News

Osun must refund seven month’s LG allocations, AGF tells S’Court

Published

3 months ago

July 26, 2025

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, has urged the Supreme Court to compel Osun State Government to refund seven months’ local government allocations to the Minister of Finance.

The request was contained in a response filed through Fagbemi’s counsel, Chief Akin Olujimi SAN, to a suit instituted by the government via its attorney general.

Osun had sued the AGF as the sole defendant, alleging that the Federal Government failed to release the statutory allocation due to its 30 local government councils for March 2025.

In the suit marked SC/CV/379/2025, the state government claimed that whenit queried the Ministry of Finance over the unpaid allocation, the Minister of Finance, Wale Odun, allegedly said he was acting under the AGF’s directive.

However, the AGF denied the claim, challenging the legitimacy of the suit, accusing the state government of contempt for allegedly disobeying a July 11, 2024, Supreme Court judgment.

Fagbemi argued that Osun’s reliance on the 2004 case of AG Lagos State v. AG Federation—where the Supreme Court ordered the release of withheld funds to Lagos State—was misplaced.

In a counter-affidavit deposed by the Special Assistant to the President, Taye Oloyede, the AGF insisted that neither he nor the Minister of Finance instructed the withholding of Osun’s LG funds.

Oloyede testified that on May 22, 2025, in his presence, the Minister of Finance denied ever receiving such instructions.

According to the affidavit, Osun State never alleged that the President issued an order, nor did it provide evidence that the LG funds were deliberately withheld.

Oloyede emphasised that direct payment of allocations to LGs requires only that they submit account details to the Ministry of Finance.

He claimed the individuals currently administering Osun’s LGs were elected under the previous APC-led state government and remain in office until October 2025.

He asserted that Osun failed to show that its LGs had submitted their account details to the Finance Ministry.

Oloyede further argued that the plaintiff failed to show that it had the legal authority or consent of the LGs to initiate the lawsuit.

Instead, the affidavit indicated Osun’s intention to use the LG allocations to fund state-level health and education initiatives—directly contravening the Supreme Court’s judgment prohibiting states from managing LG finances.

He also pointed out that an earlier Federal High Court ruling in favour of the Osun State Governor had been overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Fagbemi insisted the Osun State Government was in contempt of the July 11, 2024, Supreme Court order in AGF v. Attorney General of Abia State & Others, which ruled that LG allocations must be paid directly to LG councils and not through state governments.

The order barred states from collecting or disbursing LG funds. Osun, listed as Defendant 29 in that suit, had acknowledged the order but allegedly continued to receive and spend LG funds from July 2024 to February 2025.

The AGF described Osun’s lawsuit as a calculated attempt to gain the Supreme Court’s backing to continue violating its own ruling.

He called it an “egregious contempt” and asked the court to enforce judicial accountability.

“The only way to vindicate the authority of this court,” he stated, “is to order the plaintiff to pay back all LG funds collected between July 2024 and February 2025. These should be remitted to the Minister of Finance for onward transfer to the respective local governments.”

In a five-ground preliminary objection, the AGF argued that: “The plaintiff is not entitled to be heard due to contempt. The plaintiff has no right of appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision. The case does not present a genuine dispute to trigger the court’s original jurisdiction under Section 232(1) of the Constitution. The plaintiff has no locus standi to sue on behalf of local governments. Only LGs—not state governments—can seek redress for unpaid allocations. The AGF stressed that Osun State had improperly appointed itself as a ‘watchdog’ over LG funds, despite having no authority to litigate on their behalf.

“If any LG has been wrongly deprived of its funds,” he concluded, “it is the council itself—not the state government—that has the right to sue.”

Meanwhile, it was gathered that Osun State government has withdrawn the suit. However, Olujimi, who confirmed this, said the suit remains in court until the application for withdrawal is formally heard by the court in September.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 465

News

UK Charity Commission freezes over 100 bank accounts linked to MFM

Published

8 hours ago

October 22, 2025

Oluwagbenga Olaoye

On Tuesday, the UK’s Charity Commission announced it had frozen the assets of Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries International (MFM), a Nigerian-founded church.

On its website, the UK government concluded that its trustees failed to manage the organisation’s finances properly across its UK branches.

The UK Charity Commission is a non-ministerial department that registers and regulates charities in England and Wales, to ensure that the public can confidently support charities.

MFM, founded by Nigerian cleric Daniel Olukoya, is one of Nigeria’s most influential Pentecostal churches. It has a strong global presence, particularly in the United Kingdom, where many Nigerian diaspora communities worship.

MFM is not the first Nigerian-founded church to face scrutiny in the UK. In recent years, other Nigerian-origin churches, including SPAC Nation in December 2024 and Christ Embassy in November 2019, have been investigated regarding governance and financial accountability concerns.

The incident raises broader questions about how rapidly expanding churches adapt their internal systems when moving into regulated environments like the UK, where religious organisations registered as charities must meet strict financial reporting standards.

The case has, therefore, sparked wider conversations about financial transparency and governance among fast-growing African churches operating overseas.

How the investigation began

On 27 March 2018, the Charity Commission opened a statutory inquiry into MFM under Section 46 of the UK’s Charities Act 2011. Concerns have been raised regarding the possible misappropriation of charity funds and weak internal financial controls.

The Commission discovered that the church had expanded rapidly in the UK, growing from a few branches to more than 90 locations nationwide, without developing a solid financial governance structure to match its growth.

According to the final report, the Commission found that trustees did not properly oversee more than 100 separate bank accounts operated by different church branches. These accounts were opened and managed autonomously, often without informing central leadership or providing timely income reports.

Commission’s report

The commission reported that the church’s branches operated independently without central approval and that Major financial decisions, such as property purchases and lease agreements, were made without trustee authorisation.

Additionally, some branches used properties without securing planning permissions, leading to costly legal actions. It highlighted that Poor employment contract management resulted in financial settlements for employment disputes, and the lack of a unified monetary system created serious risks to charitable funds.

As a result, the regulator concluded that donor money was at risk due to weak financial oversight and poor governance.

Interim Manager Appointed to Restore Control

On 1 August 2019, following serious concerns about the trustees’ ability to manage the charity effectively, the Commission appointed an interim manager under Section 76(3)(g) of the Charities Act. The interim manager worked alongside the trustees to implement critical financial controls.

This oversight continued until 13 September 2024, when the interim manager was discharged after making progress.

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the Charity Commission announced that it had frozen the charity’s assets to prevent further financial risk while strengthening accountability structures.

Amy Spiller, Head of Investigations at the Charity Commission, said:

“The rapid growth of a charity comes with correspondingly larger potential risks, as our inquiry clearly shows. In this case, the trustees’ fundamental failure to maintain financial controls meant donor funds were at serious risk across their entire network.”

She added that the trustees are better positioned to ensure financial responsibility and compliance following regulatory intervention.

Regulatory Action

Upon completing its review, the Commission issued a regulatory action plan that required MFM to strengthen its governance policies and improve financial transparency. The Commission has confirmed that trustees have complied with the action plan, and the charity is now expected to operate under stricter financial controls going forward.

When this report was filed, neither MFM International nor its founder, Daniel Olukoya, had issued a public statement in response to the Charity Commission’s findings.

Collins Edomaruse, the media aide to Mr Olukoya, did not respond to calls or text messages.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 61

News

MDAs under fire as FG probes TSA violations

Published

11 hours ago

October 22, 2025

Newsbreak365_Admin

The Federal Government, through the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation, has ordered all Ministries, Departments and Agencies to submit their statements of accounts in commercial banks.

The government said the move was part of its plans to maintain financial discipline.

This was disclosed in a memo signed by the Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, which was obtained by our correspondent on Tuesday.

Ogunjimi in the memo expressed grievance over the continuous usage of commercial banks by MDAs despite an earlier directive ordering MDAs to close such accounts and focus on the use of the Treasury Single Account domiciled in the Central Bank.

Recall that the government in February mandated MDAs to stop the use of commercial banks, as it opposes the framework of the TSA.

While reiterating the Federal Government’s commitment to the Treasury Single Account policy, the Accountant-General of the Federation urged the Federal Pay Officers to monitor and ensure that Ministries, Departments, and Agencies in the States do not operate any account with the commercial banks or circumvent any provision of the TSA policy,” the statement by the OSGF said in February.

Reacting to the new memo, Ogunniyi said, “It has been observed with dismay that funds belonging to the Federal Government are still domiciled in several accounts held with commercial banks, contrary to Federal Government Circulars and the operational framework of the Treasury Single Account, which mandates the consolidation of all Federal Government revenues and receipts into the TSA domiciled with the Central Bank of Nigeria.

“In view of the above and following the Honourable Minister of Finance directive, all Directors/Heads of Finance and Accounts in Federal Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies and Federal Government-owned Enterprises are immediately required to submit Statements of all Bank Accounts (active, dormant and closed) maintained in all commercial banks over the last six (6) months, clearly indicating account names, account numbers, bank branches and current balances.”

“This directive takes immediate effect and must be treated with the utmost urgency, as it is part of the ongoing efforts to strengthen fiscal discipline and uphold the integrity of the Treasury Single Account Framework.”

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 71

News

Kanu to defend self, lists Danjuma, Wike, Sanwo-Olu as witnesses

Published

12 hours ago

October 22, 2025

Newsbreak365_Admin

The detained leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, made a dramatic turn on Tuesday by informing the Federal High Court in Abuja that he was ready to open his defence.

This came just hours after Omoyele Sowore, the 2023 presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, led protests in parts of Abuja demanding Kanu’s release.

Kanu had, last Thursday, filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to continue his trial.

The objection came on the same day a team of medical experts appointed by the court declared him medically fit to stand trial, Channels reports.

In a fresh motion personally filed on Tuesday, October 21, Kanu told the court that he was prepared to begin his defence “pursuant to the order of this honourable court made on the 16th day of October 2015, directing the defendant to commence his defence on the 24th day of October 2025.”

He disclosed plans to call 23 witnesses divided into two categories, “ordinary but material witnesses” and “vital and compellable witnesses”, the latter to be summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

The motion, which Kanu personally signed, suggested that he may have disengaged his legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Kanu Agabi.

He also requested 90 days to conclude his defence due to the number of witnesses he intends to call.

Kanu stated that he would testify on his own behalf, “providing a sworn account of the facts, denying the allegations, and explaining the political context of his statements and actions.”

Among those listed as “compellable witnesses” were former Minister of Defence, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (retd); former Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Tukur Buratai (retd); Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu; and Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodinma.

Others include the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike; Minister of Works, Dave Umahi; and former Abia State governor, Okezie Ikpeazu.

Kanu also listed former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN); former Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency, Ahmed Rufai Abubakar; and Director-General of the Department of State Services, Yusuf Magaji Bichi, among others whose identities he withheld.

Kanu pledged to submit sworn statements from all voluntary witnesses and to notify the prosecution within a reasonable time.

He assured the court that “no precious time of the honourable court would be delayed,” adding that “justice must not only be done but be manifestly seen to have been done.”

Meanwhile, on the same day Kanu filed his motion, a magistrate court in Abuja ordered the remand of his special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, and 12 others arrested during protests demanding his release.

The police charged the 13 defendants with criminal conspiracy, disobedience of a lawful order, inciting disturbance, and disturbance of public peace — offences contrary to sections 152, 114, and 113 of the Penal Code Law.

Those named in the first two information reports include Ejimakor, Kanu’s brother Emmanuel, Joshua Emmanuel, Wilson Anyalewechi, Okere Kingdom Nnamdi, Clinton Chimeneze, Gabriel Joshua, Isiaka Husseini, Onyekachi Ferdinand, Amadi Prince, Edison Ojisom, Godwill Obioma, and Chima Onuchukwu.

The magistrate, after briefly standing down the case, ordered their remand at Kuje Correctional Centre and adjourned the matter till October 24 for arraignment.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Post Views: 58