Election Sequence: AGF Malami Appears in Court, Says Nat. Assembly' Intimidation of Judiciary Unfortunate

Image result for Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami






The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami SAN on Tuesday commenced legal battle in the electoral Amendment Bill suit with a swipe on the National Assembly, accusing the legislature of threatening and intimidating the judiciary.

The AGF, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit, lamented what he described as constitutional colouration being attached to the suit, adding that it underscores why he was physically in court to respond to the suit.

Only last week, Justice Ahmed Mohammed had in a ruling restrained the National Assembly from vetoing President Mohammadu Buhari's refusal to assent to the amended Electoral Bill, 2018.

The order was sequel to an oral application for interlocutory injunction argued by plaintiff's  (Accord Party) counsel, Wole Olanipekun SAN.

Justice Mohammed in granting the preservative order specifically ordered the defendants to maintain status quo ante belum pending the next adjourned 20, March, 2018 (yesterday).

But the National Assembly at its proceedings last, saw the court's decision as infringement on it's constitutional duty and moved to report the matter to the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

Speaking at the proceedings yesterday, Malami, who earlier aligned with the position of his colleagues on the need to accord importance to the matter, accused the National Assembly of intimidating and threatening the judiciary.

He said, he was disturbed by the 1st defendant's comment that the judiciary is in the eyes of the storm when it is actually the judiciary that is being threatened and intimidated by other arms of government.


"I have to state that threats and intimidation by one arm of government to another concerning this matter serves as unfortunate.

" We have a collective duty to support the entrenchment of the principle of separation of powers and in support of the judiciary in the discharge of its duty.

"The independence of the judiciary is a constitutional guaranteed and we must work hard to ensure that independence is sustained," he said.

Earlier, plaintiff counsel, Wole Olanipekun SAN, told the court that owing to the importance and urgency of the suit, parties have agreed to move straight into the subject matter of the originating summons.

He then asked the court for a short adjournment to enable parties respond to his brief of argument filed on 19th March 2018.

He noted that since the plaintiff's request for an order of court restraining the 1st defendant from taking any step that would affect the res of litigation was granted by the court, the issue has continued to generate interest.

"Unfortunately, this has been misinterpreted in differs quarters, including the 1st defendant that the court made an order preventing the 1st defendant from carrying out its legislative duties", he said.

The senior advocate was of the opinion that parties should be properly guided so that the subject matter of litigation would not be hijacked from the court.

Counsel to the 1st defendant, Joseph Daudu SAN, responding, stressed that the matter, which is already a thing of international discuss is capable of defining the well-being of the country's democracy, adding that the suit has again placed the judiciary in the eyes of the Storm.

He therefore urged the court to give the matter the seriousness and speed it deserves.

On his part, counsel to the 3rd defendant ( Independent National Electoral Commission), Femi Falana SAN, however urged the court to ignore the issue of threat and other comments made outside the court in order to avoid been drawn into unnecessary controversy.

He also urged the court not to shut out the motion of the Action Peoples Party seeking to be joined in the matter so that the court would not be accused of intimidation.

Earlier, at the resumed hearing, one  Okere Kingdom had announced appearance as counsel for the Action Peoples Party to be joined as fourth defendant.

His application was initially objected to by the plaintiff and other defendants, however, Justice Mohammed in a brief ruling held that the motion should be heard.

Kingdom, in arguing the motion said, his client as a registered political party would be affected one way or the order by the court's decision.

The applicant, in a 17 paragraph affidavit claimed that the subject matter of litigation would affect its chances during elections.

But the plaintiff and 1st to 3rd defendants however urged the court to dismiss the application on the grounds that it was defective and not in compliance with the rules of the court.

Delivering ruling, Justice Mohammed agreed with the aubmissions od both the plaintiff and 1st to 3rd defendants and consequently dismissed the application.

He held that the 1st defendant is competent in defending the suit and does not need to be joined by any party.

Justice Mohammed further ruled that the mere fact that the applicant is a political party does not qualify it to be joined in the suit.

He however, gave the other defendants two days to file their responses, while the plaintiff had Friday to reply.

The judge consequently adjourned till Monday 26 for hearing on the substantive suit.

It would be recalled that the action party had dragged the National Assembly, AGF and INEC to court, after the president refused to assent to the amended electoral bill, 2018.

The party had expressed fears that the legislature with regards to its legislative powers can veto the president assent and pass the bill to law.

The plaintiff in an oral application moved by its counsel therefore asked the court for a preservative order to stop the legislature from vetoing the president pending the hearing and determination of its substantive suit m

Justice Mohammed who granted the preservative order specifically ordered the defendants to maintain status quo ante belum pending the next adjourned date fixed for Tuesday 20, March, 2018.

The judge ruled that there was need to preserve the res of the matter.

"In view of the provisions of section 58, subsection 5 of the 1999 constitution which empowers the National Assembly to veto the president withholding of his assent by a two-third majority votes, the court is simply to preserve the rest in other to safeguard the integrity of the court and the sanctity of the judiciary under section 6 (6) of the 1999 constitution.

" The parties are therefore ordered to maintain status quo ante belum between now and the next adjourned date. Hearing notice are to be served on the second defendant who is absent in court ", he ruled.

In the motion filed pursuant to order 26, rules 1,2$3 and order 18, rule 1 of the Federal High Court, the plaintiff prayed for an interlocutory injunction restraining the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from assenting to the Electoral Act amendment bill, 2018 as passed by the first defendant, pending the final determination of the substantive originating summons.

Secondly the plaintiff had sought a further order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st defendant (National Assembly) from taking any further action or actions on the bill titled, 'Electoral Act amendment bill, 2018, particularly, to convene to pass the said bill by two-third majority of each of its two Chambers, pending the final determination of the substantive originating summons.

In the Originating Summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/232/2018, the plaintiff 8 issues for determination by the court, including : Having regards to the combined provisions of sections 79,116,118,132,153,160(1) and 178 of the 1999 constitution as amended, the constitution read together with paragraph 15(a) of the third schedule to the same constitution, whether the 3rd defendant ( Independent National Electoral Commission) is not the only institution or body constitutionally vested with the powers and vires to organized, undertake and supervised elections to the offices of the president, the vice president of the federal republic of Nigeria, the Governor and deputy governor of a state, the membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly of each state of the federation, including fixing the sequence and dates of the elections to the said offices?.

Part of the relief sought by the plaintiff include an Order setting aside clause 25 of the Electoral Amendment Bill, 2018

An order of perpetual injunction restraining :

The President of the Fedral Republic of Nigeria, represented by the second defendant, from assenting to the electoral act amendment bill, 2018 as passed by the first defendant.

The first defendant from passing into law, by a two third majority, or any majority at all the said bill as already passed by it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Drug Insecurity: House Urges FG to Fund Indigenous Drug Research

Population of Doctors in Nigeria Hits 74,543

Environmental Groups Want Agip to Clean Bayelsa Oil Spill Site