A law firm, Tope Adebayo LP, has spoken on a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in which the Court declined original jurisdiction in the landmark case of A.G. Abia State; Ors. V. A.G., Federation (SC/ CV/395/2021).

At the heart of the firm’s review of the case is the propriety of invoking the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, particularly in its role as a policy court, to determine, with regard to section 162 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

When the case commenced at the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction, considering the existence of a clear dispute between the States and the Federation as to the legal rights of the States in respect of receipts which ought to constitute revenue of the Federation, the expectation was that the apex court would assert jurisdiction and deliver a policy-making decision.

However, the Supreme Court firmly declined jurisdiction. In its judgment delivered on 23rd May 2025, the Court upheld the Defendant’s Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the suit, on the ground that the reliefs sought fall squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, having regard to the provisions of Section 251(1) (a) of the Constitution.

In its article titled Revenue of the Federation and Constitutional Jurisdiction: Reassessing the Supreme Court in A.G., Abia State & Ors. v. A.G., Federation, the full-service law firm with a strong commercial practice dissects the jurisdictional implications of Sections 232 (1) and

251 (1) (a) of the Constitution over disputes arising from the subject matters of the “Revenue of the Federation” and the “Revenue of the Government of the Federation,” having regard to the constitutional distinction between the two concepts, which are worlds apart.

“Guided by the principle of the common good, the revenue of the Federation is held in trust for the collective benefit of all its constituent units, such that each federating unit is entitled to benefit therefrom in furtherance of the overall welfare of the Federation.

Consequently, any dispute between the Federation and a State or States, or between States, touching on the subject matter of the revenue of the Federation, whether involving questions of law, fact, or mixed law and fact, falls, in the ordinary course, within the jurisdiction of a policy-making court,” the article posits.

The article further cites A.G. of Kaduna State & Ors. v. A.G. of the Federation & Ors. (2023) LPELR-59936(SC), in which, while construing the scope and purport of section 232(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court.

Further buttressing this position, the article argues that Section 232(1) of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between the Federation and the States, irrespective of subject matter, so long as legal rights are in issue.