The Supreme Court has fixed judgment for March 3 in the suits filed by 17 states to challenge the propriety of the naira swap policy of the Federal Government.
A nine-member panel of the court presided over by Justice John Okoro chose the date after lawyers to parties made their final submissions.
The states that filed cases against the Federal Government, in the name of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), are: Kaduna, Kogi, Zamfara, Katsina, Lagos, Cross River, Ogun, Ekiti, Ondo, Sokoto, Rivers, Kano, Niger, Jigawa, Nasarawa, Plateau and Abia states.
Upon an application by Bayelsa and Edo states, the court on February 15, joined the two states as co-defendants with the AGF.
But senior lawyers said yesterday’s development will not in any way affect the apex court’s interim order of February 8.
Read Also: Police SFU Arraigns Businessmen For N138m Fraud
According to the States Attorney General, the order that the old currencies remained as legal tender until the determination of the suit before the court subsists.
Before the hearing of the suits yesterday, the Attorney-General of Lagos, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), noted that it may be impossible for the case to be heard yesterday because he was just served with some documents by some of the respondents.
Onigbanjo added that Lagos has, along with its originating summons, filed an application on February 20 to bar the AGF from continuing to defend the suit because he was in contempt of court.
He argued that it was the position of the law that a party in contempt of court cannot appear to seek any relief.
At that point, Justice Okoro interjected and announced that the court was willing to hear the case yesterday and would not accommodate any issue that could prevent it from achieving that goal.
Also Read: Bamise Trial: Survivor Recounts How BRT Driver Rape Her
The Justice noted that everyone in the case seemed to want to make the Judiciary a scapegoat on the issue, adding that the way things were going, the Judiciary could be made the scapegoat.
He said: “We don’t want a situation where the judiciary is made a scapegoat,” adding that the court did not want to delay the hearing of the case any longer.
The judge further said the court would not waste its time on whether or not its order is obeyed but would hear the case.
Another member of the panel, Justice Amina Augie, spoke in a similar vein and insisted that the court was determined to hear the case.
Onigbanjo said his state filed several documents in the case.
One of such documents, he said, is a motion seeking an order prohibiting the defendant/respondent (the AGF) from being granted an audience before this court until the defendant or his principal, the President, complies with the order made by the court on February 8 directing that the old notes remain legal tender until the determination of the suit.
Click To Read: Court Bars INEC From Deploying Material Through Lagos Park Management
Onigbanjo said the suit by Lagos was distinct from the one filed by other states in that it seeks reliefs pertaining to Lagos and not the people of the state.
He said the suit was informed by the fact that the naira redesign was affecting the government of Lagos State in the performance of its functions and meeting its responsibilities.
The Lagos A-G urged the court to refuse audience to the AGF and grant the prayers sought in the suit.
Justice Okoro then called on the lawyer of the first and second defendants (Kaduna and Kogi states), Abdulhakeem Mustapha (SAN), to identify his processes and adopt them.
Mustapha identified the documents he filed, including an affidavit he filed on February 22 on the AGF’s alleged non-compliance with the order of the court.
He urged the court to grant all the reliefs being sought in his clients and dismiss the notices of objection filed by the AGF and Bayelsa State.
You May Like To Read: Lagos Judiciary Rejects Old Naira Note Despite Supreme Court Order
Lawyer to Zamfara State, Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), who adopted the arguments by Mustapha, said his client also filed an application on February 17 praying the court to set aside the directive issued by President Muhammadu Buhari on February 16 directing that only N200 notes should be in use, in disregard of the pending order of the court.
Owonikoko added that the naira redesign policy of the Federal Government was at variance with the provision of Section 17(2)(c) of the Constitution, which says that governmental actions shall be humane.
He added that the policy has occasioned hardship on the people.
Samuel Ologunorisa (SAN), who represented Katsina; Shuaibu Abuwa (SAN) for Cross River; Tunde Afe Babalola SAN, for Ogun; O. O. Olowolafe SAN for Ekiti; Charles Titiloye SAN for Ondo and Georgina Udeh for Sokoto State, all urged the court to dismiss the objection raise against the suit by the AGF and Bayelsa State and grant all the reliefs sought in the suit by Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara states.
In their separate cases that were consolidated with the case by Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara states, Rivers, Kano, Jigawa, Nasarawa and Abia argued that the policy was unconstitutional and should be voided.
Sunnusi Musa (SAN) for Kano argued that President Buhari violated constitutional provisions when he sidelined members of the National Economic Council, who ought to be consulted before such a monumental economic policy could be implemented.
Sunnusi argued that President Buhari only worked with the CBN governor, who is just a member of the council in deciding to adopt the policy that brought suffering to the people.
He urged the court to intervene to save the nation’s democracy as it had done in the past.
Musa Aliyu, who is the A-G of Jigawa State, argued that President Buhari violated the provision of Section 148(3) of the Constitution, requiring him to first seek the advice of the National Economic Council on any economic policy.
Abdulkarim Kana, the A-G of Nasarawa State, argued that his state and the governor were among the victims of the naira policy.
He prayed the court to grant the reliefs sought in the suit by his state and dismiss the objection by the respondents.
Kanu Agabi (SAN), Tijani Gazali (SAN), Kenneth Mozia (SAN) and Audu Anuga (SAN) who represented the AGF, Bayelsa and Edo states urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction and for being incompetent.
Agabi, who also argued that necessary parties were not before the court, faulted the exclusion of the governor of the CBN as a party in the suit.
Read Also: Court Grants Maydon Pharmaceutical Boss Request To Recovers €233,000 Ransom Paid To Evans
He noted that references were made to the CBN 32 times in the plaintiffs’ originating summons and supporting affidavit, while seven reliefs were sought against the apex bank, which was not made a party in the suit.
Agabi, who said his client filed a motion on notice seeking the dismissal of the Form 48 issued on the AGF and the Governor of CBN, added that an affidavit to show cause why Form 48 should be set aside has also been filed.
He argued that President Buhari did not flout the order of the court in his February 16 broadcast, insisting that it was a necessary intervention.
Agabi said: “Long before the court made the order, Nigerians were already rejecting the old notes. Even this court’s Registry was not accepting them.
“The Present felt it was necessary to prevent this anomaly. Then, he gave the directive and said, to stop rejecting them. Take them to the CBN. The president did not disobey the order made by this court,” Agabi said.
Other members of the Supreme Court’s panel are Justices Amina Augie, Mohammed Lawal Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Tijani Abubakar and Emmanuel Agim.”
