National Assembly resumes battle to re-order 2019 election sequence

The National Assembly has asked the Appeal Court sitting in Abuja to
set aside a Federal High Court judgement, which stated that it lacked
the power to re-order the proposed sequence for the 2019 general
elections.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed of an Abuja Division of the Federal High Court,
had in his judgement in a suit filed by Accord Party against National
Assembly, the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC), held that the election timetable
earlier released by the INEC could not be altered by the Legislature.

Accord Party filed the suit through Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, after
both chambers of the National Assembly attempted to implement Section
58 of the Constitution, which allows the Legislature to override the
decision of the President.

Among reliefs the Plaintiff sought before the court, which were
granted, include "A declaration that the 3rd Defendant, is the only
body and or institution constitutionally vested with the powers,
vires, and duties to organise, undertake and supervise elections to
the offices of the President and Vice President of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, the Governor and Deputy Governor of a State,
membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House
of Assembly of each State of the Federation, including fixing or
assigning dates of the said elections and sequence of same".

However in its appeal, the NASS, which was the 1st Defendant at the
lower court asked the appellate court to set aside the decision of
Justice Mohammed, and dismiss in its entirety, the Plaintiff's claims
in the Originating Summons.

In the Notice of Appeal filed through its Lawyer, Mr. J.B Daudu, SAN,
the NASS stated that the learned trial judge, erred in law when he
assumed jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit, when the
purpose of passing the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018 into an
Act.

NASS contended that the trial judge wrongly failed to appreciate that,
until the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018 was passed into an Act
by the exercise of the legislative power of the National Assembly to
over-ride the veto or withholding of assent to the Bill by the
President, the same remained inchoate and not capable of vesting a
justiciable civil right or obligation on any person, including the
Plaintiff.

The legislature further contended amongst others, that the lower court
wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 4(8) of the 1999
Constitution (as amended), so as to reach the conclusion that the
Federal High Court was vested with jurisdiction to impugn a Bill
perceived to be unconstitutional.

"The lower court was further in error, when it relied on the
certificate of the Clerk of the National Assembly pursuant to the Acts
Authentication Act on the Bill (Exh 'A'), as proof that the Bill's
constitutionality could be challenged in a superior court of law.

"The learned trial judge erred in law, when he failed to appreciate
that the Plaintiff's suit (subject-matter of this Appeal), was not
properly constituted and therefore, incompetent", it stated.