The Supreme Court had earlier adjourned the matter to June 19th when the current National Assembly would have ceased to exit.
But NASS, through its lawyer, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN applied to the Supreme Court to have the case re-listed for hearing before the expiration of the tenure of the current National Assembly.
A copy of the new hearing notice which was obtained by THISDAY reads: “Take notice that the above motion will be listed for hearing before the Supreme Court of Nigeria sitting at Abuja on Monday 25th day of May 2015.
“And further take notice that in accordance with Order 2 Rule 1(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985, as amended, this notice is deemed sufficiently served on you if it is left at your address for service or sent by registered post and since the date of service by post is material, section 26 of the Interpretation Act, 1c64 shall apply."
NASS is asking the apex court to discharge the interlocutory orders of injunction made on May 7th, 2015 which barred the lawmakers from overriding the president's veto.
In the application, Awomolo is asking the court to dismiss the originating summons filed by the Attorney General of the Federation on the grounds that: “The originating summons dated 22nd April 2015 is incompetent, fundamentally and incurably defective and thereby robs the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction.
“There is no known or reasonable cause of action disclosed in the originating summons to ground jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
“The originating summons filed by the plaintiff is an improper and or reckless invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”
He further argued that the AGF was not competent to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court (additional jurisdiction) Act.
While urging the court to hear the application, Awomolo said that the National Assembly was inaugurated on June 6th, 2011 for a term of four years and that the four years lifespan of the 7th National Assembly would terminate on June 6th 2015 and the case would therefore become abated.
“It is in the interest of justice and the good people of Nigeria that this suit be given expeditious hearing and determination",
The Supreme Court had earlier stopped the National Assembly from going ahead to enact into law the Fourth Alteration Act which seeks to amend the 1999 constitution.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria, who presided at the hearing of the suit filed by the Federal Government to stop the NASS from overriding President Goodluck Jonathan's veto on amendments to the constitution specifically, warned the parties not to do anything that will affect the subject matter of the suit.
The court consequently adjourned the suit to June 18 when a new government would have come on board and the legislative session of the present NASS would have ended.
The Supreme Court's order then effectively killed the threat by the NASS to go ahead to pass the amendments into law thereby rendering the whole amendments process which gulped billion of Naira a wasted exercise.
In order to stop the National Assembly from going ahead to pass into the controversial amendments to the constitution, the Attorney General of the Federation applied for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the lawmakers from taking any further step towards passing the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Act, 2015 into law pending the final determination of the suit earlier filed before the court.
The application which was filed by the counsel to the AGF, Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN was brought pursuant to Order 3 Rule 14 of the Supreme Court Rules as amended.
The AGF premised the application on the grounds among others that the National Assembly was determined to proceed with passing the constitution by overriding the veto of same despite the fundamental nature of the issues raised against it.
When the case came up before the court, the CJN sought clarification on whether the suit was properly instituted saying that the president should have filed the suit by himself and not through the AGF.
According to him, since the dispute is not between the federal government and the federating units, the proper person to file should be the president.
The justices of the court also sought to know whether it was right not to make states' houses of assembly parties since they participated in the process that resulted in the amendments.
The court therefore adjourned the suit to June 18 for Ojo to address the court on whether the case was properly constituted.
But before the adjournment, the CJN said: “Parties should not do anything that will affect the subject matter of the suit.”
In the application for injunction, the AGF said it was more in the interest of the whole Nigerian polity that the issues in the substantive suit herein be resolved one way or the other before the National Assembly can proceed further on the proposed alterations to the constitution.
The AGF said: “Hon. Samson Osagie, Minority Whip of the House of Representative said to the whole world at a Press Conference purposely called on the issue in this suit that despite any case filed against the said Act (which actually is a Bill); the National Assembly would go ahead to pass it into law."
The AGF said the balance of convenience tilts in favour of resolution of this suit before any further step could be taking on the Bill.
A lawyer in the chambers of Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN and Co, Theophilus Okwute in affidavit attached to the application said he was aware of a press conference held by the defendant.
He said: ”That I listened to Hon. Samson Osagie, the Minority Whip of the House of Representative on the NTA 9 O’clock News on 24/04/2015 when he said that the National Assembly would go ahead to pass the (Fourth Alteration) Act (Bill) 2015 into law despite any Court action because no order had been made against the National Assembly to restrain it from doing so.
“That by that very disposition of the said Hon. Samson Osagie who spoke to the press as a Principal Officer of the Defendant/
Defendant/
The federal government had dragged the National Assembly to the Supreme Court asking the apex court to declare the amendments to the constitution proposed by the lawmakers as unconstitutiona
FG's claim that the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths majority of members of the Defendant and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the extant Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
-Thisday
No comments:
Post a Comment