Jega, Falana knock NASS Firing the first salvo, the immediate past chairman of INEC, Prof.

Attahiru Jega, in reacting to the development, said the legislature lacks power to alter the order of election for 2019.
Jega made his position known in Abuja during an event organised by the Youth Initiative for Advocacy Growth and Development with the theme, Is Nigeria’s Democracy Under Threat?, According to Jega, the National Assembly’s action undermined independence of INEC and added that several sections of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), clearly state that the power to organise and set the date for elections remain the exclusive preserve of the commission.
“Jettisoning the INEC sequence for the 2019 general elections is dangerous for the INEC.
It takes away the independence of INEC and is therefore dangerous for Nigeria’s democracy” he noted.
Echoing similar sentiment, Femi Falana (SAN) described the furore over the amendment as “needless controversy” , noting that the National Assembly is trying to circumvent a decision that has already been decided by the Court of Appeal in 2003, when then President Olusegun Obasanjo withheld assent to the Electoral Bill, 2002.
Falana added that NASS erroneously believes they had conferred on themselves the power to fi x the dates for general elections after they amended some sections, but that the power of the INEC to “organise, undertake and supervise” the general elections was left intact by the lawmakers.
” Accord Party, APC go to court As the controversy rages, one of the registered political parties in Nigeria, the Accord Party, had in what keen watchers of happenings described as counter-action, instituted an oral application, and asked the Federal High Court (FHC) Abuja Division, to restrain the National Assembly, by means of the coercive process of injunction.
Recently too, a top member of the APC in Enugu State, Chief Anike Nwoga, fi led a suit at the Federal High Court in Enugu, challenging the National Assembly’s action.
Nwoga, who is the Zonal Vice Chairman of APC in Enugu East Senatorial District, fi led the suit in March 2, 2018, through his lawyer, Godwin Onwusi Esq.
In his motion on notice supported by a 25-paragraph affidavit, Nwoga prayed the court for an interlocutory injunction restraining the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from assenting to the bill passed by the National Assembly changing thesequence of the 2019 elections when presented to him for assent, pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The motion on notice was brought pursuant to Orders 26 and 28 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009; and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

And comes a new twist Meanwhile, a new twist has emerged in the controversy.
During the hearing of the suit recently, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr.
Abubakar Malami, SAN, accused the National Assembly of resorting to threats and intimidations, in a bid to force the judiciary to support its move to re-order thesequence for the 2019 general election.
Malami, who personally appeared before the Federal High Court in Abuja for hearing of the suit fi led by the Accord Party, berated thesenate, describing its response to the order the court made to preserve the Res (subject matter) of the case as “a sad development.
” He was quoted as having told the court that: “do not to allow yourself to be intimidated, my office would support the judiciary in the discharge of its constitutional duty.
” Also countering Wole Olanipekun, counsel to the plaintiff during the proceedings, Joseph Daudu, SAN, counsel to the National Assembly, drew attention of the judge to the furore.
He said,“the court order, which stopped the NASS from taking further action on the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2018, that President Muhammadu Buhari declined to assent to, has once again, placed the judiciary in the eye of the storm”.
But Olanipekun decried that decision of the court to protect the subject matter of the case his client brought before it asking all the parties to maintain the status quo, as grossly misconstrued.
On his part, counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Mr.
Falana, while acknowledging need for the matter to be granted accelerated hearing, urged Justice Mohammed to ignore developments outside the court proceedings.

Principle of separation of powers and matters arising But is the Executive and Judiciary arms’ ‘intrusion’ in this regards a breach of legislative privilege Act? Speaker of the House, Yakubu Dogara, had during the week, declared that the judiciary has no power to dictate to the House what to do.
He argued; “we make laws and they cannot, we have tolerated the judiciary enough and if they continue like this, then we are headed for more trouble.
We can only obey the judiciary if we choose to.
” While the decision of the court is still being awaited on this seeming logjam, observers however believe that the three arms of government, must as a matter of necessity, interface more often for the purpose of not only developing an enduring and perpetual blueprint for effective legislation and governance, but to also enhance the delivery of the dividends of democracy to the teeming populace, as against intermittent squabbling characterising relationship among the three arms of government.

Leave a Reply