The Senate Wednesday resolved to appeal the judgement delivered by the Federal High Court Umuahia last week Friday against Section 84(12) of the 2022 Electoral Act, just as the federal government commenced the process of deleting the section.
The Bill was recently assented to by President Muhammadu Buhari.
And upon assenting the Bill, the president immediately requested that the said clause which bordered on resignation of political appointees of public office holders within a specified period if they wish to participate in primary election of their respective political parties, be expunged from the Act on grounds that it negated provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
The judgement
But in a judgement, Justice Evelyn Anyadike held that the section of the Act was “unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever and ought to be struck down as it cannot stand when it is in violation of the clear provisions of the Constitution.”
Consequently, the court ordered the Attorney General of the Federation Abubakar Malami (SAN) to “forthwith delete the said Subsection 12 of Section 84 from the body of the Electoral Act.”
Planned appeal
But the Senate, on the strength of a motion sponsored by Senator George Sekibo (PDP Rivers East) and 80 others, faulted the ruling and resolved to appeal against it.
The resolution of the Senate reads: “Senate accordingly resolved to appeal the judgement in suit marked FHC/UM/ CS/26/2022 for the court to set aside the judgement as it was reached without due consideration of the constitutional interpretation in section 318 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.”
Sekibo, as main sponsor of the motion, had in his lead debate, said section 84(12) nullified by the court, states that “no political appointee at any level shall be voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or Congress of any political party for the purpose of nomination of candidates for any election.”
He argued further that political appointees provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act referred to were neither civil servants nor public servants captured by relevant provisions of the Constitution in the 30 days grace of resignation before election.
The section, he explained, was not inconsistent with sections 66(1) (f), 107(1) (f), 137(1) (g) and 182(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
The Deputy Whip of the Senate, Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi (APC Niger North), seconded the motion.
But Senate President Ahmad Ibrahim Lawan, in a move to water down the prayer on appeal, suggested that the matter should be forwarded to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters.
Senator Gabriel Suswam (PDP Benue North East), however countered by saying “since the prayer on appeal is a direct one, it should be adopted by the Senate.”
Thereafter, Senate President Lawan put the prayer of the motion for voice votes with majority of the lawmakers voting in favour of appealing the judgement.
However, as observed from the list of senators who co-sponsored the motion, none of the three from Katsina state, the president’s home state, joined in the motion.
Other senators whose names were not included in the list of co-sponsorship of the motion were the Deputy President of the Senate Ovie Omo-Agege, Senate Leader Yahaya Abdullahi, Senate Whip Orji Uzor Kalu and Senator Oluremi Tinubu from Lagos Central among others.
Reps too…
Also, the House of Representatives Wednesday resolved to appeal the judgement.
The lawmakers resolved that the National Assembly would file a complaint to the National Judicial Council (NJC) against the judge who gave the judgement, as it considered the judgement as amounting to gross misconduct.
The House, while condemning the Abia High Court judgement, also faulted attempts at hurriedly deleting the contentious section, even when the National Assembly was not joined in the suit.
The development was fallout of a motion raised under personal privileges by Hon. Sada Soli, who argued that the decision of the court was akin to usurping the constitutional powers of the parliament to make laws.
In their separate submissions, Majority Leader of the House, Ado Doguwa and the Chief Whip, Muhammed Tahir Monguno, insisted the legislature is the only institution of government under democracy that has the rights of law making, wondering why an issue which originated from Abuja was filed in Abia state.
In his ruling, Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila said he cannot allow anyone to rubbish the institution of legislature, even though he absolved President Buhari of any blame in all of this.
He said the president merely relied on the legal advice from his aides on the matter, calling on Malami to tarry a while and not to usurp the role of the National Assembly, by foreclosing the right of appeal.
Deleting in progress – Malami
Meanwhile, AGF Malamihas said the process of deleting the controversial section as ordered by the court, had commenced.
The minister said this while fielding questions from State House correspondents at the end of the weekly Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting Wednesday.
“My clear response arising there-from, is the fact that truly there exists a court judgment. By the judgment, the court directed the Office of the Attorney General to take the necessary steps to delete the provision, which in essence implies that the provision should not form part of our laws.
“Whether it has been deleted, or has not been deleted, is indeed a function of agencies of government and associated relevant parastatals. But the true position of it in that respect, is the fact that government printers, and indeed Law Reform Commission among others, that are responsible for the codification and gazetting of our laws, are working naturally, hand in hand with the Office of the Attorney General for the purpose of ensuring that what goes into our laws are indeed in line with the provision of the law.
“So, what I am saying in essence, it is indeed a work in progress against the background of the fact that the Law Reform Commission is involved statutorily, which is a parastatal under the Office of the Attorney General, is a party to the process of codification.
“The government printers, which is saddled with the responsibility of gazetting our laws on the request of the Office of the Attorney General is equally involved. And above all, as you rightly stated, the possibility of an appeal is equally there. So, what I am saying in effect is deletion of section 84 Subsection 12 is a work in progress and is being considered as such,” he said.
