The National Assembly has challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain a suit seeking to compel the lawmakers to suspend the amendment of the Electoral Act.
But the federal government and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) countered, arguing that the court can entertain the suit filed by Accord Party.
The suit is seeking an interpretation by the court of an amendment by the federal lawmakers to the Electoral Act.
The plaintiff had also obtained an order of the court preventing the lawmakers from proceeding with overriding the veto of the amendment by President Muhammadu Buhari.
Both chambers of the National Assembly passed the bill which adjusted the electoral timetable by placing the presidential election last on the third and final day of polling, after those of the National Assembly on the first day and governorship and state legislators’ elections on the second day.
After the bill was passed by the legislature, however, Mr Buhari vetoed it by declining assent to the bill on the ground that it negates the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
Both chambers of the Nigerian Assembly can invoke the provisions of section 58 (1) of the Constitution to override the president’s veto.
After the lawmakers took a step in that direction, the Accord Party, one of Nigeria’s 68 registered parties, approached the court through Wale Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, for a declaration on the amendment to the Electoral Act.
Mr. Olanipekun also secured an order of the court restraining the National Assembly from further deliberations on the matter, until the determination of the suit.
The trial judge, Ahmed Mohammed, on Monday granted his second adjournment on the matter without lifting the restraining order on the National Assembly.
At the continuation of the hearing on Monday, counsel to the Accord Party, Mr Olanipekun, said the court had adjourned till Monday to entertain arguments by counsel on the originating summons.
Mr Olanipekun explained that his client’s request as contained in the originating summons was not new in law.
“What we have submitted before the court is a constitutional issue for consideration, not a political issue, My Lord,” Mr Olanipekun told the court.
Responding, counsel to the National Assembly, Joseph Daudu, disagreed that Mr. Olanipekun’s motion contains a constitutional issue.
Mr. Daudu said according to Section 4 (8) of Constitution, the case by the plaintiff could only be brought to court after the bill becomes law.
He said until the bill becomes an Act, it cannot be compared to the provisions of the law, because “it is non-existent.”
Mr Daudu questioned the locus standi (the constitutional right) of the plaintiff, adding that the court lacks jurisdiction on the matter. The senior advocate cited previous rulings to back his claim
In his submissions, however, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, said the court has full jurisdiction on the matter.
“For the purpose of determining whether your jurisdiction can be properly invoked or otherwise, I wish to humbly submit that what is presented before Your Lordship for consideration is a legislative conduct that is constitutionally recognised and wholeheartedly consummated,” Mr. Malami said.
Also speaking on behalf of the Independent National Electoral Commission, another senior advocate, Femi Falana, said the question of locus standi brought against the plaintiff by Mr Daudu was pointless, since the party was duly registered by INEC and therefore has the right to make the said application.
Mr Falana also submitted that the previous rulings cited by Mr Daudu were wrongly quoted.
Speaking later on the points of law, Mr Olanipekun countered an earlier claim by Mr Daudu that section 4 (8) of the Constitution makes it mandatory for a bill to become an Act before an application can be brought against it.
Reading through the said provisions, Mr Olanipekun said the powers of the legislature, which the application deals with, begins at the very inception of a bill in the National Assembly.
The case was adjourned till April 25 for ruling on the application.
PREMIUM TIMES