The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday rejected an application to send back a suit regarding the Osun State local government funds to the court’s division in Osogbo, the capital of the state.
Delivering his ruling on Thursday, the judge Emeka Nwite, ruled out bias in the decision to keep the case in Abuja instead of transferring it back to Osogbo from where it originated.
He clarified that the Chief Judge had exercised his judicial and administrative powers to transfer the case to Abuja in accordance with Order 49 Rule 2 of the court. He said “a mere administrative act by the Chief Judge transferring a case cannot, by any stretch, amount to bias.”
“Accordingly, this application challenging the transfer of the case from the Osogbo Division to the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court lacks merit and is hereby dismissed,” the judge held.
The Osun State Government, through its Attorney-General, filed the suit in May at the Osogbo Division of the Federal High Court against the CBN, the Accountant-General, Shamsudeen Ogunjimi, and Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi.
The suit sought to stop federal authorities from releasing withheld local government allocations to sacked officials elected on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) during former Governor Adegboyega Oyetola’s tenure.
During the court’s vacation, the AGF requested that the case be heard in Abuja for prompt determination, and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court approved it.
On 22 September, Mr Nwite dropped the AGF from the suit, following the plaintiff’s application that a similar case against him was pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded hearing on the related matter on 7 October, and its judgement is now being awaited with expectation that it will ultimately resolve the disputes regarding the Osun State local government funds.
The plaintiff immediately filed a motion seeking to return the case to Osogbo, challenging the Abuja Division’s jurisdiction. The state questioned the validity of a letter assigning Mr Nwite to oversee the case, claiming it was signed by someone without authority.
Lawyers to the other respondents – the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant-General – opposed the motion, arguing it was a delay tactic and warning that the tenure of the sacked chairpersons and councillors involved would end on 22 October, making a timely ruling urgent.
‘Chief Judge has power to transfer cases’
In his ruling on Thursday, Mr Nwite cited Section 21(1) of the Federal High Court Act, which provides that the chief judge “may, at any time or stage of the proceedings before final judgment … to transfer any cause or matter before him to any other judge of the court.”
He also referred to Order 49 Rules 1 and 2 of the Federal High Court of 2019, noting that a matter, “on grounds of convenience or expediency, and at the request of either party,” can be transferred from one division to another. The Chief Judge may also reassign a case at any stage, “whether or not the cause or matter is being heard before him.”
Mr Nwite said it was clear that both the Act and the Rules contemplate the power of transfer and reassignment of a case to another judge.
He added that the exercise of that power is an administrative act within the Chief Judge’s discretion and does not amount to a judicial determination.
Documents before the court, he said, “clearly show that the Chief Judge personally approved the transfer of this case from the Osogbo Division to the Abuja Division.”
He cited a 21 May letter signed by the Special Assistant to the Chief Judge, directing that the case be transferred to Abuja for expeditious determination, and a 2 September letter formally assigning the case to Judge Nwite.
Mr Nwite said the argument that the Chief Judge delegated the power or acted without jurisdiction was misconceived.
“The law is settled that the Chief Judge possesses both administrative and judicial powers to assign and reassign cases to any division of the Federal High Court as he deems fit,” he added.
He said if the plaintiff is aggrieved, the appropriate remedy is a separate action challenging the administrative decision, not a motion in the same suit.
Accusation of bias against judicial officials
On allegations of bias, the court found them “wholly unfounded and speculative.” Mr Nwite explained that bias conotes a disposition that prevents a judge from making an objective determination based on law and evidence.
“The plaintiff has not produced any credible evidence to support such a grave allegation,” he said.
He cited Supreme Court rulings warning against frivolous accusations of bias, emphasising that such claims undermine judicial integrity and public confidence.
The judge warned that legal practitioners must exercise restraint before imputing bias to a judge or the Chief Judge in administrative matters.
He concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any act by the Chief Judge showing partiality or predisposition, and affirmed that the case shall proceed as assigned.
Suit not an abuse of court process
In a separate ruling, the judge also addressed claims that the suit was an abuse of court process as raised by the defendants. The judge recalled that the defendants had argued that local chairpersons could have instituted the suit themselves since they have autonomy. They also contended that a similar case was already before the Supreme Court.
Mr Nwite held that the ongoing suit “does not constitute an abuse of court process.”
He noted that while parallel proceedings “may lead to unnecessary and duplicative objectives and judicial resources,” there was no evidence that the plaintiff had “misused, perverted, or abused the expression of justice.”
The judge emphasised that the plaintiff did not act in a “biased or deliberate manner in seeking the present action.”
He also ruled that the plaintiff has the duty and authority, as the state’s chief law officer, to act in the public interest, including protecting local government allocations.
He adjourned the case till 17 October for continuation of hearing.
Background
The suit filed by the Governor Ademola Adeleke-led Osun State Government seeks to stop federal authorities from releasing withheld local government allocations to sacked officials elected during former Governor Oyetola’s tenure.
During the court’s vacation, which began in late July and ended on 16 September, the AGF requested that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court allow the case to be heard in Abuja, and the request was granted.
On 22 September, Mr Nwite dropped the AGF from the suit, following the plaintiff’s application that a similar case against him was pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded hearing on the related matter on 7 October, and its judgement is now being awaited with expectation that it will ultimately resolve the disputes regarding the Osun State local government funds.
The same day, Osun State Government, through its SAN, Musibau Adetumbi, filed a motion calling for the return of the case to the Osogbo Division.
The motion challenged the Abuja Division’s jurisdiction to hear the case, arguing that the vacation-inspired transfer had expired.
Lawyers to the CBN, Muritala Abdulrasheed, and to the Accountant-General, Tajudeen Oladoja, opposed the motion. They argued it was a delay tactic and warned that the tenure of the APC chairpersons and councillors would end on 22 October, making a timely hearing critical.
At the 29 September sitting, Mr Adetunbi told the court that the withheld local government funds were illegally released between 25 and 26 September to sacked APC chairmen and councillors, despite a status quo order. He said the money was paid through UBA accounts, and a High Court in Oyo later issued a restraining order as Osun courts were on strike.
The CBN and AGF, through their lawyers, denied the claim and asked the court to continue hearing the case in Abuja.
