Nathaniel Zacchaeus Abuja
The Senate and the House of Representatives yesterday resolved to appeal a court judgement that nullified Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act 2022.

A Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia, had in its verdict, ruled against the provisions of Section 84(12) of the newly amended Electoral Act 2022 passed by the National Assembly.

Justice Evelyn Anyadike, in the judgement, held that the Section of the Act was unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.

The Judge said it ought to be struck down as it cannot stand because it violated the clear provisions of the Constitution.

Consequently, the court ordered the Attorney General of the Federation to “forthwith delete the said Subsection 12 of Section 84 from the body of the Electoral Act.”

The section reads: “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 nomination of candidates for any election.”

While the controversy over the judgement is raging, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, reaffirmed that the process of implementing the judgement on the Electoral Act was in progress.

Malami had shortly after the judgement, in a statement by his spokesperson, Umar Gwandu, appeared to have foreclosed any appeal against the judgement by declaring that the government will enforce the verdict by gazetting the Electoral Act with the “offensive provision” deleted from it.

But the Senate, in a unanimous decision at plenary resolved to “appeal the judgement for the Court to set the judgment aside”

Coming under order 42 of the Senate Standing Orders on Personal Explanation, Senator George Thompson Sekibo (PDP, Rivers East) during plenary, challenged the judgment of the court on Section 84(12).

Citing Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended, Sekibo stated that the National Assembly is empowered under Its provisions to make laws for the peace, order, and good governance of Nigeria.

He added that Section 228 lists such functions to include making laws to ensure internal democracy within political parties.

The section provides in part that, the National Assembly may by law provide guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy within political parties, including making laws for the conduct of party primaries, party congresses, and party conventions.

It also included the conferment on the Independent National Electoral Commission of powers as may appear to the National Assembly to be necessary or desirable for enabling the Commission more effectively to ensure that political parties observe the practices of internal democracy,

The motion had 84 cosponsors apart from Sekibo.

The motion was titled, “urgent need to appeal the Judgment of the Federal High Court Umuahia on Suit No.: FHC/UM/CS/26/2022 on Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022.”

Sekibo, in his presentation, drew the attention of his colleagues to the judgement of the Federal High Court in Umuahia, Abia State, in a suit marked FHC/MU/SC/26/2022.

The judgement faulted the provision of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act 2022 and declared it unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null void, and of no effect.

Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 states as follows: “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 nomination of candidates for any election.”

The lawmaker observed that the Judge in his ruling said that Section 81(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 was inconsistent with Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g), and 182(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

He noted further that Section 4(1)(2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended vested the power of law-making for the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the National Assembly.

He argued that in furtherance to the powers vested in the National Assembly, the 1999 Constitution under the roles of the Executive in Item D that deals with political parties in Section 228(a)(b) and (c) confers more powers on the National Assembly, more particularly on political parties and effective management of the electoral process by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

He noted that the Electoral Act 2022 enacted by the National Assembly followed due process, adding that Section 84(12) of the Act exclusively refers to nomination conventions and congresses called for candidate selection and not a participation in the general election which Sections 66(1)(f),137(1)(g) and 182(1)(g) referred to.

According to him, the interpretation of the meaning of the words ‘civil service’ and ‘public service’ in Section 318 was unambiguous, saying, “there’s a difference between the civil service or public service and political appointment.”

He added that “the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria should show concern on the judgment especially when she was not given opportunity to represent herself in a matter such as this that emanates from her legitimate functions.”

FG is determined to end crude oil theft – Sylva

Sekibo warned further, “Letting the judgment go without concern will become a precedence on which any person could go to court and obtain judgment to ridicule the good intentions of the National Assembly as an institution.”

The Senate, accordingly, resolved to appeal the judgment in suit FHC/MU/SC/26/2022 for the court to set aside the judgment, noting that same was reached without due consideration of the Constitutional interpretation in Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

Also, the House of Representatives took a similar position to appeal the judgement of the Federal High Court.

Members of the House expressed disappointment and displeasure with the judgement, which they said was aimed at usurping the powers of law-making conferred on them by the 1999 Constitution as amended.

They also resolved to petition the National Judicial Council (NJC) about the conduct of the judge who gave judgement against the National Assembly even when they were not necessary parties to the suit.

They also asked the Attorney General of the Federation not to tamper with the law as made by the National Assembly pending the determination of all appeals related to it.

Speaker Femi Gbajabiamiala said the Executive or an appointee of the Executive cannot by the provision of the Constitution delete even a punctuation mark on any law as that would amount to usurping the powers expressly conferred on the National Assembly.

He said it was curious the judgement was given when Plaintiff did not show any injury that he will suffer if the section is not deleted, adding that the plaintiff is neither a political appointee nor a public servant.

…Minister insist on implementing court judgement

Meanwhile, Malami has said the process of implementing the judgement was still in progress.

He stated this while speaking with State House correspondents after the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting in Abuja.

Malami said, “My clear response arising therefrom is the fact that truly there exists a court judgement. By the judgement, the court directed the Office of the Attorney General to take the necessary steps to delete the provision, which in essence implies that the provision should not form part of our laws.

“Whether it has been deleted, or has not been deleted, is indeed a function of agencies of government and associated relevant parastatals.

“But the true position of it in that respect is the fact that government printers, and indeed Law Reform Commission, among others, that are responsible for the codification and gazetting of our laws, are working naturally, hand-in-hand with the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that what goes into our laws are indeed in line with the provision of the law.

“So, what I am saying in essence, it is indeed a work in progress against the background of the fact that the Law Reform Commission is involved statutorily, which is a parastatal under the Office of the Attorney General, is a party to the process of codification.

“The government printers, which are saddled with the responsibility of gazetting our laws on the request of the Office of the Attorney General, are equally involved. And above all, as you rightly stated, the possibility of an appeal is equally there.

“So, what I am saying in effect is the deletion of Section 84 Subsection 12 is a work in progress and is being considered as such.”