Supreme Court stops Constitution amendment

The Supreme Court has stopped the National Assembly from taking any steps to override President Goodluck Jonathan’s veto of the Constitution amendment by the Legislature.

The court, in a ruling yesterday, restrained parties to a suit by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), from taking any step to alter the position of things in the subject matter of the case.

The AGF, who initiated the suit for the President, is challenging the legality of the procedure adopted by the Legislature in passing the last amendment to the Constitution, termed the Fourth Alteration Act 2015, and urged the court to, among others, declare the amendment unconstitutional.

Yesterday, the court was to hear the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction, but could not, in view of some anomalies identified in the suit. Although the court was satisfied that the National Assembly (listed as defendant in the suit) was served, but was not represented and yet did not file any response. The plaintiff’s lawyer, Bayo Ojo (SAN), could not move his motion in view of the issues raised by the court.

The court’s seven-man panel, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, queried the composition of the suit. It wondered whether it ought not to have been filed in the name of the President as against the AGF. It noted that by virtue of the provisions of the Supreme Court Additional Jurisdiction Act, 2004, the President could initiate a case and could be named in any dispute involving the President and other institutions listed in the Act.

The court also queried the exclusion of states’ Assemblies from the suit when they also participated in the Constitution amendment. The seven-man panel agreed to allow Ojo sufficient time to address the issues raised and adjourned till June 18.

In a short ruling, the CJN said: “To allow the learned counsel to the plaintiff time to address the court on salient issues surrounding the case, regarding the proper parties, and having regard to the requirement of the Supreme Court of Nigeria Additional Jurisdiction Act, CAP F16, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution, prescribing the original jurisdiction of this court and the party that can invoke that jurisdiction, this case is further adjourned to June 18, 2015 for the parties to address the court on these salient issues.

“Meanwhile, pending the hearing of the parties on the 18th of June 2015, status quo shall be maintained in the matter. In other words, no further steps shall be taken to alter the current position of the subject matter of the suit by the defendants or the plaintiff,” Justice Mohammed said.

The plaintiff, by the motion for interlocutory injunction, is seeking to restrain the National Assembly and its members from proceeding to give effect to their alleged threat to override the President’s veto in view of his refusal to assent to the Fourth Alteration Act 2015 Bill despite that the suit was pending before the court.

Among the grounds on which the applicant hinged the application was 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.

He stated that it is more in the interest of the country that the issues in the substantive suit are resolved one way or the other before the National Assembly can proceed further on the proposed alterations to the constitution.

The applicant stated in a supporting affidavit that the Minority Whip of the House of Representatives, Samson Osagie, reportedly vowed at a press conference, that the Legislature will override the President’s veto despite the suit.

The plaintiff’s argument in the main suit is that the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths majority of members of the National Assembly (defendant) and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the extant Constitution.

The plaintiff argued that the said purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 contains many proposed amendments inconsistent with the spirit of federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances, all of which constitute the hallmark of the Constitution and democracy.

He also added that most of the provisions of the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 are contrary to public policy and good governance.

The plaintiff, in its originating summons, asked the court to nullify and set aside Sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 purportedly passed by the defendant.

The plaintiff also asked the court to determine two questions:

•Whether the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) by the Defendant through sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, ((Fourth Alteration) Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as The Fourth Alteration Act 2015) which purportedly altered sections 8, 9, 34, 35, 39, 42, 45, 58, 84, 150, 174 and 211 of the Constitution without compliance with the requirements of Section 9(3) of the Constitution is not unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void? and

•whether in the absence of compliance by the Defendant with the mandatory requirement of section 9(3) of the Constitution in the passage of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, the defendant can competently exercise its powers under section 58(5) of the Constitution to enable the purported Act to become Law?