AGF cannot temper with Section 84 (12) of Electoral Act pending Court decision – Reps

By Christiana Ekpa

The Spokesman of the House of Representatives, Rep. Benjamin Kalu, Thursday asked Nigerians not to worry over the Judgement of the Federal High Court directing the Attorney General of the Federation to delete section 84(12) from the Electoral Act, even as he stressed that the Act is still active and will valid until the right of appeal by the parliament is exhausted.

Kalu while addressing National Assembly Newsmen said the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation cannot tamper with the provisions of the law as a result of the judgement without first waiting for the right of appeal by the parliament mandated by the constitution to make laws.

The Abia Lawmaker said until the Supreme Court makes a pronouncement on the matter based on the right of appeal of those who are interested parties, nobody can tamper with the law as passed by the National Assembly.

He added the judgement of the Federal High Court can only be implemented as it is if the National Assembly failed to appeal the judgement at the expiration of 90 days as provided by the rules of the Federal High Court.

He gave indication that the National Assembly has concluded plans appeal the judgement of the Federal High Court, saying “if we miss tomorrow, definitely, by next week, we will be in court”.

He dismissed insinuations in the public domain that the parliament deleting the section was a precondition for the President signing the law, saying the President signed the bill into law because he wanted to leave a legacy of a reformed electoral process in the country.

He said “One thing I want Nigerians to know is that the Electoral Act is alive and INEC is working with the Act. There is no impediment on the act until our right of appeal has been fully exercised.

“Are we waiting for 90 days to appeal? No, if possible, by next week, we will be in court. If we miss it by tomorrow, by next week, we will be in court. So, exercise no fear, the Act is alive.”

He said further that “the President signed the Electoral Act amendment bill into law, but raised an ssue about it. There is an assumption out there that there was a precondition for the signing of the act. No.

“Mr. President was not coaxed into signing the bill into law and was not compelled. He saw the benefits of the electoral reforms and wanted to leave a legacy by cleaning up the space. That was why he signed the bill into law.

“As Commander in chief of the Armed Forces, who has raised an issue, such an issue should not be swept under the carpet. He decided to refer his concern not to the law court, but to the parliament and that is how it ought to be in the spirit of the doctrine of separation of power where everyone know where his power lies.

“He did not refer it to the Attorney General. Mr. President was a better judge than what we just experienced recently where the principles that is reserved for the parliament was, in an over reaching Consequential order passed to the Executive which ought not to be, if we must maintain checks and balance.

“The same subject matter was also presented before a court in Ibadan before Justice Agomoh and the plaintiff was one Obalende and that was on the 17th of March. It had the same subject matter, same prayers, but different jurisdiction and different judges, with all of them making the same reference to the same section of the constitution and whether or not section 84(12) was in conflict.

“One court says that before going into the substance of the case, it was important that a nexus be established between the plaintiff as a person with personal rights and the subject matter. It also considered the fact that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at anytime.

“The Judge decided to find out which of the right of the plaintiff has been breached by section 84(12). What personal rights do you have and what damages will you suffer as an individual? The Judge decided that if we allowed this to pass, it will cause chaos in the system and can therefore subject our parliament to ridicule. The judge said locus must be established.

“Many have also raised the issue of jurisdiction asking why not Abuja where you have INEC and the National Assembly. Why go all the way to Umuahia or Ibadan? Why having the same case in the south west and the south east at the same time? That is why the parliament frown at that judgement because it infringes on the power of the National Assembly to make laws.

“To ask that an act of Parliament be deleted amounts to asking for an amendment. When you ask an act of Parliament be deleted by the Executive, it means that you are being irresponsible to the dictate of the doctrine of separation of powers which is one of the ethos of democracy which must be sustained at all times.

“That was why the parliament felt agitated and decided to appeal the judgment and write the NJC to look into into the action of the judge on this the matter. We will ask to be joined as an interested Party in the case first so that we can exercise our right of appeal.

“You ask the executive to delete even when the enrollment order has not been transmitted, somebody is issuing a statement that implementation will commence gives room for concern. By the Federal High Court rules, you are given 90 days to appeal and so, the right of appeal should not be silenced. So, let the status quo remain and allow us approach the court of Appeal within the time allowed by law”.