Alex Enumah in Abuja
The fates of President Muhammadu Buhari, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, the National Assembly and two others were yesterday put on hold as the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the suit seeking to void Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
Buhari and the AGF had last month approached the apex court to interpret the said provision with the view of setting it aside for violating the 1999 Constitution.
The court had last week adjourned to May 26, after it joined both the Speaker of Rivers State and the Attorney General of the State as defendants in the suit which originally has the National Assembly as the sole defendant.
However, the Supreme Court yesterday announced that the date for its judgment in the matter would be communicated to parties in the suit.
Justice Muhammad Dattijo, who led six other justices of the apex court made the announcement after lawyers to all parties had adopted and argued their brief of arguments in the matter.
The respondents, who declared their opposition to the suit asked the apex court to dismiss the suit marked SC/CV/504/2022, for being an abuse of the judicial process.
They argued that Buhari, having assented to the Electoral Act, could not turn back to challenge its provisions in court.
The respondents further submitted that only the political appointees whose rights may be infringed upon by the said provision of the Electoral Act could challenge it at the Federal High Court.
Meanwhile, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which sought and got the permission of the Supreme Court to be allowed into the case as amicus curiae (friend of the court), urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit in the interest of the public.
“It is our submission that there is no conflict between Section 84(12) and any other section of the Electoral Act, the 1999 Constitution, as amended, or the African Charter on Human and Peoples Right.
“Your lordships should take note of the ill the said section is meant to cure. The essence of the section is to provide a level playing field for all Nigerians, such that political appointees should not use their office to advance their personal interests,” counsel for the NBA, Mr. Charles Mekunye submitted.
At the end of arguments Justice Dattijo announced that judgment has been reserved to a date to be communicated to the parties.
The plaintiffs in the suit dated April 29, 2022, are contending that the said Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act 2022, is in conflict with constitutional provisions.
The plaintiffs noted that the constitution had made provisions for qualifications and disqualifications for the offices of the President and Vice President, Governor and Deputy-Governor, Senate and House of Representatives and House of Assembly, Ministers, Commissioners and Special Advisers.
Buhari and Malami added that the same constitution has equally, “The qualifying factors for election into the office of President, Vice President. Governor, Deputy Gavemor, Senate, House of Representatives, Houses of Assembly and Ministers.”
They also prayed the apex court to declare that, by the joint and or combined reading of Sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 147, 151, 177, 182, 192 and 196, of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended), the provisions of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which also ignores Section 84(3) of the same Act, is an additional qualifying and/or disqualifying factors for the National Assembly, House of Assembly, Gubernatorial and Presidential elections as enshrined in the said constitution, hence unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void.
“A declaration that having regard to the clear provision of Section 1(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, read together with Section 4 of the same Constitution, the legislative powers vested in the defendant do not permit or empower it to make any other law prescribing additional qualifying /disqualifying grounds for election to the National Assembly, House of Assembly, Gubernatorial and Presidential election outside the express constitutional qualification and disqualification provisions as already provided in each or all of Sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 147, 151, 177, 182, 192 and 196 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and without amendment to any of those sections is for reason of inconsistency, unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
“A declaration that Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 disqualifying a political appointee from being a voting delegate or be voted for at a convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election is discriminatory, inconsistent with and in violent breach of the provision of each or all of Sections 42, 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 147, 151, 177, 182, 192 and 196 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended), as well as Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and some is null and void by reason of its inconsistency.
“A declaration that by the introduction of the provisions of Section 84(12) into the Electoral Act, 2022, but in disregard of Section 84(3) of the some Act, the Defendant has acted ultra vires the legislative powers vested in it under the provision of section 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and/or in violation or breach of the provisions of Sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 147, 151, 177, 182, 192 and 196, thereby rendering Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 unconstitutional, null and void.”
They also prayed for an order nullifying the provisions of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 by application of the blue pencil rule, for being unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and having been made in excess of the legislative powers of the defendant as enshrined in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
