Electoral Act: Supreme Court joins Rivers AG, Speaker in Buhari, Malami’s suit… The Kayode Ajul’s angle
The Supreme Court has granted the request by the Rivers State Attorney General and the Speaker of the state’s House of Assembly to be made defendants in the suit by President Muhammadu Buhari and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, seeking to void Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act 2022.
A seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Musa Dattijo Mohammed granted the application for joinder filed by the Rivers’ officials,
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) and the counsel to the National Assembly (earlier listed as the sole defendant), Kayode Ajulo.
After ordering parties to file and exchange all necessary processes on or before next Wednesday, the Supreme Court adjourned till Thursday for a hearing of the case.
Before then, the National Assembly asked the court to decline jurisdiction over the case on the grounds that it was wrongly instituted.
Lawyer to the Rivers AG and Speaker (now the 2nd and 3rd defendants) Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) said their clients believe they needed to be made parties in the case because they would be affected one way or the other by its outcome.
The Rivers AG and Speaker stated, in their supporting affidavit, that the suit relates to the issue of validity and constitutionality of the provisions of section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 and its applicability throughout the federation .
Their affidavit partly reads: ”The Rivers State House of Assembly, which sought to be joined as the 2nd defendant, as represented by its Speaker the Legislative Assembly for Rivers State of Nigeria recognized under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended and vested with the Iegislative competence to enact make laws for the order and good government of Rivers State of Nigeria including laws for elections to a local government council, but which laws must not be inconsistent with any law made by the National Assembly, like the Electoral Act 2022.
”Any decision rendered by this court in respect of the subject matter of this suit will certainly affect the legal rights of the Rivers State House of Assembly and impinge upon its legislative powers to make laws in addition ta but not inconsistent with section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 enacted by the National Assembly and applicable in Rivers State and will affect the scope of its authority to make laws as conferred on it by Section 7 and item E. 12 of the Concurrent Legislative List of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
”Attorney General of Rivers State sought to be joined as the 3rd defendant in this suit is the Chief Law Officer of Rivers State vested with the responsibility of representing the Rivers State of Nigeria in legal matters including in the coordination, implementation and enforcement of the laws of the state for the order and good government of the Rivers State of Nigeria.
”State is constitutionally bound to be governed democratically in accordance with the letters and spirit of the Constitution.
”The applicants/parties seeking to be joined are persons or entities bound by the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended and the Electoral Act 2022 and therefore proper or necessary parties entitled to be joined as defendants to this suit so as to be heard in the exercise of their constitutional right of fair hearing in respect of the subject matter of this suit whose outcome is likely to affect their legal rights and obligations.”
But in a notice of preliminary objection by Ajulo, the National Assembly contended that the case was filed in “flagrant violation of Section 1(1)(A) of the Supreme Court Act.”
It argued that the suit as presently constituted neither discloses nor raises the existence of any dispute which may warrant the original jurisdiction of this court as mandated by provisions of the Supreme Court Act 2002.
It added : “The 1st plaintiff (Mr Buhari), having conclusively discharged his duty under the constitution and as such there is no basis to attempt to undo that which he has done in exercise of his powers.
“The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be invoked to amend the provision of any law validly made by the National Assembly in the exercise of the legislative powers granted it by the constitution.”
Grounds of objections by the National Assembly as put forward by its counsel, Kayode Ajulo, are as follow
1)The claims or the issues submitted are mere opinion seeking which the Supreme court has no jurisdiction to give.
2)The claims having regards to the standing of the plaintiffs on the facts is hypothetical as no benefit is accruable to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
4)The President as an individual cannot invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme court to ventilate personal grievance of political appointees.
5)Neither the President nor the Attorney General of the Federation can invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme court to ventilate personal
grievances in Repesentative capacity or as agent of the aggrieved persons
6. The principle of estoppel applied to restrain tbe President
having signed the Bill Into Act apart from the fact he had become functius officio as President in his official duty of giving assent .
7) The case is an abuse of the court process the Hon Attorney General of Federation is presumed to know the law.
