A.G Of Bendel State V. A.G Of The Federation & Ors (1983)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UWAIS, J.S.C. 

The National Assembly enacted the Allocation of Revenue (Federation Account etc.), Act, 1981 (No.1 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as “Act No. 1 of 1982”) as contemplated by section 149 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”). The object of Act No. 1 of 1982 is ascertainable from its preamble, which runs as follows:

“An Act to prescribe the basis for distribution of Revenue accruing to the Federation Account between the Federal and State Governments and the Local Government councils in the States; the formula for distribution amongst the States inter se; the proportion of the total Revenue of each State to be contributed to the State Joint Local Government Account; and for other purposes connected there with.”

By invoking the original jurisdiction of the Court under S.212 of the Constitution, the Attorney General of Bendel State commenced this suit against Attorney General of the Federation by a statement of claim in which he asked for the following:

“1. A declaration that sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 2 of the allocation of Revenue (Federation Account etc.) Act, 1981 is unconstitutional and void in so far as each of the said sub-sections makes provision for a fund to be administered by the Federal Government.

2. A declaration that sub-section (1) of section 6 of the aforesaid Act is unconstitutional and void in so far as it enacts the establishment of a body to be known as the Joint Local Government Account Allocation Committee.
3. A declaration that the Government of Bendel State is entitled to have from time to time a true and correct statement of all moneys paid by the Federal Government into the Federation Account kept pursuant to section 149 of the Constitution.”

In view of the nature of the claim we directed that the Attorneys General of the rest of the 18 States of the Federation be put on notice as interested parties and this was done. At the hearing all the 18 States but six namely, Anambra, Bauchi, Benue, Kano, Kwara and Niger were represented by counsel.

The facts of the case are not in the main in dispute as the plaintiff has admitted paragraphs 9 to 13 inclusive of the first defendants’ statement of defence. Now, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the statement of claim read:

“4. By a letter dated 24th February, 1982, the plaintiff complained to the (first) defendant that certain portions of sections 2 and 6 of the Revenue Allocation Act (sic) were unconstitutional and void and asked for an opportunity to discuss the matter. However the defendant failed or neglected to respond in spite of a reminder dated 11th March, 1982.

5. The particulars of the portions of sections 2 and 6 of the Revenue Allocation Act (sic), which the plaintiff says are unconstitutional and void, are as follows:

(a) Section 2 (1) in so far as it makes provision for ‘a fund to be administered by the Federal Government for the amelioration of ecological problems in any part of Nigeria.’

(b) Section 2 (2) in so far as it makes provision for ‘a fund to be administered by the Federal Government for the development of Mineral producing areas in Nigeria.’

(c) In so far as it provides for the establishment of a Joint Local Government Account Allocation Committee for each State, section (6 (1) of the Revenue Allocation Act (sic).

6. Since the present Administration took office in October, 1979, it had never submitted to the plaintiff any statement of moneys paid by the Federal Government into the Federation Account kept pursuant to section 149 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

In his statement of defence, the first defendant admitted receiving the plaintiff’s letter of 24th February, 1982 and asserted that the letter was replied on 10th March, 1982. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement of claim (which are quoted above) were denied and the statement of defence went on, inter alia, to make the following averments in paragraphs 9 to 13 inclusive which as hereinbefore stated, were admitted by the plaintiff:

“9. That as provided by the said Act, a Federation Account Allocation Committee had also been established to ensure that allocations due to the States from the Federation Account are paid promptly in accordance with the formula provided by the Act (No. 1 of 1982).

10. That the plaintiff is represented by the Bendel State Commissioner for Finance in (the) said Federation Account Allocation Committee.
11. That between the 10th and 15th of every month, the Federation Account Allocation Committee meet to confirm and approve the monthly statement of the Federation Account as submitted by the Central Bank of Nigeria.
12. That at these meetings members of the Committee are given ample opportunity to accept or reject entries made in the statement of the Federation Account and to seek necessary clarifications.
13. Officials of the Treasury Department, Inland Revenue Department, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and the Central Bank are also invited to these meetings to answer any questions or make any clarifications that may arise.”

The plaintiff adduced evidence by calling, as a witness, Mr. F. G. Omoarukhe, the Deputy Accountant-General of Bendel State, who testified to the effect that the Government of Bendel State had not been receiving, regularly, the statement of the Federation Account kept with the Central Bank of Nigeria. No other witness was called by any of the parties. I think it is pertinent at this stage to set out the provisions of Act No. 1 of 1982, which are relevant to this case. Sections 1, 2 and 6 thereof read as follows: