The Alimosho Local Government Council in Lagos has filed a lawsuit against the State House of Assembly in the Federal High Court in Abuja, alleging unlawful interference in its operations.
According to a summons obtained by the News Agency of Nigeria on Tuesday, the Council is asking the court to rule that the Assembly and its Speaker lack the constitutional authority to oversee its activities. The plaintiff argues that the state assembly cannot exercise oversight over a democratically elected local government executive, which has its own elected legislative council.
The Chairman of the Council, Hon. Sulaimon Jelili, is a co-plaintiff in the case, which names the State Assembly, the Speaker, the Lagos State Attorney-General, the Inspector-General of Police, the Lagos State Commissioner of Police, and the State Security Service as respondents.
In the lawsuit filed by their attorney, Dr. Abdul Mahmud, the plaintiffs assert that the core issue at stake is the autonomy and independence of local governments, in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling.
The suit emphasizes that local governments are not merely executive agencies of the Lagos state government, and thus, the Speaker, Hon. Mudashiru Obasa, cannot exercise oversight over them. The plaintiffs contend that local governments, as separate entities, possess their own legislative arms that govern areas such as markets, as designated by the Constitution.
The plaintiffs allege that the Assembly, under Speaker Obasa, issued a resolution on August 27 instructing the Council Chairman to terminate the contract of one of the Council’s contractors, Mr. Omotolani Adedayo, who was responsible for collecting market tolls.
The resolution directed the Council to enter into a formal contract with another individual, Mr. Ejigbadero Abiodun, following Adedayo’s dismissal. The Speaker allegedly warned that the Council Chairman would face suspension if he did not comply with the Assembly’s directive.
In an affidavit by Dare Ogunkoya, the Secretary of Alimoso Council, it was stated that the Council Chairman is constitutionally responsible for the establishment, maintenance, and regulation of markets, parks, and garages within its jurisdiction.
Ogunkoya mentioned that constituents had repeatedly expressed their opposition to the Assembly’s imposition of Abiodun as the toll collector. This concern was communicated to the Assembly through a letter dated September 4.
The plaintiffs argue that the Assembly’s actions constitute intimidation and an overreach of the Council Chairman’s authority. They seek a court declaration affirming that, based on Sections 7 and Item 1(e) of the Fourth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, they are the sole authority responsible for establishing, maintaining, and regulating markets within their jurisdiction.
They are also requesting that the court declare the Assembly’s resolution null and void due to lack of legal basis, and assert that the Assembly has no constitutional power to suspend the Council Chairman.
Additionally, they are asking the court to prevent the defendants from suspending the Council Chairman.
Mahmud, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, stated that court documents had been served to all respondents, but no hearing date has been set.
He emphasized that the outcome of this case could establish a new precedent regarding local government autonomy in Nigeria, especially following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Suit No: SC/CV/343/2024 AG Federation V AG Abia State & 35 Ors, which upheld local government autonomy.
Despite this, the Assembly reportedly suspended the Council Chairman indefinitely during a plenary session on Monday, following unanimous votes by lawmakers based on allegations of misconduct and defiance of the Assembly. The Vice Chairman, Mr. Akinpelu Johnson, has been appointed to oversee the Council’s operations.
In response, Mahmud labeled the suspension of his client as unconstitutional, arguing that it blatantly contradicts the Supreme Court’s recent ruling affirming local government autonomy under the 1999 Constitution.
He asserted that the actions of the Assembly and the Speaker, despite being served with court documents, are sub judice and represent a deliberate attempt to undermine the judicial process. Mahmud vowed that the coercive actions of the Speaker and the Assembly’s encroachment on local government powers would be legally challenged.
