Justice Simon Amobeda of the Federal High Court has approved a joint application filed by the National Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) and two other associations to be included as parties in a legal suit aimed at halting the disbursement of statutory allocations to the 44 local government councils in Kano State.
As part of the ruling, the judge directed that the names of the elected chairmen of the councils be added to the case and instructed that all newly joined parties must serve their court processes ahead of the next hearing date.
The decision followed submissions made by Sabiu Sammani, who represented NULGE and the two associations, as well as Mustapha Hussaini, counsel to the elected council chairmen.
Justice Amobeda also took note of a motion for adjournment filed by the chambers of Adeboyega Awomolo SAN, even though the sitting was scheduled for hearing all pending applications, including those seeking to join the suit.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Abdul Adamu Fagge SAN, objected to the motion, arguing that it was not due for hearing.
He criticized the defendants, accusing them of using “applications in fragments” to delay proceedings.
In response, Femi Falana SAN, appearing for the Attorney General of Kano State, confirmed receipt of the motion and asked the court for an adjournment, citing an ongoing appeal before the Court of Appeal.
He stated that “either a written or oral application for adjournment was standard procedure.”
The plaintiffs in the case — Abdullahi Abbas, Aminu Tiga, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) — are requesting the court to stop the federal government, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and the Accountant General of the Federation from distributing monthly statutory allocations to the 44 councils.
They argue that the local government elections held on October 26, 2024, were flawed and referenced a Supreme Court judgment that only councils with democratically elected officials are entitled to receive such funds.
NULGE and the two other associations applied to join the case, asserting that the outcome would have a direct bearing on them.
Justice Amobeda acknowledged the motion for adjournment and the appeal currently before the Court of Appeal.
“In the interest of justice,” he adjourned the matter to May 26.
