THE National Assembly is set to seek redress ad appeal the judgment deleting Section 84 (12) from the Electoral Act (Amended).
The Senate, during the plenary on Wednesday, resolved to appeal last week Friday’s judgment by a Federal High Court in Umuahia, which nullified the provision of Section 84(12) of the Act.
The resolution was reached following the consideration of a motion sponsored by Senator George Thompson Sekibo and co-sponsored by 79 other senators.
Sekibo, while leading the motion, said the judgment faulted the provision of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act 2022 and declared it unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect.
Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 states as follows: “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 the nomination of candidates for any election.”
The lawmaker observed that the judge in his ruling said that Section 81(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 was inconsistent with Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g) and 182(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.
ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
He noted further that Section 4(1)(2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, vests the power of lawmaking for the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the National Assembly.
He argued that in furtherance to the powers vested in the National Assembly, the 1999 Constitution under the roles of the Executive in Item D that deals with political parties in Section 228(a) (b) and (c) confers more powers on the National Assembly, more particularly on political parties and effective management of the electoral process by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
He noted that the Electoral Act 2022 enacted by the National Assembly followed due process, adding that Section 84(12) of the Act exclusively refers to nomination to conventions and congresses called for candidate selection and not participation in the general election which Sections 66(1)(f),137(1)(g) and 182(1)(g) referred to.
He, therefore, said the interpretation of the meaning of the words ‘civil service’ and ‘public service’ in Section 318 was unambiguous, adding, “there’s a difference between the civil service or public service and political appointment.”
Sekibo warned further that “Letting the judgment go without concern will become a precedence on which any person could go to court and obtain judgment to ridicule the good intentions of the National Assembly as an institution.”
The Senate, accordingly, resolved to appeal the judgment in suit FHC/MU/ SC/26/2022 for the court to set aside the judgment, noting that same was reached without due consideration of the constitutional interpretation in Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
At the House of Representatives, the leadership unveiled plans to petition National Judicial Council (NJC) over the controversies trailing the judgment.
The resolution was passed sequel to the adoption of a motion on matters of privilege sponsored by Honourable Sada Soli, who accused the judiciary arm of government of breaching the principle of separation of powers.
The lawmakers, who argued that the House of Representatives and, indeed, National Assembly was not a party in the suit, expressed concerns over the rationale behind the filing of the suit in Abia State.
He said the judgment is an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the parliament in making laws, by directing an appointee of the executive to delete a law made by the National Assembly. Worried by the development, the Speaker, Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila, frowned on the decision of Justice Evelyn Anyadike, who held that Section 84(12) of the Act was unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
While ruling on the motion, Honourable Gbajabiamila said, “I read this judgement on the pages of newspapers. The first thing I did was to call the legal department and my office to find out if we were ever served with the processes and they said we were not served. This House could not have been served because we were not made a party to the suit.
“I believe President Muhammadu Buhari relies, like he should, on legal advice that’s given to him. I think he relied on the legal advice that was given to him, that this matter was unconstitutional.
“However, I cannot sit here and allow the institution which I head currently to be ridiculed under my watch. I have a sacred responsibility to make sure that we leave this ninth Assembly with our heads held high, knowing that we have done everything we can to protect this institution and deepen our democracy.
“Our attempt with this 84(12) section was to deepen democracy; unfortunately it was taken to court, not minding that theirs was a mischief the National Assembly sought to cure. Assuming the law is ambiguous, when you are interpreting it then you go to the mischief rule to get the full clarity of what was intended.
“More curious is the fact that the judgment was obtained in far-away Umuahia, Abia State, and also the fact that the powers of the legislature were usurped.
“So I appeal to the Attorney-General to tarry and not go into the functions of the National Assembly, because apparently, he intends to carry out the order of the court.
“He should stop and desist for now until this matter is settled and we should write a formal complaint to NJC,” the Speaker said.
In his reaction, the Minority Leader, Honourable Ndudi Elumelu, said, “Section 66(1f), Section 107(1g), Section 137(1g) and Section 182(1g) talk about a public servant who is perhaps interested in contesting for House of Assembly.
“I had expected the judiciary to interpret and in the course of interpretation, still refer to National Assembly to say, please do this, but not asking that the executive should do the job of the National Assembly. That offends the principle of separation of powers. We should condemn it in its entirety and also write a petition to NJC.”
Honourable Ibrahim Olanrewaju said, “I am personally disturbed, but as a practicing lawyer, whatever we raise here will not change the position. We have to act; we either appeal this judgement as interested party or we file a suit. We can also complain formally to NJC about the judge who gave this kind of judgement.”
Majority Chief Whip, Honourable Mohammed Monguno said, “My contribution is in regards to principles of natural justice, hear the other side. National Assembly as per Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution as amended is invested with powers to make laws.
“The court violated the principle of fair hearing by not reaching out to the National Assembly. The proper step for us to take is to appeal that decision so it can be set aside.”
Majority Leader, Honourable Alhassan Ado-Doguwa, said “Whatever decision this very Court in question took to effect this kind of judgment against an innocent institution, doing our noble job.
“We are custodians of laws and laws must be obeyed in this country. We must make a strong statement and condemn this. We should not allow the Judiciary as an institution to indict us unnecessarily, but we must make them understand we must give to Caesar what is Caesar and leave to gods what’s gods,” Ado-Doguwa noted