Nigeria: Jonathan VS N/Assembly - Supreme Court Halts Constitution Review
In a ruling, a seven-man panel of justices of the apex court, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, ordered the lawmakers to maintain status quo on the matter until June 18.
The ruling by the Supreme Court follows reservations by the legislators on the president's veto of the alterations in which he said the National Assembly overreached itself in the alterations.
The Senate had in response to the President's action demanded that the President return the original bill including the signature page on it. The Senate move was in response to assertions by the lawmakers that the President had actually signed the bill but reversed himself subsequently.
While Prof. Itse Sagay, SAN, expressed bewilderment over the ruling, another senior lawyer, Emeka Ngige, SAN, and a former lawmaker, Dr. Junaid Mohammmed faulted the National Assembly for overreaching itself in the proposed amendments.
President Jonathan had through the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, prayed the Supreme Court to issue an order of interlocutory injunction against both chambers of the National Assembly.
Stop NASS from taking further steps -- AGF
He urged the court to stop the federal lawmakers from taking any step towards passing the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Act, 2015, into law, until hearing and final determination of the suit.
The suit was filed pursuant to Order 3, Rule 14 of the Supreme Court Rules as amended.
The AGF told the apex court that the NASS was determined to proceed with passing the constitution by overriding the veto of same by President Jonathan, despite the fundamental nature of the issues raised against the proposed alterations to the constitution.
Adoke argued that it would be in the interest of the whole Nigerian polity that the issues in the substantive suit be resolved one way or the other by the court before the National Assembly could proceed further on the proposed alterations to the constitution.
NASS shuns suit
Meantime, the NASS shunned the suit, yesterday, as it failed to enter appearance before the court, even though the CJN confirmed that it was duly served with all the originating processes on April 30.
Consequently, the CJN directed the issuance of fresh hearing notice on the respondent (NASS) for it to appear on June 18 to respond to the suit.
Besides, the apex court asked the AGF to prepare to address it on the next adjourned date on the import of the provisions of Section 232 of the 1999 constitution to the suit.
The court noted that going by that section, only the President himself, and not the AGF, has the locus standi to invoke the original jurisdiction of the apex court against the NASS.
The CJN further observed that it was not only the NASS that was involved in the constitution amendment process, adding that though the 36 States of the federation also participated in the exercise, they were not joined as necessary parties to the suit.
According to the CJN, section 232(1) of the constitution conferred the Supreme Court with the original jurisdiction over any dispute between the NASS and the President. He said that the president ought to have been the one that filed the suit and not the AGF.
However, counsel to the AGF, Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN, insisted that the suit was properly instituted. Ojo argued that the AGF, being the Chief law Officer of the state, has the right to file the action on behalf of the President.
His submissions did not persuade the CJN who still maintained that some of the necessary parties were not joined in the matter.
Justice Mohammed pointed out that the AGF would only have the right to litigate for the President when the dispute is between the federal and state governments.
Take a second look at the case -- CJN
"I will give you time to go back and look at this case again. We have to make sure that the proper parties are before the court before we proceed to making any order or pronouncement. You need to look at the totality of the originating processes.
"We will adjourn to give the plaintiff time to address this court on salient issues surrounding this case, which require to be put into proper perspective.
"Meanwhile, pending the hearing of the parties on June 18, status quo should be maintained. In other words, no step should be taken with regard to the subject matter of the suit by either the respondent or the plaintiff", the CJN held.
Other Justices on the panel, yesterday, included Justices Sulaiman Galadima, Olukayode Ariwoola, Bode Rhodes-Vivour, Kumai Bayang Akaahs, John Inyang Okoro and Centus Nweze.
The suit by FG
It will be recalled that FG had asked the apex court to nullify all the proposed amendments to the 1999 constitution.
In its originating summons, it prayed the Supreme Court to declare as unconstitutional, the amendments as proposed by the lawmakers.
Specifically, FG urged the court to set aside sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, purportedly passed by the Defendant.
It contended that the said Fourth Alteration Act 2015, was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths majority of members of the Defendant (National Assembly), and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the extant Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
As a follow up, President Jonathan equally wrote separate letters to the Senate President, David Mark and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, asking them to halt moves by members of the National Assembly to go ahead with the constitution amendment process.
In the letter which was served on them by the AGF, President Jonathan urged them to restrain other federal legislators from tampering with the 1999 constitution, as issues regarding its proposed amendments, are already before the Supreme Court.
More so, the AGF told the apex court that; "Hon. Samson Osagie, Minority Whip of the House of Representatives, said to the whole world at a Press Conference purposely called on the issue in this suit that despite any case filed against the said Act (which actually is a Bill); the National Assembly would go ahead to pass it into law."
The AGF contended that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of resolution of the legal grey areas concerning the proposed constitution amendment, before any further step could be taken on the Bill.
In an affidavit deposed to by one Theophilus Okwute, a lawyer in the chambers of Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN and Co, which was attached to the application, he averred before the apex court thus: "That I listened to Hon. Samson Osagie, the Minority Whip of the House of Representative on the NTA 9 O'clock News on 24/04/2015 when he said that the National Assembly would go ahead to pass the (Fourth Alteration) Act (Bill) 2015 into law despite any Court action because no order had been made against the National Assembly to restrain it from doing so.
"That by that very disposition of the said Hon. Samson Osagie who spoke to the press as a Principal Officer of the Defendant/Respondent, it is clear that the Defendant/Respondent is determined to proceed to pass the Fourth Alteration Act into Law despite the pendency of the substantive suit herein.
"That fundamental questions were raised by the Plaintiff/Applicant on the proposed alterations to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria through the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 which is in issue in this suit.
"That it will be in the larger interest of Nigeria that those issues be resolved before the Defendant/Respondent takes any further step in giving effect to the proposed alterations to the Constitution.
"That with the utterances of Hon. Samson Osagie at the Press Conference earlier alluded to in this affidavit, it is clear that the Defendant is determined to ignore the proceeding before this Honourable Court on the proposed alteration and proceed to give effect to the alterations to the Constitution.
"That the Defendant/Respondent will not lose anything or suffer any prejudice if this application is granted.
"That the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting this application. That the whole Nigerian legal system shall be put into confusion if the Defendant/Respondent proceeds to give effect to the Fourth Alteration Act (Bill) 2015 and this suit succeeds such that the Constitution remain unaltered, meaning that the Act is void and or no effect.
"That the Constitution is the basic law of Nigeria and should only be amended following due process. That it will be in the interest of justice to grant this application", he stated.
Remarkably, the lifespan of the current federal legislature is due to expire on June 6 when the 8th NASS will assume office.
Prof. Sagay, Mr. Ngige and Dr. Mohammed reacted to the development, yesterday. The National Assembly was yet to react and sources close to the leadership told Vanguard, yesterday, that the body would react formally next week after consultations between the leadership of the two houses.
The adjournment is very strange --Sagay
Constitutional lawyer, Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, said he was puzzled at the ruling of the Supreme Court on Constitutional Amendment.
Sagay said: "It was an ex parte ruling. That is a very strange adjournment, is it that the Supreme Court was not aware of the expiration of the current session of the National Assembly? I do not know the answer to that because by then the president-elect, would have assumed office. In any case, he is not the one who brought the action. Both President Goodluck Jonathan and the National Assembly are involved in the suits. All I can say is that I am puzzled."
It's sad the exercise ended this way --Ngige
Also speaking, Chief Emeka Ngige ,SAN, said: "The implication is that the President and the National Assembly would have been out of office when the hearing will come up. The exercise would have become dead technically speaking. I would have preferred a situation where the hearing will come up earlier than May 29. I would have loved to see the time for the hearing abridged. Being the appellate court, I believe the Supreme Court has enough facts that informed its decision. They must have based the decision on peculiar findings. It is unfortunate that the constitution amendment exercise is ending this way.
"I put the blame on the National Assembly. Some of the provisions in the bill forwarded to the President were clearly unacceptable. I have never seen a bill where the constitutional powers given to the person that would assent to it, are removed. The National Assembly caused the trouble. What they have done is outrageous and obnoxious. You can imagine approving life pension and severance package for the Senate President and Speaker. That is not right. The approval of immunity clause for the legislators for whatever reason is wrong when there is a law that gives them immunity for whatever they say on the floor of the House.
"Splitting the office of the Attorney General of Federation and the Ministry of Justice is also wrong for whatever reasons. The National Assembly was very much unreasonable in some of these recommendations. That is why I am supporting Jonathan on this for going to court to override their veto power. He was right by not assenting to the bill. However, I would have preferred the argument taken before May 29. That would have augured well for our democracy an jurisprudence."
NASS wants to circumvent sections of the constitution -- Mohammed
In his reaction, Second Republic lawmaker, Dr Junaid Mohammed said: "I have never had any doubt in my mind about the illegality the National Assembly, especially what the Senate was trying to do. All they were trying to do is to circumvent specific provisions of the Constitution.
"What the National Assembly is trying to do with this constitutional amendment is purely political because it is evident they are trying to achieve certain political gains from it and they have finally failed now.
"In other countries of the world, constitution amendment is not this simple and what we have seen can only happen in Nigeria and this is traumatic. What some of them could not achieve at the National Conference is what they are trying to achieve with this constitutional amendment.
"Part of their plan for the constitutional amendment was to get Jonathan elected for second term and create more states but all seems to have failed. I can tell you that such amendments will always fail even at the court."
Prince Nwafor Orizu:
The National Assembly has constitutional power to alter the constitution subject to it following the due process and any person not satisfied with the action of the National Assembly can react by going through his or her elected representative.
Given that a new government is about to take office, it is better to leave the issue of the constitution amendment to the next legislature."
The amendment of the constitution should not be done in a hurry, it should be the process of deep cogitation.
Comments
Post a Comment