Malami manipulates justice by picking and choosing court orders to obey
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
Femi Falana, a respected human rights defender of four decades standing, has again spoken the minds of Nigerians by point out how Abubakar Malami balkanises the judiciary by cherry picking court orders to obey or scoff at.
Despite being a defendant in all the cases on Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, Malami did not draw the attention of the Federal High Court in Ibadan and Umuahia to the restraining order on the Act, says Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).
Malami is arguably the worst federal Attorney General in recent memory who brazenly abuses his office, and does so with impunity, highlighting how President Muhammadu Buhari wilfully fails to rein in his officials who act on their whims.
He performed worst among ministerial nominees the Senate screened in 2015 and the public raised concerns that he was not qualified to be Attorney General, despite being a SAN.
There are many people in the North who are more qualified than him, if Buhari must pick the Attorney General from the region. Yet the Senate confirmed him and Buhari has kept him to do Buhari’s bidding of eroding trust in the judiciary.
Malami throws his weight around as someone who reports to no one. He appears on national television with the swagger of a liar who says and does whatever he wants, and justifies his distortions and falsehoods about the law for his personal interest.
The Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF) has accused Malami of working for contractors. And he brags about it in his actions.
Senator Stella Oduah paid N5 billion in cash for a property in London. The Pandora Papers exposed it. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged her to court. Malami withdrew the file from the EFCC and killed the case.
Malami charged Abba Kyari to court for his extradition to the United States to answer allegations of money laundry. He said a prima facie case was preferred against the suspended fraudulent cop. A few days later, Malami withdrew the case.
Buhari does nothing about Malami’s abuse of office because he serves Buhari’s purpose of fostering lawlessness to divide and rule Nigeria, with the overall aim of imposing a Fulani hegemony North and South.
Malami’s wilful disobedience of court orders
Falana issued a statement which documented how Malami manipulated the Federal High Court into issuing conflicting decisions on Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022.
He said Malami ignored the restraining order of the Federal High Court in Abuja barring him and others from tampering with the Electoral Act but vowed to implement the order of the Federal High Court in Umuahia which ordered the deletion of Section 84(12) from the Act.
He insisted that Malami manipulated the court into issuing the conflicting orders.
“It is trite that the Attorney-General cannot choose and pick the orders of the court to obey or disobey.
“More so, when it is undoubtedly clear that the Attorney-General deliberately set out to manipulate the Federal High Court to issue conflicting orders in a desperate move to annul Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act,” Falana said.
__________________________________________________________________
Related articles:
Buhari as mini antiChrist wasting Nigeria
Falana says Buhari has backed out of anti-graft fight
Lawyer asks NBA to discipline Abubakar Malami for promoting impunity in Buhari’s govt
Malami: How not to be an Attorney-General
Malami’s secret connection with extraordinary rendition
__________________________________________________________________
The court case
The Federal Court in Umuahia on 18 March nullified Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act – which sits well with Buhari’s earlier protest against the clause.
The section prohibits political appointees from voting or being voted for as delegates in party conventions or congresses for the election or nomination of candidates.
Judge Evelyn Anyadike held that the section was “unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.”
She ordered the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the sole defendant in the suit, to “forthwith delete the said Subsection 12 of Section 84 from the body of the Electoral Act, 2022.”
Anyadike based her decision on the grounds that the section conflicted with the Constitution that gives public servants who intend to contest an election to resign at least 30 days before the vote.
Lawyers fault this reasoning, arguing that political appointees are not part of the category of persons the Constitution requires to resign at least 30 days to election.
Malami was picked as the sole defendant in the suit filed by Nduka Edede, a member of the Action Alliance (AA), a fringe political party.
Malami has shown extraordinary interest in striking down Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, which compels him to resign before he can run for Kebbi Governor, a job he reportedly eyes in his home state in 2023.
Malami in forum shopping
Falana chronicled two previous rulings of the Federal High Court in Abuja and Ibadan on the same matter and said Malami desecrated the office of the Attorney General by engaging in “forum shopping” to get a favourable verdict.
“No doubt, this is the first time in the entire history of Nigeria that the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation has engaged in forum shopping for favourable orders of the Federal High Court or any other court.
“It is high time the dangerous manipulation of the Federal High Court was stopped as the nation prepares for the 2023 general elections,” Falana advocated in the statement, per reporting by PREMIUM TIMES.
He said while the Abuja Federal High Court barred Buhari, the AGF, and the National Assembly (NASS) from tampering with the new Electoral Act, the Ibadan Federal High Court declined jurisdiction on the matter.
Judge Inyang Ekwo in a ruling on 8 March on an ex parte application by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) held that the amended Electoral Act, having become a valid law, must not be unduly tampered with.
He restrained Buhari, the AGF, the NASS and other defendants in the suit from removing Section 84 (12) of the Act or prevent it from being implemented in the general election in 2023.
Falana lamented that when the suit with the same issues arose at the Federal High Court in Umuahia, Malami, the sole defendant, refused to draw the attention of the judge to the two preceding rulings in Abuja and Ibadan.
He listed the other suits in which the two preceding rulings had been delivered to include
- one filed in Abuja with suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/247/2002 (PDP versus President, Federal Republic of Nigeria & 8 others).
- one filed in Ibadan with suit number FHC/IB/CS/32/2022 (Oyewole Bolanle versus Attorney-General of the Federation).
Umuahia court ought to have struct out the case
“From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that even though the two lawyers who represented the Plaintiffs in Suit Nos FHC/IB/CS/32/2022: OYEWOLE BOLANLE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION and FHC/UM/CS/26/2002: NDUKA EDEDE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION are based in Ibadan, Oyo State and Umuahia, Abia State, the two cases filed by them were similar in every material particular,” Falana insisted.
“Hence, the two questions formulated for determination and the four similar reliefs sought by their clients in the two cases filed at the Ibadan and Umuahia judicial divisions of the Federal High Court are in pari material.
“Even though the plaintiffs are different the Attorney-General of the Federation is the sole defendant in both cases. It is doubtful if the similarities in the two cases can be said to be mere coincidence.”
Falana said Malami, despite being a defendant in all the cases, did not draw the attention of both the Ibadan and Umuahia divisions of the Federal High Court to the restraining order of the Abuja division.
“Neither did [Malami] disclose to the Umuahia judicial division of the Federal High Court that the Ibadan judicial division had struck out a similar case for want of locus standi.”
He argued that the judge in Umuahia “ought to have struck out the fresh case before her as it constituted a gross abuse of court process” given that the case pending in Ibadan “was well reported in the print and electronic media.”
This, again, highlights perennial conflicting court orders issued by courts of coordinate jurisdiction for which the National Judicial Council (NJC) recently sanctioned some judges.
By law, Umuahia court order can’t be enforced
Hours after the court in Umuahia handed down its verdict, Malami issued a celebratory statement vowing to implement Anyadike’s order by deleting from the Electoral Act the clause he described as “offensive”.
Falana queried his speed in enforcing the latest ruling while ignoring the restraining order earlier issued against him and others over the same issue.
“It is pertinent to note that while [Malami] pretended not to know about the order of interim injunction granted by the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, he has announced the plan of the Federal Government to comply with the judgment delivered in the Umuahia case as soon as possible
“However, [Malami], the Defendant in both cases, did not draw the attention of both Ibadan and Umuahia Judicial Divisions of the Federal High Court to the fact that the Abuja Judicial Division of the same Court had, on March 7, 2022, restrained himself, … Buhari, [NASS] and the Independent National Electoral Commission [INEC] from refusing to implement the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“However, if [Malami] goes ahead to delete Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act he would be liable to be committed for contempt ex facie curiae as the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court has restrained him and other defendants from ‘from enforcing the provisions of the said Electoral Act, 2022 including the provisions of Section 84(12) of the said Act pending the determination of the motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction.’
“We submit, without any fear of contradiction, that unless the valid and subsisting order of the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court is set aside either by the trial Judge or an Appellate Court the Attorney-General of the Federation cannot DELETE section 84(12) of the Electoral Act.”
Malami denies allegations
Malami denied Falana’s allegations, insisting that his actions are all in compliance with the law.
“It only takes the figment of the imagination of mischief makers to think or assume that the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice will stoop so low to do what they claimed,” Malami said in a statement he issued to PREMIUM TIMES through his spokesman Umar Gwandu.
Malami pledged his “commitment to ensuring justice, equity, fair play” in the discharge of his responsibilities, reiterating that he “was made a defendant in the case concerning the new Electoral Act.”
He advised Nigerians “to refrain from making ‘unsubstantiably’ fabricated conjectures targeted at mischievously casting aspersions on personalities to score ulterior motives.
“The Attorney General of the Federation is a strong advocate of equality before the law and non-discriminatory universal application of laws that do not disenfranchise citizens and not contradict the provisions of the Constitution and the extant laws.”