Legal fireworks will begin on Monday in the suit challenging the
legitimacy of the National Assembly’s decision to amend the
Electoral Act.
In contention, particularly, is the reordering of the 2019
general elections sequence as announced by the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court sitting in
Abuja set the date yesterday during the resumed hearing of the suit
filed by Accord Party.
He directed parties in the suit – the National Assembly, the
Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) – to within 48 hours respond
to the plaintiff’s adress. He gave the plaintiff till Friday to
file further replies to the defendants should there be the
need.
During the hearing, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami and Mr Femi Falana (SAN)
frowned at the attempt by the Senate to undermine the Judiciary
following last Wednesday’s order by Justice Mohammed restraining
the Legislature from acting on the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill,
2018.
The Senate last week took exception to Justice Mohammed’s
injunction, saying his action was an obstruction to its
constitutional assignment.
It resolved to report Justice Mohammed to Chief Justice of
Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnogen through an official
correspondence.
Malami amd Falana described the development as “sad” and urged
Justice Mohammed to ignore whatever threat anyone might have
made.
Malami said: “I must say that the resort to intimidation and
threat by one arm of government to the other, particularly the
Senate, with regards to the powers of your lordship to discharge
your duty, is indeed a sad development.
“This is so, most especially, when parties have submitted to the
jurisdiction of this court. We have a collective duty and
responsibility in the circumstance, to support the entrenchment of
the principle of separation of powers and to further say that we
are in support of the Judiciary as far as this matter is
concerned.
“The independence of the judiciary is
constitutionally-guaranteed and we must work to see to it that that
independence is sustained.”
Falana said: “We concur as far as the urgency and significance
of this case is concerned.
“With respect to observations of the AGF regarding threats or
comments made outside the precincts of this court, I will humbly
urge your lordship to ignore such developments so as to avoid being
drawn into unnecessary controversies.”
Malami was in court to represent himself. He is the 2nd
defendant. Falana is the INEC (3rd defendant) counsel. Chief Wole
Olanipekun (SAN) represented the plaintiff. Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN)
represented the first defendant (National Assembly).
Malami said his presence in court underscored the importance of
the case and the need for its prompt determination.
Justice Mohamed took arguments from parties on a joinder
application filed by the Action Peoples Party (APP), which argued
that it was a necessary party to the case.
The judge dismissed the application on the grounds that APP was
not a necessary party.
The judge said: “The first defendant (National Assembly), in my
view, is competent to defend the suit without any political party
being made a party.”
Justice Mohammed refused the applicant’s argument that all
registered political parties were entitled to be joined as parties
to the suit since the subject matter bordered on the 2019 general
elections.
He noted that APP’s defence in the case would not be different
from that of the National Assembly, by whose defence the case could
be “completely” determined.
The judge added that APP’s desire to be made a party in the suit
“does not qualify it to be joined as a party”.
The Senate and the House of Representatives passed an amendment
to the Electoral Act which reordered the sequence of elections
against the plan announced by INEC.
But President Muhammadu Buhari vetoed the Bill, a decision which
the lawmakers said they would resist by overriding the presidential
veto.
Yesterday, the court made no reference to the injunction
restraining the lawmakers from overriding the presidential
veto.
Legal fireworks will begin on Monday in the suit challenging the
legitimacy of the National Assembly’s decision to amend the
Electoral Act.
In contention, particularly, is the reordering of the 2019
general elections sequence as announced by the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court sitting in
Abuja set the date yesterday during the resumed hearing of the suit
filed by Accord Party.
He directed parties in the suit – the National Assembly, the
Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) – to within 48 hours respond
to the plaintiff’s adress. He gave the plaintiff till Friday to
file further replies to the defendants should there be the
need.
During the hearing, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami and Mr Femi Falana (SAN)
frowned at the attempt by the Senate to undermine the Judiciary
following last Wednesday’s order by Justice Mohammed restraining
the Legislature from acting on the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill,
2018.
The Senate last week took exception to Justice Mohammed’s
injunction, saying his action was an obstruction to its
constitutional assignment.
It resolved to report Justice Mohammed to Chief Justice of
Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnogen through an official
correspondence.
Malami amd Falana described the development as “sad” and urged
Justice Mohammed to ignore whatever threat anyone might have
made.
Malami said: “I must say that the resort to intimidation and
threat by one arm of government to the other, particularly the
Senate, with regards to the powers of your lordship to discharge
your duty, is indeed a sad development.
“This is so, most especially, when parties have submitted to the
jurisdiction of this court. We have a collective duty and
responsibility in the circumstance, to support the entrenchment of
the principle of separation of powers and to further say that we
are in support of the Judiciary as far as this matter is
concerned.
“The independence of the judiciary is
constitutionally-guaranteed and we must work to see to it that that
independence is sustained.”
Falana said: “We concur as far as the urgency and significance
of this case is concerned.
“With respect to observations of the AGF regarding threats or
comments made outside the precincts of this court, I will humbly
urge your lordship to ignore such developments so as to avoid being
drawn into unnecessary controversies.”
Malami was in court to represent himself. He is the 2nd
defendant. Falana is the INEC (3rd defendant) counsel. Chief Wole
Olanipekun (SAN) represented the plaintiff. Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN)
represented the first defendant (National Assembly).
Malami said his presence in court underscored the importance of
the case and the need for its prompt determination.
Justice Mohamed took arguments from parties on a joinder
application filed by the Action Peoples Party (APP), which argued
that it was a necessary party to the case.
The judge dismissed the application on the grounds that APP was
not a necessary party.
The judge said: “The first defendant (National Assembly), in my
view, is competent to defend the suit without any political party
being made a party.”
Justice Mohammed refused the applicant’s argument that all
registered political parties were entitled to be joined as parties
to the suit since the subject matter bordered on the 2019 general
elections.
He noted that APP’s defence in the case would not be different
from that of the National Assembly, by whose defence the case could
be “completely” determined.
The judge added that APP’s desire to be made a party in the suit
“does not qualify it to be joined as a party”.
The Senate and the House of Representatives passed an amendment
to the Electoral Act which reordered the sequence of elections
against the plan announced by INEC.
But President Muhammadu Buhari vetoed the Bill, a decision which
the lawmakers said they would resist by overriding the presidential
veto.
Yesterday, the court made no reference to the injunction
restraining the lawmakers from overriding the presidential
veto.
Read more https://nairalaw.com/malami-falana-to-judge-shun-threats/