According to Muritala, the plaintiff made damaging depositions in the affidavit of facts and added that the plaintiff should withdraw the affidavit along with the notice of discontinuance because some of the depositions in the affidavit were against persons who are not parties in the matter.

“Somebody can approach the court any day with a request for a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the process and may decide to use it against the persons mentioned in the plaintiff’s affidavit of facts,” the CBN lawyer stated, adding that the grounds upon which the notice of discontinuance was predicated were in bad faith.

He said the plaintiff got it wrong when he claimed that the 1st defendant had no competent response to the plaintiff’s originating summons, adding that a 12-paragraph counter-affidavit to the originating summons was filed on behalf of his client in May.

“While we are not opposing the withdrawal of the suit, we are against the grounds for the withdrawal,” Muritala said, and urged the court to expunge paragraphs 5 to 11 in the affidavit of facts filed by the plaintiff for being inaccurate and for referring to persons who are not before the court.

Counsel to the Accountant General, Tajudeen, on his part, did not oppose the application for discontinuance because the plaintiff has the liberty to withdraw his case. “However, we are in vehement opposition to the 2nd ground upon which the application is predicated.

“The plaintiff is not under any obligation to predicate his application on any ground,” he said, adding that it is not true to say that the 2nd defendant has no competent defence in the matter. He explained that his client filed an application for an extension of time to file a counter-affidavit in opposition to the plaintiff’s originating summons on September 8, which had not been determined due to the application filed by the plaintiff accusing the court of bias and challenging its jurisdiction.

He urged the court to strike out ground one of the notices of discontinuance and ground two, which stated that certain money had been paid, a claim the 2nd defendant had not been given an opportunity to react to.

Tajudeen also asked for a cost of N10 million against the plaintiff for bringing the 2nd defendant to court, for the court processes filed in the matter, and for wasting the precious judicial time of the court.

Responding, Adetumbi said a notice of discontinuance under Order 50 Rule 2 of the Federal High Court Rules does not attract cost, and added that the defendants had not filed any process before the court. “It is their default to have filed their process out of time. They cannot approach the court to ask for cost or expunging any of the grounds in the notice of discontinuance.”

The plaintiff’s counsel said the defendants were not entitled to cost because of their own default.

Having listened to the submissions of counsel in the matter, the trial judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, adjourned till October 29 to rule on the plaintiff’s application for discontinuance and other applications by the defendants.

Speaking with journalists after the proceedings, Adetumbi said the major reason for the discontinuance of the matter was that the defendants had paid the money out. “We came to court to safeguard the money, and the money has gone. So, what are we arguing over again? It has left their hands.

“They deliberately released it, so it is no longer within the jurisdiction of this honourable court. That money is no more. As long as that money had left the hands of the CBN and the Accountant General of the Federation, it is no longer within the jurisdiction of this honourable court.

“I mentioned it there. Even the so-called APC chairmen and councillors, assuming without conceding that they had any tenure, it ended yesterday, 16th October. That’s what the document is saying — not 22nd, not 23rd. It is saying 16th. We have the affidavit here. They are out of office. They signed. They were out of office on 17th October 2025,” he said.

Justice Nwite had, in a ruling on a request by the CBN and the AGF praying for the dismissal of the case, delivered on Wednesday, held that the Osun Attorney General has locus standi (legal right) to institute the suit on behalf of the local government authorities.

He held that the plaintiff, as the Chief Law Officer of the state, had the duty and authority to act in the public interest, including protecting local government allocations.

The judge further held that the suit challenging local government allocations “does not constitute an abuse of court process.”

He emphasised that the plaintiff did not act in “a biased or deliberate manner in seeking the present action.”