 |
| Senate President, Bukola Saraki |
Dr Kayode Ajulo (Esq.), a lawyer based in Abuja has faulted the suit filed by Senate President Bukola Saraki on behalf of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, according to him, the suit is entrapped by legal and constitutional barriers, which robs the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain the action for which Jurisdiction is vested in the Federal High Court.
It would be recalled that the Senate approached the Supreme Court on Monday, 28, January, 2019 for the interpretation of the constitution in respect of suspension of Onnoghene JSC by the President Muhammadu Buhari.
 |
| Dr.Kayode Ajulo |
Mr Ajulo however disclosed that the constitution only empower the Federal High Court and not the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to hear the suit by virtue of schedule to the Supreme Court, s...251. which States that (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters -(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies."
“Thus, for the avoidance of doubt paragraph (a) additional original jurisdiction of 2002 enactment is already contained under s.251(1)(r) and this is creating a legal contradiction in an attempt by the Senate to force access on the Supreme Court.
“The above is also expository of the fact that the additional enactment has strong nexus on grounds of bias and an attempt by the Senate President who is acting under the cloak and disguise of National Assembly to subterfuge every activity of the President ab initio.
The legal practitioner noted that the Federal Republic Constitution of Nigeria 1999 makes provision subject, save and except where vested by an Act of National Assembly, that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction involving only dispute between the Federal Government and a State or dispute between States of the Federation.
"s.232. (1) The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a state or between states if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends."
He further disclosed that the constitution makes delegation for vesting the Supreme Court with additional Original Jurisdiction. “s.232(2) In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon it by subsection (1) of this section, the Supreme Court shall have such original jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by any Act of the National Assembly"
Deepening the legal interpretation, Mr Ajulo affirmed that Section 1 of the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act 2002, made by the National Assembly, provides thus: 1. Additional original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court
(1) In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court of Nigeria by section 323 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between-
(a) the National Assembly and the President;
(b) the National Assembly and any State House of Assembly; and
(c) the National Assembly and any State of the Federation,
in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
The question that is now begging for answer from the Senate president is as that:
1. Why the use of the word president and not the Executive?
2. Why the choice of the word National Assembly and not the Senate President?
Further, the provisions of that paragraph (a) made under the additional enactment is totally fraught with illegality and is unconstitutional, null and void by reason of its failing to imbibe within it the basic tenet of law that the Supreme Court can not have original Jurisdiction where either of the party is an individual.
The additional enactment make particular reference to the person of the president as against the Executive as an entity.
Thus, moving forward, the huddles the suit filed by the Saraki senate must overcome by this section, is to show:
1. That locus exist and that there is a dispute between the National Assembly and the President.
2. That the dispute is such that can not be entertained by the Federal High Court by vitue of s.251(1)(r).
3. The dispute involves questions of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
However, it is doubtful if there is any dispute between the President and the Senate over the suspension of Mr. Justice Onnoghen, CJN and for which the National Assembly could be said to have locus or the Federal High Court Jurisdiction.Certainly there is none between the President and the National Assembly.
If there is any dispute at all over the matter, it is between the President ( properly stated the Executive of the one part) and the NJC ( properly stated the Judiciary of the other part)
By virtue of section 4 of the Act, which is the Interpretation section, "National Assembly means the Senate and House of Representatives established by the Constitution.
What this means is that neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives can individually institute an action in its name against the President in the Supreme Court as a court of first instance, in respect of any dispute involving the President. Such suit can only be instituted in the name of the National Assembly. Therefore, it is obvious that the suit filed by the Senate cannot surmount this legal barrier.
Ajulo also disclosed that the other legal huddle the suit must surmount is provided in paragraph 1 and 2 of the Schedule to the Act thus:
SCHEDULE
(Section 2.]
1. Neither the National Assembly nor State House of Assembly shall institute or initiate legal proceedings under this Act except upon the resolution of the House passed by a simple majority of the members of that House present and sitting at the time the resolution is put to vote.
2. No legal proceedings shall be initiated or instituted by or on behalf of the National Assembly under the Act except upon the resolution which has been passed by both Houses of National Assembly by a simple majority of the members of each House present and sitting at the time the resolution is put to vote.
It is clear from a cumulative reading of the provisions of the two paragraphs, that a suit cannot be initiated by the National Assembly against the President except upon the resolution by a simple majority of the members of each House present and sitting at the time the resolution is put to vote, is passed by both Houses of the National Assembly. This has not been done in this case.
He said, “Distinguished Senate President Saraki, in a bid to do his own bidding has constituted himself as the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, nay the National Assembly, and without any resolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives, briefed his private lawyers to file a suit against the President in the name of the Senate.
" It is against such frivolous action as filed by Saraki, that the stringent provisions of the Act were enacted, in order to insulate the Supreme Court from unnecessary legal distractions not backed by a majority of legislators,” the legal practitioner explained.
Mr Ajulo however revealed that the suit filed by the Senate President is dead on arrival on the threshold of the Supreme Court.
Comments
Post a Comment