FG, States know fate March 3 on naira swap policy
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 Fed Govt, 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..
Upon an application by Bayelsa and Edo states, the court on February 15 joined the two states as co-defendants with the AGF.
Before the hearing of the suits, the Attorney General of Lagos, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN) noted that it may be impossible for the case be heard on Wednesday because he was just served with some documents by some of the respondents.
Onigbanjo added that Lagos State has, along with its originating summons, filed We filed an application on February 20 to prohibit 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 before the court to seek any relief.
At that point, Justice Okoro interjected and announced that the court was willing to hear the case on Wednesday and would not accommodate any issue that could prevent it from achieving that goal.
Justice noted that everyone in the case seems to want to make the Judiciary a scapegoat on the issue, adding that the way things are 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 not obeyed but would proceed to do what it needs to do by hearing the case on Wednesday.
Another member of the panel, Justice Amina Augie spoke in a similar vein and insisted that the court was determined to hear the case.
Justice Okoro then called on the lawyer to the first and second defendants (Kaduna and Kogi states), Abdulhakeem Mustapha (SAN) to identify his processes and adopt same.
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’ suit and dismiss the notices of objection filed by the AGF and Bayelsa State.
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 the governmental actions shall be humane.
He added that the policy has occasioned hardship on the people.
Onigbanjo, the Attorney General of Lagos State, who represented the state, 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 audience before this court until the defendant or his principal, the President of Nigeria, comply with the order made by this court on the 8th of February, directing that the old notes remain legal tender until the determination of the suit.
Onigbanjo said the suit by Lagos was distinct from the one filed by other states in that it seeks reliefs pertaining to the Lagos State and not the poeple 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 it’s responsibilities.
The Lagos AG urged the court to deny the audience to the AGF and grant the prayers sought in the suit.
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 proceeded to 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, 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 Buhari only worked with the CBN governor, who is just a member of the council in deciding to adopt the policy that brought suffering on the people.
He urged the court to intervene save the nation’s democracy as it had done in the past.
Musa Aliyu, who is the AG 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 AG of Nasarawa State argued that the policy his state and the governor are 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.
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 abnormality. Then, he gave the directive and said, 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.
