…Deletion of Section 84 (12), work in progress—Malami
Henry Umoru, Levinus Nwabughiogu & Johnbosco Agbakwuru
Lawmakers in the Senate and House of Representatives, Wednesday, resolved to appeal the judgement, which directed the Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, to delete Section 84 (12) of the newly signed Electoral Act.
This followed a deliberation on the court order at plenary in both chambers of the National Assembly in Abuja.
This came on a day the Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, said all the relevant agencies of government were working together to ensure compliance with the high court judgement that directed his office to delete Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act.
In the Senate, Senator George Sekibo and some other senators sponsored a motion on the urgent need to appeal the judgement of the Federal High Court in Umuahia, Abia State, on the suit on the controversial section of the Act.
Seconding the motion, Senator Sabi Abdullahi described the move as a timely intervention, saying its content was straightforward.
In his contribution, Senator Gabriel Suswam, who also supported the motion, said time was of the essence, adding that the motion was straightforward for the appropriate channel to appeal.
“In making an appeal, we do not necessarily need the guidance of the Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters. I think we should just go ahead and pass this motion as presented,” he said.
The lawmakers, in their resolution, agreed to appeal the judgement in suit marked FHC/MU/SC/26/2022 to set aside the decision of the court.
In the House of Representatives, the resolutions were sequel to the adoption of the prayers of the motion moved by the Speaker, Femi Gbajabiamila, who had converted a matter of privilege raised by Sada Soli (APC, Katsina) earlier on the issue.
Rising under Order 6 on matters of privilege, Soli said the court judgement, directing the deletion of section 84 (12) was an attempt to encroach on the jurisdiction of the parliament in making laws.
He said: “I’m coming on privilege with respect to institution of the House of Representatives, reading from various reportage on the recent judgement on the law made by the National Assembly.
“It is an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the parliament in making laws by directing an appointee of the executive to delete a law made by the National Assembly.
“The judgement given with respect to section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, the intention of the legislator was to address the issue of political appointees, which was never anywhere in our constitution.
“This is to give a level playing ground to all participants. That was the wisdom of the legislature. The court can’t interpret what the legislators didn’t intend. Our intention was to address the issue of political appointees.”
Deletion of Section 84 (12), work in progress—Malami
Meanwhile, Malami, said, yesterday, that all the relevant agencies of government were working together to ensure compliance with the high court judgement that directed his office to delete Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act.
Fielding question while briefing State House correspondents after the virtual Federal Executive Council, FEC, meeting presided over by President Muhammadu Buhari, on whether he had complied with the judgement of the high court in Abia State directing him to delete the Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act, the AGF said deletion of the section was in progress, adding that it was being considered as such.
But Malami, who noted that the matter was not discussed at council meeting, said: “Let me begin by stating categorically that the issue of section 84, subsection 12 of the Electoral Act was not deliberated, discussed or in any way addressed during the Federal Executive Council meeting, on account of which we are here today (yesterday), to address the press.”
“But out of perhaps the desire to provide answer for the question that was asked, I may have to respond. And my clear response arising there from, is the fact that truly there exist a court judgement.
“By the judgment, 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, the fact that government printers, and, indeed, Law Reform Commission, among others, that are responsible for the codification and gazetting of our laws, working naturally, hand in hand with the Office of the Attorney General for the purpose of ensuring that what goes into our laws are in line with the provision of the law.
“So, what I am saying in essence is that it is, indeed, 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, it is party to the process of codification.
“The government printers, which is saddled with the responsibility of gazetting our laws on the request of the Office of the Attorney General is 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 deletion of section 84 Subsection 12 is work in progress and is being considered as such.”
Source: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/03/removal-of-section-84-12-from-electoral-act-senate-reps-head-to-appeal-court/
