Election sequence: Appeal Court dismisses suit seeking to stop NASS from overriding Buhari’s refusal to assent Bill

THE Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Wednesday set aside the judgement of the Federal High Court which stopped the National Assembly from taking any action on the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2018, which President Muhammadu Buhari withheld his assent to.

According the five-member panel of Justices of the Appellate court presided over by the President of the Court, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, Accord, one of the registered political parties, which filed the suit cannot stop the National Assembly from taking action in a Bill, which has not become an Act.

The court held that, even though the controversial Section of the Bill, which seeks the re-ordering of the 2019 election sequence was removed and its revised edition was re-sent to the President for assent, the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the first place.

The court, while allowing the appeal filed by the National Assembly held that the Accord, which brought the matter before the Federal High Court has no locus standi (Legal right) to file the suit since the Bill did not affect its rights or the obligations of the party.

“The general interest available to the public did not confer the rights on the party to challenge the Bill, Justice Bulkachuwa held in the unanimous judgment.

The Appeal Court President also held that the suit, as filed by the Accord is an academic exercise, since the party did not show how its interest will be affected by the provision of the Bill.

“Since the suit is not justiciable, it shows that it is frivolous and not a genuine litigation.

ALSO READ: Kwara Assembly probes member over fraud allegations

“This appeal is allowed. It has merit and the judgment of the Federal High Court is hereby set aside and the suit is hereby dismissed”, Justice Bulkachuwa held.

Recalled that Accord Party, which joined the National Assembly, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as respondents in the suit at the trial court, wants the court to determine whether INEC is not the only institution constitutionally vested with the powers to organise, undertake and supervise elections, including fixing the sequence of elections to various elective offices in the country.

The trial Judge, Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja had, in his judgement, held that the election timetable earlier released by the INEC could not be altered by the Legislature.

Accord Party filed the suit through Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), after both chambers of the National Assembly attempted to implement Section 58 of the Constitution, which allows the Legislature to override the decision of the President.

In the plaintiff’s originating summons, the court is urged to declare that the legislative powers vested in the National Assembly by the constitution do not empower it with the right or authority to dictate to INEC the way and manner it should organise, undertake and supervise elections to the offices of the President, Vice President, the Governor and Deputy Governor of a state as well as federal and state legislators, among other declarations.

However, in its appeal, NASS, which was the 1st Defendant at the trial court asked the appellate court to set aside the decision of Justice Mohammed, and dismiss in its entirety, the Plaintiff’s claims in the Originating Summons.

In the Notice of Appeal filed through its Lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), NASS stated that the trial judge, erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit and contended that the trial judge failed to appreciate that, until the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018 was passed into an Act by the exercise of the legislative power of the National Assembly to override the veto or withholding of assent to the Bill by the President, the same remained inchoate and not capable of vesting a justiciable civil right or obligation on any person, including the Plaintiff.

The legislature further contended amongst others, that the lower court wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 4(8) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), so as to reach the conclusion that the Federal High Court was vested with jurisdiction to impugn a Bill perceived to be unconstitutional.

“The lower court was further in error, when it relied on the certificate of the Clerk of the National Assembly pursuant to the Acts Authentication Act on the Bill (Exh ‘A’), as proof that the Bill’s constitutionality could be challenged in a superior court of law.

“The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to appreciate that the Plaintiff’s suit (subject-matter of this Appeal), was not properly constituted and therefore, incompetent”, it stated.