SAN FRANCISCO, April 22, (THEWILL) – The move by the National Assembly to amend some sections of the 1999 Constitution has again pitched the law making body against the Federal Government.
Apparently not satisfied with the proposed amendments, the Federal Government has dragged the National Assembly before the Supreme Court, asking the apex court to nullify the proposed amendments, describing the move by the lawmakers as unconstitutional.
THEWILL recalls that President Goodluck Jonathan had earlier withheld his assent to the constitutional amendment bill forwarded to him by the National Assembly.
In an originating summons filed by Chief Bayo Ojo , SAN, on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN), the Federal Government averred that the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 passed the National Assembly was not done with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths majority of members of the Assembly as mandated by the relevant sections of the extant Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
It therefore asked the Supreme Court to make an order nullifying and setting aside Sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 purportedly passed by the National Assembly.
In the summons, the Federal Government also wants the apex court to determine the following 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?
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?
The Federal Government therefore asked the apex court to hold that the proposed amendments to the Constitution through sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of 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 and passed by the Defendant without complying with the mandatory requirement of section 9(3) and (4) of the said Constitution stipulating passage by at least four-fifths majority of all members of each House specified in sections 48 and 49 of the Constitution is unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
It also prayed the court to declare that in the absence of compliance by the Defendant with the mandatory requirements of section 9(3) of 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, it is unconstitutional for the Defendant to exercise its powers under section 58(5) of the Constitution to enable the purported Act to become Law.
The originating summons is supported by an affidavit deposed to by a lawyer in Bayo Ojo’s chambers, Mr Theophilus Okwute, who claimed the AGF told him that the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths majority of members of the Defendant and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the extant Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
He said the Defendant is making moves, with the tacit consent of all the State Houses of Assembly to employ certain provisions of the Constitution to now pass the purported Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 into Law.
He also claimed 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.
Maintaining that most of the provisions of the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 are contrary to public policy and good governance, he said that it will be in the interest of justice to grant all the prayers sought in the suit.
In withholding his assent, President Jonathan queried the decision of the National Assembly to whittle down some executive powers of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, whilst also faulting some amendments which gives executive powers and duties to the Legislature and the Judiciary.
In a seven-page letter to Senate President David Mark and House of Representatives Speaker Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, President Jonathan explained his position on the amendment and why he declined to sign the document into law.
The President comcluded by saying: “In view of the foregoing and absence of credible evidence that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Act 2015 satisfied the strict requirements of Section 9(3) of the 1999 Constitution, it will be unconstitutional for me to assent to it.
“I therefore withhold my assent and accordingly remit Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Act 2015 to the Senate /House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
He listed some faults in the amendment:
- Non-compliance with the threshold specified in Section 9(3) of the 1999 Constitution on amendments;
- Alteration to constitution cannot be valid with mere voice votes unless supported by the votes of not less than four-fifths majority all members of National Assembly and two-thirds of all the 36 State Houses of Assembly;
- Right to free basic education and primary and maternal care services imposed on private institutions
- Flagrant violation of the doctrine of separation of powers,
- Unjustified whittling down of the Executive powers of the Federation vested in the President by virtue of Section 5(1) of the 1999 Constitution;
- 30 days allowed for assent of the President; and
- Limiting expenditure in default of appropriation from 6months to three months
- Creation of the Office of Accountant-General of the Federation distinct from the Accountant General of the Federal Government
- Empowering National Economic Council to appoint the Accountant-General of the Federation instead of the President;
- Allowing NJC to now appoint the Attorney-General of the Federation rather than the President;
- Unwittingly whittling down the discretionary powers of the Attorney-General of the Federation.
