The Supreme Court has refused to vacate its interim order of May 7, which directed the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Assembly to maintain status quo and not to take any action that will alter the position of a suit bordering on constitution amendment that is pending before it.
It also gave the Federal Government and the National Assembly 48 hours to settle the matter, which it insisted could be settled without the intervention of court process.
The AGF, through Bayo Ojo, SAN, had via an originating summons approached the apex court, seeking on behalf of the Federal Government, an order declaring the impending constitution amendment as unconstitutional as it breaches Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution.
It was the argument of the AGF that the said Fourth Alteration Act 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths majority of members of the National Assembly, and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the extant Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
Consequently, the government pleaded with the court to set aside Sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, purportedly passed by the National Assembly.
However, at yesterday’s sitting, the apex court hinged the refusal to vacate its interim order stopping the proposed constitution amendment on the ground that counsel to the NASS, Adegboyega Awomolo, refused to write an undertaking that the National Assembly would not go ahead to override President Goodluck Jonathan’s veto.
The inability of the National Assembly’s counsel to make an undertaking prompted the seven-man panel of the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, to ask parties to go and reconcile and bring back report of reconciliation to the court within 48 hours.
The Supreme Court was of the view that the issue in dispute can be resolved without the intervention of the court.
Earlier, Ojo had brought an application, dated May 20 and filed same date, seeking leave of court to amend the originating summon by way of substituting the AGF’s name with that of Mr President.
The panel refused the application and, consequently, struck it out on the ground that the originating summons was “incurably defective.” The court stated that assuming that the originating summon is allowed to be amended, “worst still, the affidavit deposed to in support of the originating summons is defective too.”
According to the apex court, “it has no power to amend an affidavit,” while noting also that the states government which ought to be parties to the suit were still left out.
But, Ojo, in his response, said the plaintiff was concerned with the NASS who had failed to fulfilled the requirement of section 9 (3) of the constitution, particularly the required 4/5 membership of the National Assembly in passing the amendment.
The CJN, however, advised Ojo to withdraw the entire originating summons and the application on the ground that no judge can amend affidavit evidence, except the maker and advised him to come back with a fresh suit. [Mynewswatchtimesng]
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
