Politics
Sustain Electoral Act 84 (12), NASS Prays Court
The High Court lacks the powers to order the deletion of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022, the National Assembly has told the Court of Appeal.
It urged the appellate court to order the retention of the section, adding that Justice Evelyn Anyadike of the Federal High Court in Umuahia erred in law when she ordered the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), to delete it.
The section provides that “no political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party”.
In an appeal against the judge’s verdict, the Federal lawmakers raised five grounds of appeal on why the court should set aside the March 18 judgment.
It is also asking that the case be heard before the political parties hold their national conventions to select candidates for next year’s general elections.
Not determining the appeal before the deadline for the submission of the list of candidates will defeat the purpose of the law, the National Assembly said.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has given the parties June 3 deadline to complete the conventions.
The lawmakers, through their 18-man legal team, led by Dr Kayode Ajulo, based their appeal on five grounds, namely:
The trial judge erred in law and thus acted without jurisdiction by hearing the suit of Chief Nduka Edede without joining the necessary parties.
·The judge erred in law and consequently violated the National Assembly and the Clerk to the National Assembly’s (appellants’) right to a fair hearing when being conscious of the existence of their interest
·The provisions of Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g), and 182(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) relied upon by the judge only relate to public servants and does not include political appointees.
·The judge determined the merit of the first respondent’s (Chief Nduka Edede’s) suit without considering his locus standi to institute it.
·The judge erred in law and exceeded her jurisdiction when she ordered the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), to delete the provision of Section 84(12) from the Electoral Act, 2022 with immediate effect.
·The National Assembly said: “The record of appeal confirms that the subject matter of the first respondent’s suit before the trial Federal High Court revolves around the determination of the constitutionality or otherwise of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“The section regulates the internal democracy of political parties in Nigeria, with particular reference to the conduct of conventions or congress of any political party in Nigeria.
“There was sufficient evidence before the lower court that the interest of the National Assembly empowered to make laws for the regulation of internal democracy within political parties, including making laws for the conduct of the party primaries, party congresses and party convention pursuant to the provision of Section 228 of theConstitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), would be affected by the determination of the constitutionality or otherwise of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act by the trial Federal High Court.
“The principle of law is that where a necessary party is not joined to a suit, the trial court ought to have suo moto directed a joinder of the necessary party for a just determination of the interest of same.
“Having not joined the appellants herein as defendants at the trial court, the learned trial judge had the prerogative and responsibility to ensure that the proceedings agree with the justice of the case by directing the joinder of the appellants as parties to the suit before determining their interest.”
The National Assembly claimed that its powers were prejudiced by the court when Section 84(12) was declared unconstitutional, null and void without joining the appellants.
The National Assembly faulted the Federal High Court judge for not giving it a fair hearing by denying it an opportunity to be heard.
It alleged that the judge allegedly occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
It said: “Fair hearing is a constitutional right that underlines the adjudicatory power of the court to determine any case.
“Had the court afforded the appellants an opportunity to be heard by joining them to the suit, its resolution on the case would have been different.
“The appellants had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit and the proceedings conducted therein, but there was evidence before the court indicating that their interest as the federal legislative arm of government would be affected.
“The proceeding conducted and judgment delivered by the court in the absence of the appellants is a nullity.” The National Assembly said it was wrong of the judge to rely on Sections 66(1) (f), 197(1) (f), 137(1) (g) and 182(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution to nullify Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act.
It said the sections only relate to public servants and do not include political appointees.
The appellant said the trial judge “misconceived the clear position of the law and gave a perverse judgment” when she held that Section 84(12) is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 66(1) (f), 107(1) (f), 137(1) (g) and 182(1) (g) of the constitution.
On the plaintiff’s locus standi, the National Assembly claimed that he did not sufficiently disclose to the lower court how his constitutional rights, as a political appointee/officeholder, had been or were likely to be breached.
“It is trite law that a person instituting an action before a court of law must have the legal capacity to initiate such suit before the court can invoke its jurisdiction.
“The first respondent also failed to show a breach that is higher and above that of the ordinary citizens with respect to the constitutionality or otherwise of the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act,” the lawmakers said.
The National Assembly also claimed that the judge exceeded his jurisdiction when he ordered the Attorney-General of the Federation) to delete Section 84(12) from the Electoral Act, 2022 with immediate effect.”
It said nowhere in Section 6 of the constitution or elsewhere is the legislative power of the federation vested in the courts.
“The position of law is clear to the effect that the court neither makes law nor does it possess any power to amend any statute.
“The learned trial judge thereby usurped the legislative powers of the National Assembly by directing the AGF to delete the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 with immediate effect.
“The order of the learned trial judge directing the second respondent to delete the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 is therefore null and void and ultra vires of the jurisdiction of the Court as donated by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended),” it said.
The National Assembly sought an order to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment delivered by Justice Anyadike.
In an April 12 letter to the Presiding Justice, Owerri Judicial Division, the National Assembly asked the Court of Appeal to hear its case before the national conventions.
The Assembly demanded an accelerated hearing before the deadline for the submission of the list of candidates for the general election.
The letter, which was signed by the Assembly’s counsel, Dr. Kayode Ajulo, was exclusively obtained from the court by The Nation.
It said in part: “We humbly submit that given the special circumstance and the nature of the plaintiffs’ suit at the lower court and bearing in mind that same borders largely on the conduct of political party congresses andconventions, if the applicants’ motion and appeal are not given expedite and accelerated hearing before the deadline for the submission of list of candidates for general election, the intentions of the National Assembly in making the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 would be defeated.
“In the circumstance, we, therefore, most humbly apply for expedite and accelerated hearing of both the Motion on Notice for Leave to Appeal as interested parties and the Appeal for the determination of the constitutionality or otherwise of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022.We are most grateful.”
The PDP Deputy National Publicity Secretary, Ibrahim Abdullahi, and the Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, wondered why President Bola Tinubu was in a hurry to pass the bills.
For more than two weeks, the bills have sparked widespread controversy with some northern lawmakers strongly opposed to the passage of the bills.
Following approval of the Federal Executive Council in October, President Tinubu transmitted four tax reform bills to the National Assembly for consideration.
The Federal Government says the bills are aimed at overhauling the nation’s tax system.
They include the Nigeria Tax Bill 2024, the Nigeria Tax Administration Bill, the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Bill, and the Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Bill.
The proposed legislation seeks to consolidate existing tax laws, establish clearer frameworks for tax administration, and create bodies like the Tax Appeal Tribunal and the Office of the Tax Ombudsman.
In an interview with The Tide source on Monday, Mr Abdullahi said the government needed to recognise the significant implications of the bills, stressing that the collective interest of the citizens should be the priority.
He stated, “My take aligns with the position of the majority of Nigerians. If the elite members of society, particularly the governors, are apprehensive, it calls for an expanded or broader review of the situation.
“The government needs to realise the great implications of this, as the collective interest of the citizenry should be at the forefront. Governors, being in a position to understand these implications, should be involved.”
He added, “However, I do not believe this should be a priority going forward for this country. Nigerians have been struggling since the arrival of this government, with skyrocketing inflation and harsh economic policies.
“The effects have been severe, whether it’s the floating of the naira, the removal of subsidies, or the numerous taxes that the country has had to deal with over the past year. It’s time for a change, as it’s not in the nation’s best interest to rush this process.
“If there are no sinister motives behind it, why the haste? We need more time for Nigerians to review and evaluate the implications of these decisions. If it truly serves our interest, it will be accepted naturally. However, the rush with which the government is pursuing this raises doubts about the sincerity of their intentions.”
Also speaking, Mr Osadolor acknowledged that the concept of tax reform was positive but urged the Federal Government not to rush the process.
He said, “There should have been wider and deeper consultations. You see, democracy is about the participation of everyone, not a Nazi-style approach to issues.
“If there is a large and strong call for more understanding, there is no need for a rush. Even in the past, without these tax reforms, we moved on.
“I don’t see how waiting for a week, two weeks, or even up to six months to explain this cause and gather input from other Nigerians would be a problem. It’s always good to consult and communicate with the people so that unnecessary conflicts can be avoided.
“The idea of the tax reforms is welcome, but there are clauses that I think people are unhappy with, and that I, too, find uncomfortable. So, I believe that if there had been more consultations, more public hearings, and more engagement with the states, many of these conversations and frictions across the country would not be happening now.”
At plenary, presided over by the Speaker, Isma’il Falgore, the lawmakers kicked against the bills after extensive deliberation.
The Majority Leader, Lawan Husseini (ANPP-Dala) introduced a motion of ‘urgent public importance,’ emphasising the need for northern lawmakers and the Conference of Speakers to prevent the passage of the bills.
Mr Husseini argued that if passed into law, the bills would not benefit the northern states.
He condemned the Senate’s decision to approve the bills, saying, “We view it as a deliberate effort to sabotage the economy, increase hardship and further impoverishing the region.”
Mr Husseini expressed concern over the proposed VAT allocation system, noting that states like Lagos, where major corporations such as Nigerian banks, telecommunications companies, and multinational companies were headquartered, would receive the largest share of the VAT.
“Lagos and its environs would account for 80 percent of the VAT collected in Nigeria, leaving northern states with a minimal share,” he said.
He warned that if allowed to scale through, the bill would further weaken northern states, potentially rendering some unable to pay salaries and worsening poverty and hardship.
Supporting the motion, Salisu Mohammed (APC-Doguwa) urged the upper legislative house to focus on more pressing national issues, such as attention insecurity and unemployment, instead of rushing the tax reform bills through the legislative process.
Similarly, Murtala Kadage (ANPP-Garko) called for unity among lawmakers to prevent the bills from passing, for the benefit of the region.
The House called on northern members of the Senate and House of Representatives, along with the Conference of Speakers, to take swift and decisive action to block the passage of the bills.
Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the off-cycle governorship election, Mr Agboola Ajayi, had approached the court to challenge the qualification of Olayide Adelami, the deputy governor-elect.
Mr Ajayi, the first runner-up in the governorship election, cited inconsistency in the names Mr Adelami submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) prior to the poll.
The PDP governorship candidate had, through his counsel, M. Ndoka (SAN), challenged the eligibility of Mr Adelami to contest as the deputy governorship candidate on the platform of APC and consequently sought the disqualification of APC from the ballot.
In the originating summons through his counsel, Mr Ajayi said the first defendant (Mr Adelami) is known by multiple conflicting and irreconcilable names, such as Adelami Owolabi Jackson and Olaide Owolabi Adelami.
In his submission, the PDP candidate prayed the court, “That the first defendant, (Adelami) is constitutionally disqualified from contesting the election as Deputy Governorship candidate of APC.”
Also, he sought “A declaration that the APC has no validly nominated governorship and deputy governorship candidate for the 2024 election.”
He further sought an order disqualifying the defendants from participating in the election and restraining INEC from publishing their names or allowing them to participate.
However, the defence counsel, Remi Olatubora (SAN), said Mr Adelami’s West African Examination Council (WAEC) result had the name Adelami Owolabi Jackson in 1974 and that a degree certificate from Ambrose Alli University issued in 1982 has the name Adelami Olaide Owolabi.
He said the grievance of the plaintiffs is not about discrepancies in the name but the order or arrangements of the names.
Mr Olatubora said the plaintiffs have no right to file the suit following section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2022 because they are not members of the APC and did not participate in the primary that produced Messrs Adelami and Aiyedatiwa as candidates.
“The plaintiffs lack the locus standi to file the suit or seek the reliefs set out in the originating summons. That the suit as a matter of law does not qualify as a pre-election matter, and this court lacks jurisdiction,” he said.
In her judgment, Justice Toyin Adegoke dismissed all the charges preferred against the APC candidates.
Justice Adegoke, in suit No. FHC/AK/CS/99/2024, held that the PDP candidate who challenged the qualification of the APC lacked locus standi to file the case.
She held that the case filed by Mr Ajayi and the PDP is barred by statute, having filed it outside the 14 days required by the Electoral Act.
Justice Adegoke further held that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit, having filed it through originating summons instead of a Writ of Summons.
The judge said the issue involving certificate forgery and perjury is criminal, which required the calling of evidence from the authorities that issued the certificates in question.
The court further held that section 29 of the Electoral Act made provisions for who could challenge the candidate of political parties.
She said the fact that PDP and Ajayi are not aspirants in the APC primary that produced Messrs Aiyedatiwa and Adelami as candidates had rubbed them off any legal right to challenge their qualifications.
-
Education3 days agoRSUBEB Officials Visit Riverine Schools In Abua /Odual
-
News3 days agoTinubu Leaves France, Heads To S’Africa For Bilateral Talks With Ramaphosa
-
Business1 day ago
Hostile Policies Subduing Manufacturing Growth – MAN
-
Rivers21 hours ago
Perm Sec, NOA Director Task NGOs On Self Reliance, Networking
-
News3 days agoMonarch Hails Fubara On Doctorate Degree Conferment
-
Business1 day ago
CAN Dismisses Lawmakers’ Security Claim Over Living Faith Airstrip
-
Niger Delta1 day agoA’Ibom To Establish 31 Healthcare Centers
-
News3 days ago
NDLEA Intercepts N4.3bn Worth Of Opioids At Onne, Tincan Ports