The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed September 29, 2025, for the hearing of a motion by the Osun State government challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear a suit against withheld local government funds in the Abuja Division of the court.
The state government insisted that since the court’s vacation ended on September 16, the case should be transferred to Osogbo for an appropriate hearing and determination of the suit.
It raised two grounds of objection: That the fiat granted the attorney-general of the federation for the matter to be heard during vacation in Abuja had been overtaken on the ground that the vacation had ended.
The motion filed by its lead counsel, Musibau Adetumbi (SAN), also challenged the validity of a purported letter from the Office of the court’s Chief Judge mandating Justice Emeka Nwite to determine the suit in Abuja substantively.
Adetumbi’s grouse about the letter was that it was signed by a person who claimed to be the personal assistant to the personal assistant of the chief judge.
He contended that the personal assistant to the personal assistant of the chief judge is a busybody and a person unknown to the law to sign such a sensitive document.
Insisting that the integrity of the letter is in doubt, the senior lawyer pleaded with Justice Nwite to determine its validity before proceeding to the substantive matter.
However, counsel to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Dr Muritala Abdulrasheed (SAN) and that of the accountant-general of the federation, Alhaji Tajudeen Oladoja (SAN), who are defendants in the suit, challenged the plaintiff’s application, alleging that it was a ploy to delay the expeditious hearing of the matter.
The two senior lawyers told the court that the tenure of the elected APC chairmen and councillors will end on October 22 and as such, their case will become academic if not expeditiously heard.
After taking arguments from the parties, Justice Nwite fixed September 29 to hear the application by the state government and any other that borders on the jurisdiction before proceeding with others.
Earlier, the judge struck out the name of the AGF, who was the third defendant in the suit, following the plaintiff’s discontinuance of the matter against him.
