| Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Prof. Attahiru Jega |
|
There was confusion at the Independent National Electoral Commission on Thursday over a Federal High Court order restraining the National Assembly from making fresh amendments to the 1999 Constitution.
Investigations by our correspondent in Abuja showed that top officials of the commission were concerned that the order might delay the plan by INEC to postpone the January 2011 elections to April.
Although it was gathered on Thursday that the commission had not got the court order, there was apprehension that it might disrupt preparations for the 2011 elections.
A top official of the electoral body, who did not want his name mentioned, said, “We do not want a situation where court injunctions will disrupt the electoral process.”
The timetable released by INEC indicates that political parties are supposed to hold their primaries between September 11 and October 30. The registration of voters is scheduled for November 1– 14.
The commission, as part of efforts to seek more time to carry out its duties, had met with leaders of the 63 registered political parties on September 21.
The parties and INEC agreed at the meeting on the need to shift the poll from January to April 2011.
The INEC Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega, had told the National Assembly and journalists that the postponement would give the commission enough time to do “a Grade A job.”
Based on Sections 76(2), 116(2), 132(2), and 178(2) of the amended constitution, elections must take place between 150 and 120 days to May 29.
The commission had fixed January for the poll because of the provisions.
The National Assembly has already begun the process of amending the constitution and the electoral Act to ensure the postponement of the poll to April.
But on Thursday, many INEC officials were jolted by the court order.
The top official said, “We had thought that the lawmakers would complete the amendment at the end of the month so that we could roll out a timetable, if the elections were shifted to April.
“There is no doubt that the order will delay the amendment. We are concerned that preparations for the poll will not be suspended because of the order. Our prayer is that the outcome of the court process does not affect the poll.”
THE PUNCH gathered that although the National Commissioner in charge of Legal Affairs, Mr. Phillips Umeadi, had travelled to Canada for a conference, the legal department of the electoral body was eargerly awaiting the order for interpretation.
It was also learnt that the commission did not foresee the nullification of the 2010 Electoral Act and, therefore, did not have the contingency plan.
When contacted, the Chief Press Secretary to the INEC chairman, Mr. Kayode Idowu, said, “INEC awaits the order to understand its implications. I think it is inappropriate to want to hazard guesses ahead of that.
“INEC cannot take a position yet on the ruling until it gets the order. You know the ruling is on an interlocutory application. We need to ascertain what status quo is being maintained.”
A former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), had filed the legal action against the National Assembly, challenging the propriety of the claim that the assent of President Goodluck Jonathan was not required on the amendments made to the 1999 Constitution before it could become law.
Ruling on the suit on Wednesday, Justice Okechukwu Okeke restrained the National Assembly from further amending to the constitution.
He also directed parties to maintain the status quo.
But reacting to the development on Thursday, the Senate said that the court order would not affect its ongoing second alteration of the Constitution. While the House of Representatives said it would react when served with the court order, prominent Nigerian lawyers, who spoke with our correspondents in Lagos expressed conflicting opinions on the court order.
The lawyers are, Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN); Mr. Yusuf Ali (SAN); and Mr. Femi Falana.
The Deputy President of the Senate, Chief Ike Ekweremadu, told journalists in Abuja that the powers of the National Assembly to make or amend laws, could not be suspended or annulled by any court.
Ekweremadu, who is also the Chairman of the National Assembly Joint Committee on Constitution Review, explained that the National Assembly’s understanding of the court’s ruling was that the completed work on the constitution, particularly the First Amendment, should be sustained.
He said, “The first constitutional amendment has since being completed and nobody can stop the law gazetted. So it is in operation. What the court says is that the status quo should be sustained or be maintained.
“As far as I am concerned, the court is just saying that the amendment that has since been completed is in order. So if there is anything to be sustained, it is the operation of the law because as far as I am concerned, that is the status.”
The lawmaker added that the issue before the court was whether the President should sign the amendment to the constitution before the process could be said to be completed, and not whether the National Assembly had powers to amend the constitution.
Ekweremadu added that he was not aware if the National Assembly had been officially served the order.
Ekweremadu also said that a clean copy of the Second Alteration to the constitution was ready and that the draft amendment would be forwarded for gazetting before sending them to state Houses of Assembly.
Earlier, the Senate spokesperson , Mr. Ayogu Eze, said that since Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution vested legislative powers in the National Assembly, no one or court could stop it from lawmaking.
He argued that a court could pass judgment on the outcomes of legislative process, but could not interfere with the process itself.
Eze said, “The court has a right to make any pronouncement, but we need to make the following clarifications. Number one, that the First Amendment to the constitution which we have successfully carried out, subject to whatever the court may say tomorrow, has run its circle and it is in effect and it is the status quo.
“So, if the court says that the status quo should remain, we understand it to mean that the 1999 Constitution along with the First Amendment to the 1999 Constitution constitutes the status quo. That is the status quo until anybody successfully challenges what we have done in court and gets a contrary decision.
“So nobody can stop the work we are doing in the Second Alteration Bill.”
He also noted when the work on the Second Alteration Bill was concluded, any person could challenge its outcome.
Also on Thursday, the House of Representatives said that it had not been served with the Wednesday court order.
Its Chairman, Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Mr. Eseme Eyiboh, said, “It is only when we are served that we can say what is the next line of action.”
In an interview with one of our correspondents, Sagay and Falana said that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. According to them , it is an illegal and dangerous trend.
But Osipitan and Ali said if the procedure for amending the constitution was not followed, the court could look into the matter.
Sagay said, ”It is a political case and not justiciable. It is a matter of policy which is exclusively within the National Assembly‘s province. The court has no right to dabble into it.
Sagay added that the development was extremely dangerous especially as INEC was still begging for more time to prepare for the 2011 elections.
Falana also agreed with Sagay, saying, “The order that both parties should maintain the status quo simply means that they shouldn‘t take actions that are illegal.
“As the National Assembly cannot ask a court not to hear any case before it, no court can ask the legislature not to amend any law including the constitution.
“Agbakoba didn‘t ask the court to castrate the National Assembly when it is agreed on all hands that the constitution and Electoral Act 2010 be speedily amended to ensure adequate time for INEC to carry out voter registration and conduct credible elections.”
In his comment, Osipitan said, “The court can legitimately look into it. The courts are there to check the violation of the constitution.”
To Ali, since election is not higher than the rule of law, the court had the constitutional duty and the power to make orders and determine all justiciable disputes between the government and citizens, and between citizens and the government. |
Comments