The Federal Government was sued over the contentious Naira re-design strategy, and the Supreme Court wrapped up the hearing on that case on Wednesday. The court set a decision date of March 3 for that day.
After hearing arguments in support of and against the lawsuit filed by some States of the Federation, Judge John Inyang Okoro set the date.
The states, led by Kaduna, Kogi, and Zamfara, are asking the Supreme Court to nullify and set aside the policy because it is putting innocent Nigerians through hardship.
The states demanded that President Muhammadu Buhari’s instruction be revoked on the grounds that he had usurped the authority of the Central Bank of Nigeria, or CBN.
Abdulhakeem Mustapha, a legal stalwart, delivered the argument for the states.
The case was postponed until March 3 by the top court for a decision.
Before, the supreme court combined the lawsuits filed by more than 12 state governments.
Seven additional states joined the three original states as co-plaintiffs at the most recent hearing on February 15, while Edo and Bayelsa states joined the Federal Government as co-defendants. However, the court declined to include Abia State in the lawsuit on the grounds that its originating summons was received too late.
Abia State Government’s attempts to join the lawsuit were unsuccessful, and it was told to wait to provide its defence.
Emmanuel Ukala, the attorney for Rivers State, also argued a petition for consolidation.
Ukala, who moved the motion on notice, based his plea for consolidation on the requirement that the lawsuit be addressed without delay because it concerns the same problem.
Judge John Okoro, the chairman of the 7-person panel, granted the request and directed that the ten lawsuits be combined into one.
READ ALSO: Naira Redesign: Three States File Court Contempt Charges Against Malami and Emefiele
The Attorneys General (AGs) of Kaduna, Kogi, Zamfara, Ondo, Ekiti, Katsina, Ogun, Cross River, Sokoto, and Lagos states are now the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, while the defendants are Abubakar Malami (SAN), the Attorney General of the Federation, and the AGs of Bayelsa and Edo states.
Kanu Agabi, the federal government’s attorney, opened the hearing by stating that the Supreme Court had ruled that all reliefs are based on section 20 of the CBN Act and that the action cannot begin with an originating summons, therefore the top court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
He questioned why, despite mentioning the CBN governor 32 times in their Originating Summons, the plaintiffs did not name him as a respondent.
He said that despite the reliefs being in the CBN’s favour, they did not see appropriate to involve the CBN in the dispute. He continued by saying that long before the President’s order, Nigerians had already started to reject the old notes. He emphasised that the President is not going against the Supreme Court’s ruling because the President is allowed to veto any legislation by virtue of the Constitution.
The legal representatives for the states of Bayelsa and Edo concur in the suit’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Rivers’ attorney pleaded with the court to grant all of the reliefs requested therein.
The AGF’s attorney also requests that the case be completely dismissed in court.
Also, a co-plaintiff, the Attorney General of Kano State, claimed that President Muhammadu Buhari ignored the National Economic Council’s members and only followed the CBN governor’s advise when implementing the monetisation strategy.
He stated that, in contrast to what the law demanded, the President chose to act without consulting the state governments.
He added that if nothing is done to solve the issue of cash shortage, there will be a breach in law and order according to a security assessment. Abdullahi Ganduje, the governor of Kano State, is a council member, and according to him, the matter wasn’t brought up at the NEC meeting.
Instead, the Vice President, who serves as the council’s chairman, and the finance minister were ignored by the CBN governor, who also relied only on the President.
The Justice emphasised that if the President orders that the old 200 naira notes be reinstated as legal money, the Supreme Court will have jurisdiction against him.
In addition, the Jigawa Attorney General claimed that Section 148 of the Constitution required the President to consult the governor of Jigawa State as a federating unit before implementing the redesign policy, but the President failed to do so.
