By Derrick Bangura

Nigeria’s federal government has dragged the National Assembly to the apex court in the land over the recent law barring political appointees from participating in the congresses and conventions of political parties unless they resigned from offices 30 days to the congresses and conventions.

The suit filed by President Muhammadu Buhari and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, specifically asked the Supreme Court to interpret the controversial clause in the Electoral Amendment Act 2022.
The suit which listed the National Assembly as the sole defendant was dated April 29, 2022.
Recall that Buhari had signed the amended Electoral Act into law with a condition that the lawmakers remove Section 84 (12) that barred political appointees because it is anti-democratic.
The section specifically stipulates that, “No political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election.”

Although a Federal High Court, Abuja, had restrained the National Assembly from giving effect to the request of the president, the lawmakers on their part however ignored the request and threw it out.

Meanwhile, another Federal High Court in Umuahia, holding that the said section breaches the Constitution, had ordered that the law be struck down and the federal government delete from the copy of the amended Electoral Act, 2022.

Only last week, the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, although held that Section 84 (12) was unconstitutional went ahead to void the judgment of the Federal High Court that ordered its striking down because the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have the legal backing to initiate the suit in the first place.

But the federal government in its own suit marked SC/CV/504/2022, is seeking an order of the apex court to strike out the alleged offensive section of the Electoral Act, for being inconsistent with the Constitution.

According to the plaintiffs, Section 84 (12) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2022 is inconsistent with the provisions of sections 42, 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 147, 151, 177, 182, 192 and 196 of the Constitution as well Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.

The federal government in addition submits that the constitution has already provided how a person could qualify or be disqualified for the offices of the President and Vice President, Governor and Deputy Governor, Senate and House of Representatives, House of Assembly, Ministers, Commissioners, and Special Advisers.

Among the reliefs sought were “A declaration that the joint and or combined reading of Section 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 147, 151, 177, 182, 192 and 196 of the Constitution, the provision of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which also ignores Section 84(3) of the same Act, is an additional qualifying and/or disqualifying factors for the National Assembly, House of Assembly, Gubernatorial and Presidential elections as enshrined in the said constitution, hence unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void.

“A declaration that having regard to the clear provision of section 1(3) of the Constitution read together with section 4 of the same Constitution, the legislative powers vested in the defendant do not permit or empower it to make any other law prescribing additional qualifying/disqualifying grounds for election to the National Assembly, House of Assembly, Gubernatorial and Presidential election outside the express constitutional qualification and disqualification provisions as already provided in each or all of sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 147, 151, 177, 182, 192 and 196 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and without amendment to any of those sections is for the reason of inconsistency, unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

“An order nullifying the provision of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 by application of the blue-pencil rule, for being unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and having been made in excess of the legislative powers of the defendant as enshrined in section 4 of the constitution (as amended).”