Judiciary
PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF)/Justice Minister Abubakar Malami (SAN) yesterday lost the battle to void provisions of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022.
The Supreme Court struck out the suit in which the applicants challenged that section of the Act on the grounds that it violates the rights of political appointees.
The section reads: “No political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election.”
The House of Representatives and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, hailed the verdict of the apex court.
The House said it expected nothing less than the decision while Atiku said the ruling is a further testimony to the independence of the judiciary.
In its unanimous ruling, a seven-member panel of the apex court, headed by Justice Musa Dattijo Mohammed, held that Buhari, having participated in the making of the law by assenting to it, could not turn around to fault its provisions.
The court upheld all the grounds of objection raised by the National Assembly through its lawyer, Dr. Olukayode Ajulo, against the competence of the suit marked: SC/504/2022.
The President and the AGF had argued, among others, that Section 84(12) of the EA was made in excess of the constitutional powers of the National Assembly and therefore, unconstitutional and illegal.
The Supreme Court held that the suit was not one of such cases in respect of which the court’s original and additional jurisdictions could be invoked under Section 23(2)(1) of the Constitution and Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act 2002.
The court faulted the plaintiffs’ argument that the suit was informed by the National Assembly’s failure to give effect to President Buhari’s request that Section 84(12) of the EA be deleted for allegedly offending the provisions of the Constitution.
The apex court held that the President lacked the constitutional or legal rights or power to request or compel the National Assembly to amend or make an Act.
Justice Emmanuel Agim who read the lead judgment noted that the suit touched on the essence of the powers given to the President by Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution, which he exercised by participating in the making of the E. A. 2022.
Justice Agim held that since the President aided the creation of the Act with the support of the AGF, both plaintiffs could not turn around to query its legality.
He added: “The Constitution did not provide for the involvement of the court by the President after exercising his powers under Section 58(4) of the Constitution one way or the other.
“I agree with the argument by the counsel to the first defendant (Ajulo) that this suit is a reprobation of what the first plaintiff (the President) had approbated, and this cannot be allowed in law.
“Having assented to the Electoral Bill 2022 and thereby accepted that it has become law, he cannot therefore bring a suit, contending that the act resulting from his assent is not constitutional, desirable and justifiable, thereby retracting from his assent.
“As it is, one of the cumulative requirements in Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act 2002 for the invocation of the additional jurisdiction of this court to entertain an originating suit between the President and the National Assembly does not exist.
“The plaintiffs have no legally enforceable legal right or power that gives life to questions raised for determination in the originating summons, and that can be protected or enforced by the reliefs claimed for.
“The dispute in this case does not involve any question or include the existence or extent of any legal right to the plaintiffs. Therefore, this suit cannot be entertained by this court in the exercise of its additional jurisdiction under Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act 2002.
“Even the original jurisdiction vested in this court by Section 23(2)(1) of the 1999 Constitution to determine disputes between the federation and the state or between states cannot be invoked unless the dispute involves any question on which the existence of a legal right depends.
“There is no part of the Constitution that makes the exercise of the legislative power of the National Assembly subject to the direction and control of the President of Nigeria.
“The first plaintiff’s (the President’s) written request to the National Assembly to amend the Electoral Act 2022 by deleting Section 84(12) therein, is a violation of Section 4(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
“This suit, which was filed in response to the refusal of the National Assembly to grant the said request, is an employment of the judicial process to help realise the said violation.
“The court cannot be engaged in this kind of unconstitutional and illegal enterprise. The suit is therefore an abuse of the judicial process,” Justice Agim said.
He further held that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and added that there was no useful purpose to be served by determining the case on the merit.
Other members of the panel – Justices John Okoro, Amina Augie, Mohammed Garba, Abdu Aboki and Ibrahim Saulawa – agreed with the lead judgment.
Reps hail judgment, says it expected nothing less
The House of Representatives applauded the Supreme Court for the judgment.
Spokesman of the House, Benjamin Kalu, told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Abuja that the Green Chamber was happy with the Supreme Court judgment, adding that the House was not expecting anything less because the judges are erudite scholars.
“These are people who have followed the trend of event and understand the separation of power and the mandate of each arm of government,” Kalu said.
“They understand that the separation of power is one of the tools of democracy and each arm focuses on the responsibilities of their mandate,” he said.
He said that the mandate of the House was law making with the intention of breaching a gap created in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that was not captured.
He said that the House of Reps could only do this by looking at Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Amendment Act.
“Although, many of you thought that it was either self-serving or targeted at individual, the law is made to advance our democracy, especially to increase the competitive elements in our democracy for credible election.’’
He added that the competitive element was necessary to advance the country’s democracy.
“This judgment is unequivocally embracing and heart-warming. It is not a victory for the House of Reps but victory for the advancement of our democracy and the rule of law.
He described the judgment as victory for the supremacy of law making and the National Assembly.
“Let us celebrate this victory. The judiciary has added its own quota to the advancement of democracy, the Electoral Act, nation building is a joint task,” he said.
Atiku: It’s a commendable decision
The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, in his own reaction, described the judgment as commendable.
Writing on his Twitter handle, the former vice president said: “The ruling of the Supreme Court on Section 84 (12) is commendable.
“It affirms my position of the independence of the judiciary and the other arms of government, namely the legislature and the executive, which is the bedrock for the development of any nation.”
The Nation.
– June 25, 2022 @ 09:18 GMT | AI.
Tags: Alhaji Atiku Abubakar Dr. Olukayode Ajulo Peoples Democratic Party President Muhammadu Buhari ustice Minister Abubakar Malami
