* Senate yet to submit petition against judge to CJN
* Presidency reveals real reason Buhari vetoed bill, confident
legislature won’t override it
The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of
Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), Tuesday commenced the legal battle
in the Electoral Amendment Bill suit with a swipe at the National
Assembly, accusing the legislature of threatening and intimidating
the judiciary.
The AGF, who is the second defendant in the suit instituted by
Accord Party attempting to stop the legislature from overriding
President Muhammadu Buhari’s veto of the amendment bill, decried
what he described as the constitutional colouration being attached
to the suit, adding that it underscores why he was physically in
court to respond to the suit.
Last week, Justice Ahmed Mohammed had in a ruling restrained the
National Assembly from overriding the president’s refusal to assent
to the amended electoral bill.
The order was a sequel to an oral application for interlocutory
injunction argued by the plaintiff’s (Accord Party) counsel, Wole
Olanipekun (SAN).
But in reaction to the injunction granted by the court, the
Senate decried the restraining order, saying it negated the
principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Nigerian
Constitution.
It also said it would send a petition to the Chief Justice of
Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, to complain against the
restraining order granted by Justice Mohammed, among other similar
injunctions granted by the judiciary against the National
Assembly.
However, as of Tuesday, the Senate was yet to make good its
threat to submit a petition against the judge to the CJN.
Justice Mohammed, in granting the preservative order, had
ordered the defendants to maintain status quo ante belum, pending
the next adjourned date Tuesday.
Speaking at the proceedings Tuesday, Malami, who had aligned with
the position of other counsel on the need to accord importance to
the case, accused the National Assembly of intimidating and
threatening the judiciary.
He said he was disturbed by the first defendant’s (National
Assembly) comment that the judiciary was in the eye of the storm
when it is actually the judiciary that was being threatened and
intimidated by other arms of government.
“I have to state that threats and intimidation by one arm of
government against another concerning this matter are
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 duties.
“The independence of the judiciary is constitutionally guaranteed
and we must work hard to ensure that independence is sustained,” he
said.
Earlier, the plaintiff’s counsel told the court that owing to
the importance and urgency of the suit, the parties had agreed to
move straight to the subject matter of the originating summons.
He then asked the court for a short adjournment to enable the
parties to respond to his brief of argument filed on March 19,
2018.
He noted that since the court had granted the plaintiff’s
request for an order restraining the first defendant from taking
any step that would affect the res of the matter, the issue has
continued to generate interest.
“Unfortunately, this has been misinterpreted in different
quarters, including by the first defendant that the court made an
order preventing the first defendant from carrying out its
legislative duties,” he said.
Olanipekun was of the opinion that parties should be properly
guided so that the subject matter of the litigation is not hijacked
from the court.
Responding, the counsel to the National Assembly, Joseph Daudu
(SAN), stressed that the matter, which was already a matter of
international discussion, was capable of defining the well being of
the country’s democracy, noting that the suit had again placed the
judiciary in the eye of the storm.
He therefore urged the court to give the matter the seriousness
and speed it deserves.
On his part, counsel to the third defendant (Independent
National Electoral Commission), Femi Falana (SAN), urged the court
to ignore the threats and other comments made outside the court, in
order to avoid being drawn into an unnecessary controversy.
He also urged the court not to shut out the motion of the Action
Peoples Party (APP) 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
his appearance as counsel for the APP to be joined in the suit as
the 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 other by the
court’s decision.
The applicant, in a 17-paragraph affidavit, claimed that the
subject matter of litigation would affect its chances during the
elections.
But the plaintiff and the first to third defendants 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 submissions of
the plaintiff and the first to third defendants and consequently
dismissed the application.
He held that the first defendant was competent in defending the
suit and did 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 was given till Friday to reply.
The judge consequently adjourned the case till Monday 26 for
hearing on the substantive suit.
The Accord Party had dragged the National Assembly, the AGF and
INEC to court after the president refused to assent to the
Electoral Amendment Bill, 2018.
The party had expressed fears that the legislature could override
the president’s veto and pass the bill into law.
The plaintiff, in an oral application, asked the court for a
preservative order to stop the legislature from overriding the
president, pending the hearing and determination of its substantive
suit.
Justice Mohammed had granted the preservative order and
adjourned the matter to Tuesday.
However, the Senate which had blown hot and cold over the
preservative order on the grounds that it was in violation of the
principle of separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution
and said that it would send a petition to the CJN on the matter, as
of Tuesday was yet to send a petition against the judge.
A source at Justice Onnoghen’s office informed our reporter that
no such petition had been received by the office.
Meanwhile, the presidency Tuesday opened up on the real reason
Buhari opposed the Electoral Amendment Bill, saying that Section
25(1) of the bill, which is proposing an alteration to the election
sequence, would cause a lot of confusion in the next general
election.
A senior presidential official told THISDAY in confidence that
the president’s objection to the amendment was meant to guard
against its potential to disrupt INEC’s arrangements for the 2019
election and create huge logistics and financial problems.
According to him, the president’s decision to veto the bill was
not borne out of fear of the proposal to alter the sequencing of
the elections, but the innumerable consequences it could have on
the entire elections and the system.
He said INEC had expressed concern over the alteration of the
sequencing of elections carried out by the National Assembly,
adding that it will scuttle all the arrangements it had already
made.
The presidential source further stated that if the sequence of
the elections proposed by the federal legislature is allowed to
stand, INEC’s preparation so far, based on the election timetable
it had announced, would be in disarray, pointing out that the
materials already printed for instance by the electoral commission
would be wasted.
Aside from the cost implication of conducting three elections,
as against the two polls that INEC had proposed, the source added
that conducting three elections would mean deployment of the same
personnel and logistics that INEC would have used to conclude the
two elections for the third election.
The commission had scheduled the Presidential and National
Assembly polls for February 16 next year and governorship and state
Houses of Assembly polls for March 2, 2019.
But the new provision in the bill states that elections shall be
held in the following order: (a) National Assembly elections (b)
State Houses of Assembly and Governorship elections (c)
Presidential election.
The source said the presidency would not have minded the
proposed sequencing if the presidential election had been lumped
with the governorship and Houses of Assembly elections, provided
the elections are conducted twice, pointing out that this would
save INEC the stress of conducting three elections, as well as its
huge cost implications on the nation.
The source further disclosed that the intention of the National
Assembly in bringing its own election first was a strategy to force
the hand of the president to give members of the legislature the
support they need to win their various re-elections.
He said using their vantage positions as lawmakers to hoodwink
the system instead of exploiting it to everyone’s advantage was
done in bad faith.
He expressed confidence that the threat to override the
president’s veto would not stand, describing it as a mere threat
that the National Assembly was not really serious about.
“They won’t override the president’s veto. We have stated our
position on the amendment. The veto was not caused by fear but
because INEC said it would affect its own arrangements.
“Three elections will affect the materials INEC has already
printed. It will affect logistics.
“INEC will have to use the same logistics that will be used to
conduct two elections for the third election again. The same
personnel will also have to be deployed for the third election.
“If the (presidential) election was to come up with that of
governorship and state Houses of Assembly, it would have been
better. But to plan the conduct of three elections is not in the
interest of the commission and the country.
“The amendment is not about the effect of the first election on
other elections, but the aim of the National Assembly is to use the
reordered sequence of the elections to force the president to
support their own elections.
“However, you don’t take advantage of your position to pursue
your personal interest,” the source stated.
The National Assembly had inserted the section into the bill
with the intention of making the reordered election sequence a
legal matter.
Consequently, the Federal Executive Council (FEC) during one of
its meetings last month, invited officials of INEC where the
reordered elections proposed by the National Assembly was
discussed.
However, the presidential source told our reporter at the time
that the details of the meeting with INEC were not meant for public
consumption.
It is believed that INEC, during the meeting, had expressed its
concern over the proposed sequencing, as disclosed by the source
Tuesday, which formed the nucleus of the president’s decision to
veto the bill.
But the president, in his letter conveying his veto on the bill
to the National Assembly, did not solely cite the reordering of
elections in the bill as the main reason for his decision.
He also cited other amendments in the bill, which he said
informed his decision.
According to him, “The amendment to Section 138 of the Principal
Act to delete two crucial grounds upon which an election may be
challenged by candidates, unduly limits the rights of candidates in
elections to a free and fair electoral review process; and “The
amendment to Section 152(3)-(5) of the Principal Act may raise
constitutional issues over the competence of the National Assembly
to legislate over local government elections.”
Culled From Thisday
* Senate yet to submit petition against judge to CJN
* Presidency reveals real reason Buhari vetoed bill, confident
legislature won’t override it
The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of
Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), Tuesday commenced the legal battle
in the Electoral Amendment Bill suit with a swipe at the National
Assembly, accusing the legislature of threatening and intimidating
the judiciary.
The AGF, who is the second defendant in the suit instituted by
Accord Party attempting to stop the legislature from overriding
President Muhammadu Buhari’s veto of the amendment bill, decried
what he described as the constitutional colouration being attached
to the suit, adding that it underscores why he was physically in
court to respond to the suit.
Last week, Justice Ahmed Mohammed had in a ruling restrained the
National Assembly from overriding the president’s refusal to assent
to the amended electoral bill.
The order was a sequel to an oral application for interlocutory
injunction argued by the plaintiff’s (Accord Party) counsel, Wole
Olanipekun (SAN).
But in reaction to the injunction granted by the court, the
Senate decried the restraining order, saying it negated the
principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Nigerian
Constitution.
It also said it would send a petition to the Chief Justice of
Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, to complain against the
restraining order granted by Justice Mohammed, among other similar
injunctions granted by the judiciary against the National
Assembly.
However, as of Tuesday, the Senate was yet to make good its
threat to submit a petition against the judge to the CJN.
Justice Mohammed, in granting the preservative order, had
ordered the defendants to maintain status quo ante belum, pending
the next adjourned date Tuesday.
Speaking at the proceedings Tuesday, Malami, who had aligned with
the position of other counsel on the need to accord importance to
the case, accused the National Assembly of intimidating and
threatening the judiciary.
He said he was disturbed by the first defendant’s (National
Assembly) comment that the judiciary was in the eye of the storm
when it is actually the judiciary that was being threatened and
intimidated by other arms of government.
“I have to state that threats and intimidation by one arm of
government against another concerning this matter are
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 duties.
“The independence of the judiciary is constitutionally guaranteed
and we must work hard to ensure that independence is sustained,” he
said.
Earlier, the plaintiff’s counsel told the court that owing to
the importance and urgency of the suit, the parties had agreed to
move straight to the subject matter of the originating summons.
He then asked the court for a short adjournment to enable the
parties to respond to his brief of argument filed on March 19,
2018.
He noted that since the court had granted the plaintiff’s
request for an order restraining the first defendant from taking
any step that would affect the res of the matter, the issue has
continued to generate interest.
“Unfortunately, this has been misinterpreted in different
quarters, including by the first defendant that the court made an
order preventing the first defendant from carrying out its
legislative duties,” he said.
Olanipekun was of the opinion that parties should be properly
guided so that the subject matter of the litigation is not hijacked
from the court.
Responding, the counsel to the National Assembly, Joseph Daudu
(SAN), stressed that the matter, which was already a matter of
international discussion, was capable of defining the well being of
the country’s democracy, noting that the suit had again placed the
judiciary in the eye of the storm.
He therefore urged the court to give the matter the seriousness
and speed it deserves.
On his part, counsel to the third defendant (Independent
National Electoral Commission), Femi Falana (SAN), urged the court
to ignore the threats and other comments made outside the court, in
order to avoid being drawn into an unnecessary controversy.
He also urged the court not to shut out the motion of the Action
Peoples Party (APP) 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
his appearance as counsel for the APP to be joined in the suit as
the 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 other by the
court’s decision.
The applicant, in a 17-paragraph affidavit, claimed that the
subject matter of litigation would affect its chances during the
elections.
But the plaintiff and the first to third defendants 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 submissions of
the plaintiff and the first to third defendants and consequently
dismissed the application.
He held that the first defendant was competent in defending the
suit and did 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 was given till Friday to reply.
The judge consequently adjourned the case till Monday 26 for
hearing on the substantive suit.
The Accord Party had dragged the National Assembly, the AGF and
INEC to court after the president refused to assent to the
Electoral Amendment Bill, 2018.
The party had expressed fears that the legislature could override
the president’s veto and pass the bill into law.
The plaintiff, in an oral application, asked the court for a
preservative order to stop the legislature from overriding the
president, pending the hearing and determination of its substantive
suit.
Justice Mohammed had granted the preservative order and
adjourned the matter to Tuesday.
However, the Senate which had blown hot and cold over the
preservative order on the grounds that it was in violation of the
principle of separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution
and said that it would send a petition to the CJN on the matter, as
of Tuesday was yet to send a petition against the judge.
A source at Justice Onnoghen’s office informed our reporter that
no such petition had been received by the office.
Meanwhile, the presidency Tuesday opened up on the real reason
Buhari opposed the Electoral Amendment Bill, saying that Section
25(1) of the bill, which is proposing an alteration to the election
sequence, would cause a lot of confusion in the next general
election.
A senior presidential official told THISDAY in confidence that
the president’s objection to the amendment was meant to guard
against its potential to disrupt INEC’s arrangements for the 2019
election and create huge logistics and financial problems.
According to him, the president’s decision to veto the bill was
not borne out of fear of the proposal to alter the sequencing of
the elections, but the innumerable consequences it could have on
the entire elections and the system.
He said INEC had expressed concern over the alteration of the
sequencing of elections carried out by the National Assembly,
adding that it will scuttle all the arrangements it had already
made.
The presidential source further stated that if the sequence of
the elections proposed by the federal legislature is allowed to
stand, INEC’s preparation so far, based on the election timetable
it had announced, would be in disarray, pointing out that the
materials already printed for instance by the electoral commission
would be wasted.
Aside from the cost implication of conducting three elections,
as against the two polls that INEC had proposed, the source added
that conducting three elections would mean deployment of the same
personnel and logistics that INEC would have used to conclude the
two elections for the third election.
The commission had scheduled the Presidential and National
Assembly polls for February 16 next year and governorship and state
Houses of Assembly polls for March 2, 2019.
But the new provision in the bill states that elections shall be
held in the following order: (a) National Assembly elections (b)
State Houses of Assembly and Governorship elections (c)
Presidential election.
The source said the presidency would not have minded the
proposed sequencing if the presidential election had been lumped
with the governorship and Houses of Assembly elections, provided
the elections are conducted twice, pointing out that this would
save INEC the stress of conducting three elections, as well as its
huge cost implications on the nation.
The source further disclosed that the intention of the National
Assembly in bringing its own election first was a strategy to force
the hand of the president to give members of the legislature the
support they need to win their various re-elections.
He said using their vantage positions as lawmakers to hoodwink
the system instead of exploiting it to everyone’s advantage was
done in bad faith.
He expressed confidence that the threat to override the
president’s veto would not stand, describing it as a mere threat
that the National Assembly was not really serious about.
“They won’t override the president’s veto. We have stated our
position on the amendment. The veto was not caused by fear but
because INEC said it would affect its own arrangements.
“Three elections will affect the materials INEC has already
printed. It will affect logistics.
“INEC will have to use the same logistics that will be used to
conduct two elections for the third election again. The same
personnel will also have to be deployed for the third election.
“If the (presidential) election was to come up with that of
governorship and state Houses of Assembly, it would have been
better. But to plan the conduct of three elections is not in the
interest of the commission and the country.
“The amendment is not about the effect of the first election on
other elections, but the aim of the National Assembly is to use the
reordered sequence of the elections to force the president to
support their own elections.
“However, you don’t take advantage of your position to pursue
your personal interest,” the source stated.
The National Assembly had inserted the section into the bill
with the intention of making the reordered election sequence a
legal matter.
Consequently, the Federal Executive Council (FEC) during one of
its meetings last month, invited officials of INEC where the
reordered elections proposed by the National Assembly was
discussed.
However, the presidential source told our reporter at the time
that the details of the meeting with INEC were not meant for public
consumption.
It is believed that INEC, during the meeting, had expressed its
concern over the proposed sequencing, as disclosed by the source
Tuesday, which formed the nucleus of the president’s decision to
veto the bill.
But the president, in his letter conveying his veto on the bill
to the National Assembly, did not solely cite the reordering of
elections in the bill as the main reason for his decision.
He also cited other amendments in the bill, which he said
informed his decision.
According to him, “The amendment to Section 138 of the Principal
Act to delete two crucial grounds upon which an election may be
challenged by candidates, unduly limits the rights of candidates in
elections to a free and fair electoral review process; and “The
amendment to Section 152(3)-(5) of the Principal Act may raise
constitutional issues over the competence of the National Assembly
to legislate over local government elections.”
Culled From Thisday