Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, yesterday, dismissed a suit filed by the Attorneys General of the 36 states of the federation against the Federal Government over plans to deduct from states’ funds to settle debts owed consultants engaged by the states and local councils in relation to the Paris Club refunds.

Justice Ekwo held in a 51-page judgment that the 36 states Attorneys General (AGs) lacked the locus standi (legal right) to file the legal action against the Federal Government.

The judge, who maintained that the plaintiffs failed to prove to the court that they had the legal right to institute the action, also held that they (plaintiffs) had no constitutional powers to challenge the decisions of their state governors being their appointees.

According to Justice Ekwo, states Attorneys General could not challenge the constitutional powers of their state governors.

“On the whole, I hold that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the legal action against the governors of their states,” the Judge held.

The court further held that the case of the AGs of the 36 states of the federation constituted an abuse of court processes as the court could not seize the judgment, which authorised deduction of the judgment debt.

“In view of the above, I hereby make an order dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for lacking locus standi,” Justice Ekwo.

The judge agreed with the defendants that there was an agreement for the deduction of $480 million from the federal allocation to the state governments.

He said the plaintiffs, who were neither members of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) nor Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON), could not challenge the action of the two bodies.

He said since the plaintiffs were complaining of the action of the state governors, they ought to have joined the NGF as respondents in the suit.

“On the whole, I do not see merit in this case and I make an order dismissing it for lacking in merit,” Justice Ekwo ruled.

Counsel representing the states AGs, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), in his reaction, commended the judge for the timely delivery of the judgment in spite of the volume of the processes filed.

“We appreciate the hard work put into the matter. We commend your Lordship,” Okutepa said.

Counsel to the respondents, comprising President Buhari and 43 others, also commended the industry of the Judge in delivering the judgment.

The plaintiffs had, in their suit, want the court to restrain President Muhammadu Buhari and others from effecting the planned deduction from states’ funds to settle the debt owed consultants engaged by states and local governments.

Sunday Ameh (SAN) representing the plaintiffs at the November proceeding, while adopting his final submission, argued that the defendants misconstrued the kernel of his clients’ suit and faulted the argument by the defendants that the suit was challenging existing judgments given by the court in favour of some of the consultants.

“We are not challenging the judgments, we are saying the way the Federal Government and its agencies are going about enforcing the judgments violates Sections 120 and 162 of the Constitution,” he said.

Ameh stated that his clients were not averse to the issuance of promissory notes to the consultants (also sued as defendants) by the Federal Government but became uncomfortable when it (FG) issued a notice to commence deduction from the states’ accounts.

He added that since the Federal Government agreed that the contractors were owed in relation to the services they rendered, it should settle the indebtedness without deploying funds belonging to the states and local councils.

Ameh contended that it was the nation’s commonwealth that some individuals were attempting to take out of the Federation Accounts, stating 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.”

Defendants’ lawyers, including Wole Olanipekun (SAN); Maimuna Lami Shiru (Acting Director, Civil Litigation, Federal Ministry of Justice) and Olusola Oke (SAN) faulted the competence of the suit and urged the court to dismiss it.

Olanipekun, who represented one of the consultants, Dr Ted Iseghohi-Edwards (14th defendant), described the plaintiffs as meddlesome interlopers, noting that the state governments claimed to be fighting for the local councils, a distinct tier of government, without the consent of the third tier of government.

He prayed the court to dismiss the suit for being time-wasting and constituting an abuse of the court process.

Mrs Shiru, on her part, argued that not only was the suit statute barred, but also the plaintiffs were seeking the impossible by asking the court to sit on appeal over judgments earlier delivered by it and other courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

She further argued that the decision by the Federal Government to issue promissory notes to the consultant as a way of settling the debt owed them was legitimate, adding that the plaintiffs could not distance themselves from the decision taken by the NGF in engaging some of the consultants.

MShiru represented the President, 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), sued as the first to sixth defendants in the suit.

Oke, who represented Riok Nigeria Limited and Prince Nicholas Ukachukwu, argued that the suit was without merit and should be dismissed and that the promissory notes by the Federal Government were charged on its properties and not those of the states.

Oke stated that the judgment obtained by his clients was against the local councils and not the plaintiffs, adding that the local councils have admitted the contract awarded to his clients.