President
Muhammadu Buhari and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), yesterday
told a Federal High Court in Enugu that they were not opposed to the suit
challenging the attempt by the National Assembly to re-order the sequence of
the 2019 elections through amendment of the Electoral Act.
The
Solicitor General of the Federation and Permanent Secretary of Federal Ministry
of Justice, Dayo Akpata, made the position of both parties known at the hearing
of the suit brought before the court by a chieftain of the All Progressives
Congress (APC) in Enugu State, Chief
Anike Nwoga.
The suit has
the National Assembly and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
as the first and second defendants while President Buhari and AGF are third and
fourth respondents respectively.
Addressing
the court presided over by Justice A.M. Liman, Akpata, Akpata explained that by
virtue of Section 4 Subsection 8 of the Nigerian constitution, the court has
jurisdiction to entertain the matter, adding that the exercise of legislative
powers of the National must be subject to review by the court.
Citing
relevant cases including Habib vs. AGF, AGF vs. ANPP and Attorney General of
Bendel State vs. Attorney General of the Federation, Akpata argued that if in
the exercise of legislative powers conferred on the National Assembly by the
constitution, there was a defect, as to say that “a bill is not passed
according to the law, the bill is null and void.”
He
maintained that the Supreme Court could legislate on this issue, which
constitutes a limitation to legislative powers.
On whether
the plaintiff (Nwoga) has the locus standi to institute the suit, Akpata made
it clear that every citizen of the country has the right of access to justice
when there was a breach of the constitution. He also drew attention of the court
to the fact that the affidavit filed by the plaintiff has not been
controverted.
On whether
the subject matter was still a life issue, since it may have been overtaken by
events, Akpata said, “the case of Amechi vs. Omehia makes it clear that
constitutional issue can never be termed an academic exercise.”
Buttressing
his argument with the case of CBN vs. Oladele Amao, he said a declaration could
be made even where a matter has been rendered dead, if the issue in question
has to do with the constitution. Akpata added that the recent decision of the
Abuja Federal High Court also looked at the same issues.
Making
submissions earlier, counsel to the plaintiff, Godwin Onwusi, urged the court
to grant the five reliefs sought by his client.
Onwusi asked
the court to determine whether the National Assembly has the powers to compel
INEC to conduct election in a particular sequence and even if they could,
whether they could by law change the timetable already released by the
electoral body before the passage of the bill.
The
plaintiff counsel argued that case laws show that the National Assembly do not
have such powers, as the powers given to INEC to supervise, conduct and
organize elections is not subject to control by either the executive or the
legislative arms of government.
Making his
own submission, counsel to INEC, the second respondent, Chineme Onuoma, said
the commission was neither opposed nor in support of the suit.
The National
Assembly was however not represented in court and did not file any documents.
After
listening to the submissions of the parties in court, Justice Liman reserved
judgment for May 18.
0 Comments