•Ruling won’t stop us from amending Act says Senate 

•House shuns president’s request, says it will obey order

Deji Elumoye, Sunday Aborisade, and Udora Orizu in Abuja

Despite the ruling by a Federal High Court in Abuja, that temporarily restrained members of the National Assembly from deleting or taking any further steps regarding Section 84 (12) in the constitution, President Muhammadu Buhari has written to the House of Representatives seeking removal of that part of the constitution which mandates government appointees to resign their positions three months ahead of primary elections of political parties in the newly signed Electoral Act 2022.

Even as observers question whether a court of law can stop the National Assembly from performing its lawful duty of law making. “One arm of government cannot stop the other  from performing its constitutional role. There is clear separation of powers  as spelt out in the constitution,” an observer pointed out to THISDAY yesterday night. “It a judicial overreach, the court has no power to stop the legislators from amending the and law. The role of the court is to interpret the law,” he further stated.

But the House of Representatives has promised to obey court order. The spokesman of the House, Hon. Benjamin Kalu (APC, Abia) made this known while briefing journalists after plenary.

THISDAY recently reported that there were strong indications that the leadership of the House of Representatives had initiated back channel moves to block the deletion of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022, despite the commitments made to Buhari by the federal lawmakers in an executive-legislative deal.

It was gathered that after Buhari signed the new law, Speaker, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila had been bowing to pressure from some presidential aspirants to block it.

“We heard that Gbajabiamila wants to be Governor of Lagos State. So, they don’t want to delete the controversial section from the Act. So, while the Senate is considering deleting it, the House may block it,” the source had explained.

However, the President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan, declared yesterday that the court ruling won’t stop the National Assembly from amending the legislation.

On Monday, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court Abuja delivering ruling in an ex parte application brought by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the legality of the National Assembly’s decision to amend the bill, temporarily restrained the lawmakers from deleting or taking any further steps regarding the section.

However, Gbajabiamila at yesterday’s plenary, asked the House to consider deleting Section 84 (12), stating that it would be stretching matters beyond the constitutional limit to import extraneous restrictions into the constitution, where political parties’ conventions and congresses were to hold earlier than 30 days to the election.

 The letter read in part: “I write with reference to the recent assent to the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2022, and to draw your kind attention to some salient issues contained in the Act and to seek your immediate legislative action thereon.

“I have carefully studied the content of the recently assented Electoral Act (Amendment), 2022; I must admit that there are positive provisions that could revolutionise election process in Nigeria, particularly, through the introduction of new technological innovations that will in turn guarantee the constitutional rights of citizens to vote and to do so effectively.

“The recently assented Electoral Act has improved and engendered clarity, effectiveness and transparency of the election process, as well as reduced to the barest minimum incidences of acrimony arising from dissatisfied candidates and political parties.”

It stated further: “I, therefore, commend the legislative wisdom of the National Assembly, which is in line with our policy to bequeath Nigerians and posterity a landmark legal framework that paves the way for credible electoral process that we would all be proud of.

“Honourable Speaker, I, however, will want to kindly draw your attention to the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Act, which I believe, constitutes a fundamental defect, as it is in direct conflict with extant constitutional provisions.”

The letter further read: “Section 84 (12) of the Act constitutes a disenfranchisement of serving political office holders from voting or being voted for at conventions or congresses of any political party, for the purpose of nomination of candidates for any election in cases where it holds earlier than 30 days to the Election. Section 84(12) of the Act provides as follows: ‘No political appointee at any level shall be 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 practical application of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, (Amendment) 2022 is to subject serving political office holders to inhibitions and restrictions referred to under Sections 40 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“It is imperative to note that the only constitutional expectation placed on serving political office holders that qualify, by extension as public officers within the context of the Constitution is resignation, withdrawal, or retirement at least 30 days before the date of the election, as provided in Section 66(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), among others. Arising from the foregoing, I request the National Assembly to consider immediate amendments that will bring the Act in conformity with the constitution by way of deleting Section 84(12) accordingly.”

Shortly after reading the letter, Gbajabiamila was of the view that the controversial section was being misunderstood.

He, however, said Buhari’s request would be sent to the appropriate committee to look at it.

Raising a point of order, a member Hon. Herman Hembe (APC, Benue) reminded the Speaker of the existing Court Order barring them from amending the Act

In his response, Gbajabiamila said he was aware of the court injunction, however he’s obligated to read the President’s letter.

He said, “I’m aware of the court process that was served on us, I’m aware of the injunction but I’m still obligated to read the President’s communication.”

House to Obey Court Order

The House of Representatives has promised to obey court order.

Spokesman of the House, Hon. Benjamin Kalu (APC, Abia), who briefed journalists, hinged the Green Chamber’s decision to obey the court injunction on the principle of separation of powers.

According to him, if the Executive didn’t want that 84 (12), it falls on them to seek the attention of court for the removal of the injunction, before the legislature would be allowed to touch it.

Kalu said: “In line with our rules, when such communication comes to the House and it has to do with a particular committee, the clerk of the house will refer it to the relevant committees.

“In this case in course of transmitting it to the committee, a court injunction comes by law, until the injunction is vacated, we are not expected to do anything on that.

“We have the executive wanting something from the legislature, the legislature weighing to look into it and the judiciary saying we should stay clear.

“If the Executive didn’t want that 84 (12), it falls on them to seek the attention of court for the removal of that injunction. Before the legislature will be allowed to touch it. That’s the position of our laws and we will respect the law.

“We will not abuse the principles of rule of law or separation of power. We will make sure that what the court has asked us to do we will comply. To do otherwise is to play within the arena of contempt of court.”

 Senate: Court Ruling Won’t Stop Us from Amending Section 84 (12)

However, Lawan, declared yesterday that the court ruling won’t stop the National Assembly from amending the legislation.

The Senate President who was reacting to the ruling by the Federal High Court, said this after the Electoral Act Amendment Bill scaled first reading during plenary.

He said the court order violated the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended) on Separation of Powers.

Lawan said, “I find it necessary to talk to this at this point, because our governance system is based on the Presidential system of government where there is clear cut separation and exercise of powers.

“The Judiciary, under no circumstance cannot stop the National Assembly from performing its legislative duties.

“We know what our due processes are, just like we wouldn’t venture into what the Judiciary does, it should also understand that we have our processes.

“If the President writes to the National Assembly to request for an amendment, that is within his competence, and it is for the National Assembly to decide whether it agrees with the request of Mr. President or not.

“To say that we cannot consider it, is to ask for what is not there to be given. I believe that Members of this National Assembly know their work and will do what is right.

“This is due process, we are not doing anything outside of the law, whether it is Mr. President or any Nigerian who feels very strongly about an amendment, this National Assembly is ready to take in and consider.

“It is within our exclusive right to consider whatever request we receive from Nigerians, whether through the Executive arm of government or through our colleagues – private members’ bill.”

A Peoples Democratic Party member representing Benue North East, Senator Gabriel Suswam, agreed that the Court could not stop the National Assembly from making laws.

Suswan however said it was beyond the powers of Buhari to interpret the laws made by the parliament.

He maintained that only the court could interpret laws made by the National Assembly.

The Senator said, “I agree with what you (Lawan) have said, the court cannot stop us from making laws. The problem with the letter sent to us by the President was that there is a part of it that interpreted the law we made.

“I think that is the only part that the court can act on, because he (President Buhari) said that the law we (National Assembly) made is ultra vires the Constitution, which is not his responsibility, and, I think, to that extent, the court can comment on that and not on the fact that we are making laws,” he said.

But former Deputy President of the Senate who is currently representing Enugu West in the upper chamber, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, cautioned Lawan against disobeying court order.

He maintained that doing so would be an invitation to anarchy.

He cited Order 52(5) of the Senate Standing Order, and called on the red chamber to abide by the court ruling.

Ekweremadu said, “When we were waiting for the President to assent to the Electoral Act, some of us made a suggestion we believed would help, namely that the President would sign and then we would commit ourselves to amending that section.

“Mr. President, I also offered to help in redrafting it, now we have a situation where they’ve told us there’s a Judicial restriction on us to do that.

“Mr. (Senate) President, I agree with you entirely, but the principle as all the lawyers here know, is that if there is a court order, no matter how wrong it is, our responsibility as individuals and citizens is to respect it.

“The argument you have raised is what we are going to raise in response.”

The Senate President, while ruling to the Order raised by Ekweremadu, said, “this has nothing to do what happens in the court.”

Ekweremadu, however, advised the National Assembly to discharge the court order.

He said, “I think the argument you’ve raised is valid, but this point is what we have to present in court to discharge that order.

“We cannot sit and appeal on a matter that has already been given an order in court. I think we should exercise caution in siting a judgment over a matter that an order has been given.

“What we should do is to brief our lawyers to go and discharge the order, instead of sitting here and disobeying court order, is is not good for us and our system, that is calling for anarchy.”

Responding to Ekweremadu, the Senate President said, “my opinion about anarchy is when either arm of government decides to go into the exclusive preserve of the other.”

He said, “If the Judiciary wants to come into the Legislature to decide when we sit and when we don’t, then that’s anarchy.

“If the Judiciary would simply say we are not to consider this and that, and we obey those kind of rulings, that is anarchy, because it is emasculating the legislature and that is not supposed to be.

“We will continue with what we are supposed to do because that is our calling. We are just advising that the Judiciary should please help us develop this democracy, because this arm of government is the least developed and if we allow these kind of rulings, we may end up going back 23 years ago.

“I believe that what we are saying is the same, but we are emphasising that that judicial pronouncement will not stop us from doing what is right and our work here.”

•Ruling won’t stop us from amending Act says Senate 

•House shuns president’s request, says it will obey order

Deji Elumoye, Sunday Aborisade, and Udora Orizu in Abuja

Despite the ruling by a Federal High Court in Abuja, that temporarily restrained members of the National Assembly from deleting or taking any further steps regarding Section 84 (12) in the constitution, President Muhammadu Buhari has written to the House of Representatives seeking removal of that part of the constitution which mandates government appointees to resign their positions three months ahead of primary elections of political parties in the newly signed Electoral Act 2022.

Even as observers question whether a court of law can stop the National Assembly from performing its lawful duty of law making. “One arm of government cannot stop the other  from performing its constitutional role. There is clear separation of powers  as spelt out in the constitution,” an observer pointed out to THISDAY yesterday night. “It a judicial overreach, the court has no power to stop the legislators from amending the and law. The role of the court is to interpret the law,” he further stated.

But the House of Representatives has promised to obey court order. The spokesman of the House, Hon. Benjamin Kalu (APC, Abia) made this known while briefing journalists after plenary.

THISDAY recently reported that there were strong indications that the leadership of the House of Representatives had initiated back channel moves to block the deletion of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022, despite the commitments made to Buhari by the federal lawmakers in an executive-legislative deal.

It was gathered that after Buhari signed the new law, Speaker, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila had been bowing to pressure from some presidential aspirants to block it.

“We heard that Gbajabiamila wants to be Governor of Lagos State. So, they don’t want to delete the controversial section from the Act. So, while the Senate is considering deleting it, the House may block it,” the source had explained.

However, the President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan, declared yesterday that the court ruling won’t stop the National Assembly from amending the legislation.

On Monday, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court Abuja delivering ruling in an ex parte application brought by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the legality of the National Assembly’s decision to amend the bill, temporarily restrained the lawmakers from deleting or taking any further steps regarding the section.

However, Gbajabiamila at yesterday’s plenary, asked the House to consider deleting Section 84 (12), stating that it would be stretching matters beyond the constitutional limit to import extraneous restrictions into the constitution, where political parties’ conventions and congresses were to hold earlier than 30 days to the election.

 The letter read in part: “I write with reference to the recent assent to the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2022, and to draw your kind attention to some salient issues contained in the Act and to seek your immediate legislative action thereon.

“I have carefully studied the content of the recently assented Electoral Act (Amendment), 2022; I must admit that there are positive provisions that could revolutionise election process in Nigeria, particularly, through the introduction of new technological innovations that will in turn guarantee the constitutional rights of citizens to vote and to do so effectively.

“The recently assented Electoral Act has improved and engendered clarity, effectiveness and transparency of the election process, as well as reduced to the barest minimum incidences of acrimony arising from dissatisfied candidates and political parties.”

It stated further: “I, therefore, commend the legislative wisdom of the National Assembly, which is in line with our policy to bequeath Nigerians and posterity a landmark legal framework that paves the way for credible electoral process that we would all be proud of.

“Honourable Speaker, I, however, will want to kindly draw your attention to the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Act, which I believe, constitutes a fundamental defect, as it is in direct conflict with extant constitutional provisions.”

The letter further read: “Section 84 (12) of the Act constitutes a disenfranchisement of serving political office holders from voting or being voted for at conventions or congresses of any political party, for the purpose of nomination of candidates for any election in cases where it holds earlier than 30 days to the Election. Section 84(12) of the Act provides as follows: ‘No political appointee at any level shall be 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 practical application of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, (Amendment) 2022 is to subject serving political office holders to inhibitions and restrictions referred to under Sections 40 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“It is imperative to note that the only constitutional expectation placed on serving political office holders that qualify, by extension as public officers within the context of the Constitution is resignation, withdrawal, or retirement at least 30 days before the date of the election, as provided in Section 66(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), among others. Arising from the foregoing, I request the National Assembly to consider immediate amendments that will bring the Act in conformity with the constitution by way of deleting Section 84(12) accordingly.”

Shortly after reading the letter, Gbajabiamila was of the view that the controversial section was being misunderstood.

He, however, said Buhari’s request would be sent to the appropriate committee to look at it.

Raising a point of order, a member Hon. Herman Hembe (APC, Benue) reminded the Speaker of the existing Court Order barring them from amending the Act

In his response, Gbajabiamila said he was aware of the court injunction, however he’s obligated to read the President’s letter.

He said, “I’m aware of the court process that was served on us, I’m aware of the injunction but I’m still obligated to read the President’s communication.”

House to Obey Court Order

The House of Representatives has promised to obey court order.

Spokesman of the House, Hon. Benjamin Kalu (APC, Abia), who briefed journalists, hinged the Green Chamber’s decision to obey the court injunction on the principle of separation of powers.

According to him, if the Executive didn’t want that 84 (12), it falls on them to seek the attention of court for the removal of the injunction, before the legislature would be allowed to touch it.

Kalu said: “In line with our rules, when such communication comes to the House and it has to do with a particular committee, the clerk of the house will refer it to the relevant committees.

“In this case in course of transmitting it to the committee, a court injunction comes by law, until the injunction is vacated, we are not expected to do anything on that.

“We have the executive wanting something from the legislature, the legislature weighing to look into it and the judiciary saying we should stay clear.

“If the Executive didn’t want that 84 (12), it falls on them to seek the attention of court for the removal of that injunction. Before the legislature will be allowed to touch it. That’s the position of our laws and we will respect the law.

“We will not abuse the principles of rule of law or separation of power. We will make sure that what the court has asked us to do we will comply. To do otherwise is to play within the arena of contempt of court.”

 Senate: Court Ruling Won’t Stop Us from Amending Section 84 (12)

However, Lawan, declared yesterday that the court ruling won’t stop the National Assembly from amending the legislation.

The Senate President who was reacting to the ruling by the Federal High Court, said this after the Electoral Act Amendment Bill scaled first reading during plenary.

He said the court order violated the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended) on Separation of Powers.

Lawan said, “I find it necessary to talk to this at this point, because our governance system is based on the Presidential system of government where there is clear cut separation and exercise of powers.

“The Judiciary, under no circumstance cannot stop the National Assembly from performing its legislative duties.

“We know what our due processes are, just like we wouldn’t venture into what the Judiciary does, it should also understand that we have our processes.

“If the President writes to the National Assembly to request for an amendment, that is within his competence, and it is for the National Assembly to decide whether it agrees with the request of Mr. President or not.

“To say that we cannot consider it, is to ask for what is not there to be given. I believe that Members of this National Assembly know their work and will do what is right.

“This is due process, we are not doing anything outside of the law, whether it is Mr. President or any Nigerian who feels very strongly about an amendment, this National Assembly is ready to take in and consider.

“It is within our exclusive right to consider whatever request we receive from Nigerians, whether through the Executive arm of government or through our colleagues – private members’ bill.”

A Peoples Democratic Party member representing Benue North East, Senator Gabriel Suswam, agreed that the Court could not stop the National Assembly from making laws.

Suswan however said it was beyond the powers of Buhari to interpret the laws made by the parliament.

He maintained that only the court could interpret laws made by the National Assembly.

The Senator said, “I agree with what you (Lawan) have said, the court cannot stop us from making laws. The problem with the letter sent to us by the President was that there is a part of it that interpreted the law we made.

“I think that is the only part that the court can act on, because he (President Buhari) said that the law we (National Assembly) made is ultra vires the Constitution, which is not his responsibility, and, I think, to that extent, the court can comment on that and not on the fact that we are making laws,” he said.

But former Deputy President of the Senate who is currently representing Enugu West in the upper chamber, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, cautioned Lawan against disobeying court order.

He maintained that doing so would be an invitation to anarchy.

He cited Order 52(5) of the Senate Standing Order, and called on the red chamber to abide by the court ruling.

Ekweremadu said, “When we were waiting for the President to assent to the Electoral Act, some of us made a suggestion we believed would help, namely that the President would sign and then we would commit ourselves to amending that section.

“Mr. President, I also offered to help in redrafting it, now we have a situation where they’ve told us there’s a Judicial restriction on us to do that.

“Mr. (Senate) President, I agree with you entirely, but the principle as all the lawyers here know, is that if there is a court order, no matter how wrong it is, our responsibility as individuals and citizens is to respect it.

“The argument you have raised is what we are going to raise in response.”

The Senate President, while ruling to the Order raised by Ekweremadu, said, “this has nothing to do what happens in the court.”

Ekweremadu, however, advised the National Assembly to discharge the court order.

He said, “I think the argument you’ve raised is valid, but this point is what we have to present in court to discharge that order.

“We cannot sit and appeal on a matter that has already been given an order in court. I think we should exercise caution in siting a judgment over a matter that an order has been given.

“What we should do is to brief our lawyers to go and discharge the order, instead of sitting here and disobeying court order, is is not good for us and our system, that is calling for anarchy.”

Responding to Ekweremadu, the Senate President said, “my opinion about anarchy is when either arm of government decides to go into the exclusive preserve of the other.”

He said, “If the Judiciary wants to come into the Legislature to decide when we sit and when we don’t, then that’s anarchy.

“If the Judiciary would simply say we are not to consider this and that, and we obey those kind of rulings, that is anarchy, because it is emasculating the legislature and that is not supposed to be.

“We will continue with what we are supposed to do because that is our calling. We are just advising that the Judiciary should please help us develop this democracy, because this arm of government is the least developed and if we allow these kind of rulings, we may end up going back 23 years ago.

“I believe that what we are saying is the same, but we are emphasising that that judicial pronouncement will not stop us from doing what is right and our work here.”

•Ruling won’t stop us from amending Act says Senate 

•House shuns president’s request, says it will obey order

Deji Elumoye, Sunday Aborisade, and Udora Orizu in Abuja

Despite the ruling by a Federal High Court in Abuja, that temporarily restrained members of the National Assembly from deleting or taking any further steps regarding Section 84 (12) in the constitution, President Muhammadu Buhari has written to the House of Representatives seeking removal of that part of the constitution which mandates government appointees to resign their positions three months ahead of primary elections of political parties in the newly signed Electoral Act 2022.

Even as observers question whether a court of law can stop the National Assembly from performing its lawful duty of law making. “One arm of government cannot stop the other  from performing its constitutional role. There is clear separation of powers  as spelt out in the constitution,” an observer pointed out to THISDAY yesterday night. “It a judicial overreach, the court has no power to stop the legislators from amending the and law. The role of the court is to interpret the law,” he further stated.

But the House of Representatives has promised to obey court order. The spokesman of the House, Hon. Benjamin Kalu (APC, Abia) made this known while briefing journalists after plenary.

THISDAY recently reported that there were strong indications that the leadership of the House of Representatives had initiated back channel moves to block the deletion of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022, despite the commitments made to Buhari by the federal lawmakers in an executive-legislative deal.

It was gathered that after Buhari signed the new law, Speaker, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila had been bowing to pressure from some presidential aspirants to block it.

“We heard that Gbajabiamila wants to be Governor of Lagos State. So, they don’t want to delete the controversial section from the Act. So, while the Senate is considering deleting it, the House may block it,” the source had explained.

However, the President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan, declared yesterday that the court ruling won’t stop the National Assembly from amending the legislation.

On Monday, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court Abuja delivering ruling in an ex parte application brought by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the legality of the National Assembly’s decision to amend the bill, temporarily restrained the lawmakers from deleting or taking any further steps regarding the section.

However, Gbajabiamila at yesterday’s plenary, asked the House to consider deleting Section 84 (12), stating that it would be stretching matters beyond the constitutional limit to import extraneous restrictions into the constitution, where political parties’ conventions and congresses were to hold earlier than 30 days to the election.

 The letter read in part: “I write with reference to the recent assent to the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2022, and to draw your kind attention to some salient issues contained in the Act and to seek your immediate legislative action thereon.

“I have carefully studied the content of the recently assented Electoral Act (Amendment), 2022; I must admit that there are positive provisions that could revolutionise election process in Nigeria, particularly, through the introduction of new technological innovations that will in turn guarantee the constitutional rights of citizens to vote and to do so effectively.

“The recently assented Electoral Act has improved and engendered clarity, effectiveness and transparency of the election process, as well as reduced to the barest minimum incidences of acrimony arising from dissatisfied candidates and political parties.”

It stated further: “I, therefore, commend the legislative wisdom of the National Assembly, which is in line with our policy to bequeath Nigerians and posterity a landmark legal framework that paves the way for credible electoral process that we would all be proud of.

“Honourable Speaker, I, however, will want to kindly draw your attention to the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Act, which I believe, constitutes a fundamental defect, as it is in direct conflict with extant constitutional provisions.”

The letter further read: “Section 84 (12) of the Act constitutes a disenfranchisement of serving political office holders from voting or being voted for at conventions or congresses of any political party, for the purpose of nomination of candidates for any election in cases where it holds earlier than 30 days to the Election. Section 84(12) of the Act provides as follows: ‘No political appointee at any level shall be 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 practical application of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, (Amendment) 2022 is to subject serving political office holders to inhibitions and restrictions referred to under Sections 40 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“It is imperative to note that the only constitutional expectation placed on serving political office holders that qualify, by extension as public officers within the context of the Constitution is resignation, withdrawal, or retirement at least 30 days before the date of the election, as provided in Section 66(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), among others. Arising from the foregoing, I request the National Assembly to consider immediate amendments that will bring the Act in conformity with the constitution by way of deleting Section 84(12) accordingly.”

Shortly after reading the letter, Gbajabiamila was of the view that the controversial section was being misunderstood.

He, however, said Buhari’s request would be sent to the appropriate committee to look at it.

Raising a point of order, a member Hon. Herman Hembe (APC, Benue) reminded the Speaker of the existing Court Order barring them from amending the Act

In his response, Gbajabiamila said he was aware of the court injunction, however he’s obligated to read the President’s letter.

He said, “I’m aware of the court process that was served on us, I’m aware of the injunction but I’m still obligated to read the President’s communication.”

House to Obey Court Order

The House of Representatives has promised to obey court order.

Spokesman of the House, Hon. Benjamin Kalu (APC, Abia), who briefed journalists, hinged the Green Chamber’s decision to obey the court injunction on the principle of separation of powers.

According to him, if the Executive didn’t want that 84 (12), it falls on them to seek the attention of court for the removal of the injunction, before the legislature would be allowed to touch it.

Kalu said: “In line with our rules, when such communication comes to the House and it has to do with a particular committee, the clerk of the house will refer it to the relevant committees.

“In this case in course of transmitting it to the committee, a court injunction comes by law, until the injunction is vacated, we are not expected to do anything on that.

“We have the executive wanting something from the legislature, the legislature weighing to look into it and the judiciary saying we should stay clear.

“If the Executive didn’t want that 84 (12), it falls on them to seek the attention of court for the removal of that injunction. Before the legislature will be allowed to touch it. That’s the position of our laws and we will respect the law.

“We will not abuse the principles of rule of law or separation of power. We will make sure that what the court has asked us to do we will comply. To do otherwise is to play within the arena of contempt of court.”

 Senate: Court Ruling Won’t Stop Us from Amending Section 84 (12)

However, Lawan, declared yesterday that the court ruling won’t stop the National Assembly from amending the legislation.

The Senate President who was reacting to the ruling by the Federal High Court, said this after the Electoral Act Amendment Bill scaled first reading during plenary.

He said the court order violated the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended) on Separation of Powers.

Lawan said, “I find it necessary to talk to this at this point, because our governance system is based on the Presidential system of government where there is clear cut separation and exercise of powers.

“The Judiciary, under no circumstance cannot stop the National Assembly from performing its legislative duties.

“We know what our due processes are, just like we wouldn’t venture into what the Judiciary does, it should also understand that we have our processes.

“If the President writes to the National Assembly to request for an amendment, that is within his competence, and it is for the National Assembly to decide whether it agrees with the request of Mr. President or not.

“To say that we cannot consider it, is to ask for what is not there to be given. I believe that Members of this National Assembly know their work and will do what is right.

“This is due process, we are not doing anything outside of the law, whether it is Mr. President or any Nigerian who feels very strongly about an amendment, this National Assembly is ready to take in and consider.

“It is within our exclusive right to consider whatever request we receive from Nigerians, whether through the Executive arm of government or through our colleagues – private members’ bill.”

A Peoples Democratic Party member representing Benue North East, Senator Gabriel Suswam, agreed that the Court could not stop the National Assembly from making laws.

Suswan however said it was beyond the powers of Buhari to interpret the laws made by the parliament.

He maintained that only the court could interpret laws made by the National Assembly.

The Senator said, “I agree with what you (Lawan) have said, the court cannot stop us from making laws. The problem with the letter sent to us by the President was that there is a part of it that interpreted the law we made.

“I think that is the only part that the court can act on, because he (President Buhari) said that the law we (National Assembly) made is ultra vires the Constitution, which is not his responsibility, and, I think, to that extent, the court can comment on that and not on the fact that we are making laws,” he said.

But former Deputy President of the Senate who is currently representing Enugu West in the upper chamber, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, cautioned Lawan against disobeying court order.

He maintained that doing so would be an invitation to anarchy.

He cited Order 52(5) of the Senate Standing Order, and called on the red chamber to abide by the court ruling.

Ekweremadu said, “When we were waiting for the President to assent to the Electoral Act, some of us made a suggestion we believed would help, namely that the President would sign and then we would commit ourselves to amending that section.

“Mr. President, I also offered to help in redrafting it, now we have a situation where they’ve told us there’s a Judicial restriction on us to do that.

“Mr. (Senate) President, I agree with you entirely, but the principle as all the lawyers here know, is that if there is a court order, no matter how wrong it is, our responsibility as individuals and citizens is to respect it.

“The argument you have raised is what we are going to raise in response.”

The Senate President, while ruling to the Order raised by Ekweremadu, said, “this has nothing to do what happens in the court.”

Ekweremadu, however, advised the National Assembly to discharge the court order.

He said, “I think the argument you’ve raised is valid, but this point is what we have to present in court to discharge that order.

“We cannot sit and appeal on a matter that has already been given an order in court. I think we should exercise caution in siting a judgment over a matter that an order has been given.

“What we should do is to brief our lawyers to go and discharge the order, instead of sitting here and disobeying court order, is is not good for us and our system, that is calling for anarchy.”

Responding to Ekweremadu, the Senate President said, “my opinion about anarchy is when either arm of government decides to go into the exclusive preserve of the other.”

He said, “If the Judiciary wants to come into the Legislature to decide when we sit and when we don’t, then that’s anarchy.

“If the Judiciary would simply say we are not to consider this and that, and we obey those kind of rulings, that is anarchy, because it is emasculating the legislature and that is not supposed to be.

“We will continue with what we are supposed to do because that is our calling. We are just advising that the Judiciary should please help us develop this democracy, because this arm of government is the least developed and if we allow these kind of rulings, we may end up going back 23 years ago.

“I believe that what we are saying is the same, but we are emphasising that that judicial pronouncement will not stop us from doing what is right and our work here.”