For those of us following the trajectory of the Digital Rights
and Freedom Bill from its conception by the Paradigm Initiative’s
team led by Gbenga Sesan up to its eventual passage by the National
Assembly in 2018 and then their omission to transmit same to the
President which forced us to approach the Federal High Court in
Suit No. FHC/ABJ/993/18 in a bid to compel the Clerk to transmit a
clean copy of the bill to the President by virtue of sections 2 to
5 of the Acts Authentication Act.
It was thus refreshing when during the pendency of the suit, the
National Assembly transmitted the bill to the President on the 4th
day of February 2019 but there was no signification of assent or
refusal of same until the 30-day constitutional period lapsed which
again led us to file Suit No. FHC/L/ABJ/277/19 seeking
interpretation of section 58(4) as well as injunction restraining
the President to make any signification after the 30-day period,
which matter is currently pending before Hon. Justice Taiwo Taiwo
of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.
Again, during the pendency of the suit, the Presidency sent a
letter dated 5th March 2019 but received by the Senate on the 19th
day of March 2019 – a period of over 40 days after transmission of
the bill to the President in violation of the provision of section
58(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
For the avoidance of doubt, the relevant section 58(4)
provides that:
“(4) Where a bill is presented to the President for assent, he
shall within thirty days thereof signify that he assents or that he
withholds assent.”
The wording of the above provision is clear enough and affords
no ambiguity. It is trite that where the words of statute are clear
and unambiguous, the court must give them their ordinary meaning.
See Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) v
Noble Drilling Nigeria Ltd (2013) LPELR- 22029 (CA), Isaac
Obiuweubi v. Central Bank of Nigeria (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 465 @
491E.
It is clear that the provision imposes a mandatory duty on the
President not just to signify his assent or withholding of same but
must do so within 30 days.
Now, what is the effect of the President’s omission to signify
within 30 days? In the decision in ANPP v Goni (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt.
298) 147, the Supreme Court had this to say about constitutionally
provided time-frame:
“…the time fixed by the Constitution is like the Rock of
Gibraltar or Mount Zion which cannot be moved; that the time cannot
be extended or expanded or elongated or in any way enlarged; that
if what is to be done is not done within the time so fixed, it
lapses…” (Emphasis mine)
See also the similar decisions in Abdulfatai v
Kayode (2012) LPELR-14324(CA), Saror v Suswam (2012) LPELR
(CA).
From the foregoing decisions and since section 58(4) does not
provide for extension of the 30-day period, it is my humble opinion
that, the time within which the President could withhold his assent
had lapsed and his letter dated 5th March 2019 but received 13 days
after, is statute barred via another Supreme Court’s decision in
Hon. Emmanuel Oseloka Araka v Ambrose Nwankwo Ejeagwu (2000) 12
S.C. (Pt. I) 99 that:
“In my interpretation “statute-barred” simply means barred by a
provision of the statute. It is usually as to time i.e. the bar
gives a time limit during which certain actions or steps should be
taken, and one is barred from taking action after the period
specified in the statute. Any action taken after or outside the
specified limit or period is of no avail and has no valid effect.
The bar can be lifted or the limit extended only if the statute
allows it to be done. Where there was no such extension, the action
carried out will be invalid, and the court will treat as such.”
Olumide Babalola writes from Lagos.
apc versus pdp
PDP Drags Justice Inyang to NJC Over Bauchi Guber
Result
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has petitioned the National
judicial Council over the violation of the Constitution and
Electoral Act by Justice Ekwo Inyang of the Federal High Court by
sitting on a matter that ought to have been handled by an election
petition tribunal, as created by the provisions of our laws.
The party noted that in granting an exparte order stopping the
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from concluding
the governorship election in Bauchi State, Justice Inyang violated
Section 87(11) of the Electoral Act, which states that no court has
the power or jurisdiction to stop any election pending the
determination of a suit.
In an affidavit sworn to by the PDP’s National Chairman, Prince
Uche Secondus, in Abuja, the party notes that issues of collation
of results and declaration of winner, is a post-election event and,
therefore, falls under the Electoral Act and Constitutional
provisions for the election petition tribunal.
The affidavit states, “Despite this clear provision of the law,
Justice Ekwo decided to hear the application of Alhaji Mohammed
Abubakar and his political party, the All Progressives Congress
(APC), within twenty four hours on 19th March, 2019 and issued an
order on INEC not to continue with the election until the case
before him is finally decided.
“That the collation of results is a post-election event and
under section 87(11) of the Electoral Act, no court has the power
or jurisdiction to stop any election pending the determination of a
suit.
“That an election includes voting, collation of results and the
declaration of results.
“That as a result of the order on the Independent National
Electoral Commission, the conclusion of the Bauchi State
Governorship election which was to take place on 19th March 2019
was stalled.
“That the order of Justice Ekwo was made contrary to the
provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 as amended dealing
without fair hearing and also section 87(11) of the Electoral
Act.
“That the Chief Justice of Nigeria has constituted the various
Election Petition Tribunals in Nigeria to handle such cases and the
assumption of jurisdiction by Justice Inyang Ekwo is an affront to
the constitution and electoral wishes of the people of Tafawa
Balewa Local Government Area and Bauchi State”
The PDP insists that not only did Justice Inyang violate the
clear provisions of the Electoral Act, the motion granted is also
an affront to the electoral wishes of the people of Bauchi State
who have clearly chosen their next governor in voting for the PDP’s
candidate, Sen. Bala Mohammed.
The PDP urges the NJC to save our democracy by taking an urgent
step against the violations by Justice Inyang.
Signed:
Kola Ologbondiyan
National Publicity Secretary,
Director, Media & Publicity
PDP Presidential Campaign Organization