The Supreme Court on Wednesday fixed March 3, 2023 for its judgment in 10 governors’ suit against the Federal Government and the Central Bank of Nigeria over the new naira note deadline.
The shifting of the judgment date dashed the hope of millions of Nigerians who had hoped the apex court would end the case ahead of the presidential election slated for Saturday.
Meanwhile, the crisis caused by the CBN’s naira swap policy worsened with many Nigerians finding it difficult to purchase basic needs.
This came as the Independent National Electoral Commission said it was gearing up for Saturday’s polls.
The Supreme Court on February 8, while ruling on a suit filed by Zamfara, Kaduna and Kogi states against the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, ordered the Federal Government not to implement the February 10 deadline for swapping old naira notes for new ones.
But in complete disregard for the February 8 court order, President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.) in a national broadcast, extended the validity of the old N200 notes while insisting that the old N500 and N1,000 remained illegal.
He further directed that the old N200 note would be legal tender till April 10, 2023, while urging Nigerians to deposit their old N500 and 1000 notes with the Central Bank.
With this development, the apex court has further delayed the resolution of the biting naira scarcity crisis which three state governors alleged was targeted at scuttling the Saturday polls.
The Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, last Thursday described the current scarcity of naira notes as part of an alleged plot to disrupt the elections to ensure an interim government takes over.
The governor in a state broadcast alleged that the debacle was meant to ensure that the All Progressives Congress flag bearer, Bola Tinubu, and other candidates of the party lose.
He claimed that those who lost out in the party’s primaries were behind the plot.
Speaking while hosting the Forum of Former Parliamentarians, North-West zone, in Kano penultimate Wednesday, the Kano State Governor, Abdullahi Ganduje, similarly lashed at the policy, which he said was aimed at truncating the nation’s democracy.
Likewise, the Ondo State Governor, Rotimi Akeredolu, rubbished the policy, saying it was unpopular, fruitless and counter-productive, stressing that the gale of violence spawned by the policy portends serious danger to the current democratic governance.
However, at the start of Wednesday’s proceeding, the motion for the consolidation of the different suits was raised and argued by the counsel for Rivers State, Emmanuel Ukala, SAN, before the Supreme Court panel.
The panel members headed by Justice John Okoro include Justices Amina Augie, Lawal Garba, I. Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Tijjani Abubakar and Emmanuel Agim.
Ukala while moving the motion on notice premised the consolidation request on the need for the suit to be heard without any impediment since the matter borders on the same issue.
Following a series of requests and objections, counsel for Lagos State, Moyosore Onibanjo, prayed the court to bar the Attorney -General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, from defending the respondents while acting in contempt of the February 8 court order restraining the Federal Government from ending the cash swap policy on February 10.
He stated that “the issue of contempt supersedes the issue of jurisdiction.”
Onibanjo was making reference to the violation of the Supreme Court’s order by Buhari in his state broadcast.
In complete disregard for the court order, Buhari extended the validity of the old N200 notes while insisting that the old N500 and N1,000 remained illegal.
He further directed that the old N200 note would be legal tender till April 10, 2023, while urging Nigerians to deposit their old N500 and 1000 notes with the Central Bank.
But responding to Onigbanjo, Justice Okoro declared, “You are not a stranger to this country. We are going to hear this matter today because we don’t want a situation where the judiciary will be made a scapegoat.
“With the way this matter is going, they want to make the judiciary a scapegoat but we can’t allow that. We are going to hear everything and make our decision. If you have a contempt proceeding, we will also hear it today.”
Though the court initially said it would no longer allow any state to join the case as an interested party, upon its resumed proceedings after a 10-minute break, it allowed Abia State to join the other plaintiffs.
Counsel to Abia State, Mrs. Udochi Iheanacho told the court that her client had an application it filed on Tuesday and applied to be allowed to consolidate its position with other states challenging the new monetary policy by the CBN.
Though Plateau State attempted to also join in the suit, the apex court declined. It asked all other states to await its decision on the matter.
Now, the plaintiffs in the suit are the Attorneys-General of Kaduna, Kogi, Zamfara, Ondo, Ekiti, Katsina, Ogun, Cross River, Sokoto, Lagos and Abia states.
The defendants are the AGF, Edo and Bayelsa states which applied to be joined as co-respondents and co-defendants with the Federal Government.
On the other hand, Rivers, Kano, Jigawa and Nasarawa states maintained that their own case was separate.
They emphasised that their complaint was not only with the naira redesign policy, but also with the cash withdrawal limits the CBN stipulated for corporate entities and individuals, respectively.
While consolidating all the cases, the Supreme Court noted that the issue in dispute revolves around section 20(3) of the CBN Act.
At the resumed hearing after the break, the counsel to the Federal Government, Kanu Agabi, SAN, argued that the apex court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit as the action cannot commence with an originating summon.
He stated that there is a clear distinction between the president and the federation and that the powers being vested on the President doesn’t make Buhari the federation.
Responding, Justice Okoro asked him, “Who then is the nation?” to which Agabi declined responding and jokingly alluded to a chapter in the book of Ezekiel where Ezekiel responded to a question and said, “Lord thou knowest.”
He also contended that the plaintiffs did not deem it fit to bring the CBN to court as a respondent despite making reference to the apex bank 32 times in their originating summons and the fact that seven of the reliefs sought involved the apex bank.
He asserted that Nigerians were already turning down the old notes long before the President’s directive.
“Why not bring the CBN in? Seven out of eight of their reliefs are against the CBN. Long before the order of the Supreme Court, Nigerians have been rejecting old notes. Even in this Supreme Court, they don’t collect it when we file processes,’’ he noted.
Agabi also maintained that none of the plaintiffs had named the citizens they were representing.
The senior advocate further argued that by asking Nigerians to deposit their old naira notes at the CBN-designated centres, the President was abiding by the court order, adding that Buhari was empowered under the constitution to veto any legislation.
‘’The plaintiffs are crying in the wrong place. By section 20(3) of the CBN Act, then the process cannot be heard in this court. The Supreme Court cannot assume original jurisdiction. They are crying in the wrong place,’’ he insisted.
In a similar vein, AGF Malami urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the case of the plaintiffs for want of competence.
In his preliminary objection moved by Tijjani Gazali, SAN, the AGF maintained that the Supreme Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
He challenged the power of the Supreme Court to intervene in the matter and accused the plaintiffs of opposing FG’s power over the CBN to withdraw old banknotes and introduce new ones.
“The plaintiffs’ suit is about the power vested on the Central Bank of Nigeria by the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 to call in its banknotes and introduce new ones. This suit, as presently constituted, falls under section 251(1)(a)(p)(q) & (r) of the Constitution.’’
He argued that the suit belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court by virtue of the subject matter and parties.
‘’The claims or reliefs are not against the federation, but the Federal Government and its agency, the Central Bank of Nigeria. The Federal Government of Nigeria is distinct from the federation or the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The plaintiffs have no grievance whatsoever against the federation of Nigeria.
“This suit has disclosed no dispute that invokes this court’s original jurisdiction as constitutionally defined. This suit is an abuse of judicial process. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute this action. The plaintiffs have no reasonable cause of action against the defendant,” Malami submitted.
The plaintiffs, however, urged the apex court not to exercise any favourable discretion to the Federal Government which they argued acted in contempt of a subsisting order of the court.
Lagos told the court that its case was different, stating that it was undertaken on behalf of the Lagos state government and not the residents.
He added that the new monetary policy by the CBN constrained it from carrying out its statutory functions as a state.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General of Kano State, who is a co-plaintiff, argued that Buhari sidelined the members of the National Economic Council and only relied on the advice of the CBN governor in the implementation of the monetisation policy.
He also said that Buhari ignored the finance minister and the vice president who is the chairman of the council.
He further insisted that he has it on good authority that the President decided to exercise his powers without consulting with the state governments as required by the law.
Validating his claim, the counsel mentioned that the Kano State Governor, Abdullahi Ganduje is a member of the council and he told him that the issue was never discussed at the NEC meeting.
Similarly, the Attorney General of Jigawa State stated that section 148 of the constitution, compelled the President to seek the advice of the Jigawa State governor as a federating unit but the President did not do so in the implementation of the naira redesign policy.
Meanwhile, Zamfara State, through its lawyer, Mr. Abiodun Owonikoko, SAN, urged the apex court to set aside the directive the President gave in his February 16 state broadcast which directed only the old N200 banknote to remain legal tender till April 10.
Owonikoko argued that the President’s directive was an affront to the interim order of the apex court that restrained the Federal Government from proceeding with the full implementation of the CBN monetary policy.
After considerations and adoption of the suits, the court declared that the matter was adjourned till “3rd March for judgment.
Curled from Punch Newspapers
