Posted by By OLA AGBAJE on
Opposition to the elongation of the tenure of political office holders entered a new phase Tuesday, as the Abia State government dragged the National Assembly (NA) and the Federal Government (FG) to the Supreme Court, seeking for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from altering the constitution to suit their purpose.
Opposition to the elongation of the tenure of political office holders entered a new phase Tuesday, as the Abia State government dragged the National Assembly (NA) and the Federal Government (FG) to the Supreme Court, seeking for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from altering the constitution to suit their purpose.
Joined as co-defendants in the fresh suit filed at the apex court are the 35 other states of the federation, in what promises to be a landmark constitutional matter to be resolved by the court.
Besides seeking for an order to stop the on-going move to change the contents of the constitution, the plaintiff is also praying the court to declare that the National Assembly has no power under the 1999 Constitution to repeal the said constitution or substitute any of its provisions in such a way and manner that will give it a different character and content.
Also, Abia State is praying the court to declare that the National Assembly cannot exercise its power to alter any provision of the constitution, unless it complies fully with the provisions of sections 48 and 49 of the 1999 Constitution.
In addition, the plaintiff is seeking for an order of perpetual injunction to stop both the Federal Government and the Assembly from taking steps to alter any of the provision of the 1999 Constitution until all vacancies in the legislature are filled by the appropriate authority.
Further, the plaintiff is praying the court for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from altering the provisions of the 1999 Constitution in such a manner that may tamper with the fixed tenure of persons holding elective offices in the executive arm of government as stipulated in sections 130(1) and 176(1) of the said constitution.
Also, the plaintiff is praying the apex court to affirm that the National Assembly can only alter any of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution for the peace, order and good governance of the country and a declaration that any alteration of sections 135(1) and 181(1) for the benefit of ineligible persons for re-election is unlawful and not intended for the peace, order and good governance of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The plaintiff in instituting the action, set five issues for determination before the apex court.
Abia State want the court to determine whether power of the legislature as enshrined in section 9(1) of the 1999 Constitution is subject to its power to make laws for peace, order and good governance, going by section 4(2) of the said constitution. The state also want to know whether such power should be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 58 of the constitution.
In addition, the plaintiff want the Supreme Court to determine whether the power to alter the provisions of the constitution and power to legislate for the peace, order and good governance as vested in the National Assembly in section 4(2) should be construed as contemplating the wholesale repeal of the extant constitution of the country.
In addition, the plaintiff has invited the apex court to determine whether it is unconscionable for any person who is the president, governor, president of the senate, speaker of any legislative house under the constitution or member of such legislative house to participate in the process contemplated by section 9(2) of the constitution for the purpose of altering the tenure of any of the offices established under section 130(1) and 176 (1) in a manner to extend tenure longer than stipulated by the constitution.
The apex court was also called upon by the plaintiff to determine whether the National Assembly could exercise its power under section nine of the constitution if there is any vacancy in the membership of its two houses.
Furthermore, the plaintiff wants the Supreme Court to determine whether the alteration of sections 135(1) and 181(1) will not restrict or conflict with the desire of the people of Nigeria to promote national unity, foster national loyalty and sense of belonging as expressed in section 14(3) and (4) of the constitution.