Posers over Supreme Court order on Naira redesign and the rule of law

With the Supreme Court order on new naira policy and President Buhari’s approval of recirculation of only N200 notes, the to rule of law may have suffered casualty, Ojekeme Vivian writes.

The enormous pains the new naira swap policy of the federal government have subjected Nigerians to was gradually degenerating into major crisis across the country, just before President Muhammadu Buhari’s Thursday nationwide broadcast when he gave approval for the return of the N200 notes as legal tender.
Analysts had warned of impending anarchy in the country, if the federal government fails to act swiftly in the direction of assuaging the hardships facing citizens.
It has been unanimously agreed by analysts that the motive behind the policy may be in the best interest of majority of Nigerian but they have placed a question mark on challenges citizens have been made to go through as the policy has had adverse effects on their businesses and other means of livelihood.
Last week, three states, Kaduna, Zamfara and Kogi approached the Supreme Court to halt the policy, insisting that it had brought untold hardship on the people.
When the case came up before the apex court on February 8, 2023, the court made an order halting the policy but the federal government, which is the sole defendant in the matter, failed to obey the order to resort to the use of the old 200, 500 and 1000 naira notes.
The Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, that is implementing the policy hid under the fact that it was not joined as a party in the suit before the apex court and went ahead with the implementation.
Also, the federal government justified its refusal to obey the order when it filed a preliminary objection against the suit on the ground that the states that approached the court lacked the legal rights to do so.
The argument canvassed is that the policy is not an issue of disputes between the federal government and the states bothering on constitutional interpretation, therefore the governors lack the locus standi to drag the nation’s government to court on the matter.
Consequently, the question on the lips of many Nigerians is; has the highest Court of the land becomes a lame dog that could bark but can’t bite?
One would have expected that the apex court would come down heavily on the FG for failure to obey it’s order but the reverse was the case when the case came up again on February 15.
Many Nigerians were hoping that the Supreme Court would help end the state of confusion that have characterised the new naira regime but their hope was dashed, when on 14, Feb, the CBN, announced that there was no extension of the February 10 deadline of the naira swap policy and declared that the notes have ceased to be legal tender.
Analysts have posited that looking at Section 14 (2) (b) of the Constitution, which tasks the government with the security and welfare of the people, the policy has to be reconsidered.
Specifically, Section 287 of the constitution which the president, governors, ministers and legislators swore to uphold has imposed a binding duty on all authorities and persons to obey the judgments of the courts as flagrant disobedience to court orders constitutes the greatest threat to the rule of law.
When government decides to disobey the court, they are not only disobeying the constitution but also disrupting the balance of a constitutional democracy, some analysts have argued.
The CBN governor’s ‘no extension of deadline’ position has raised a lot of dust and questions on the place of rule of law in the nation’s democracy and governance.system..
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr Femi Falana, said the Supreme Court order must be obeyed.
According to the SAN, the apex bank has a responsibility to direct banks to comply with the injunction, adding that the government was not really ready to comply with the order.
“In a country where the rule of law operates, once the Supreme Court has determined a matter or given an order, it is expected that all and sundry everybody will comply with the order.”
Another senior lawyer, Maxwell Gorge, opined that the CBN action constituted a contempt of court and supposed to be in jail.
He maintained that CBN’s position of not being a party to the suit holds no water, adding that one is bound by the injunction until the order is set aside.
” The action of the CBN is contemptuous. When a certain decision of a court irks you, the law permits you to go back and ask the court to set it aside, not to discountenance it entirely.”
Also speaking is Almed Raji, SAN. In his opinion, he maintained that Apex bank should present it’s self as lawless agency. It is bound to respect the supremacy of the Supreme court and abide by its order untill vacated.
“The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land. Central Bank should not give a negative impression of being a lawless body.”
A lawyer and activist, Benson Brown, berated the present administration, describing it as increasingly being notorious in disregarding court orders.
He was particularly concerned on its implications and the sustainability of the nascent democracy.
“Nothing can justify the current situation where the federal government would wilfully disregard court orders, and thus setting bad examples for the states to follow. It has dire implications for the sustenance of our democracy,” he said.
Also weighing in on the issue, a lawyer and public affairs analyst, Agbasiere Iheatu, stated that the country is drifting towards dictatorship and to curtail this, someone has to be held responsible.
He suggested judicial activism to curb the growing disturbing trend.
“There is a need for judicial activism such as punishing heads of agencies that flout court orders. The disrespect for courts does not naturally portray the country well, and does not also portray them as a respecter of human rights, we are fast drifting to the era of authoritarianism, should things continue like that” he noted.
Legal experts have insisted that the judiciary must rise up to the occasion by ensuring that there are punishments for disobeying court orders to help serve as a deterrent to others.
If the law and judgement of the courts are continually disobeyed, it means that the essence of the rule of law has been defeated, they said.
At the last adjourned date, the Supreme Court said its February 8 order stopping the federal government and its agencies from enforcing the February 10 deadline for the use of old 200, 500 and 1000 naira notes still stands.
The apex court re-iterated its order following complaint by lawyer to Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara states, Abdulhakeem Mustapha (SAN) that the Fed Govt and its agencies have failed to comply with the order and have allegedly directed the rejection of the old notes.
During the proceedings, the court joined nine more states as parties in the suit challenging legality of the naira swap policy of the federal government.
In its ruling, a seven-member panel, led by Justice John Okoro, the apex court joined the attorneys-general of Katsina, Lagos, Ondo, Ogun, Ekiti, Cross River and Sokoto States as co-plaintiffs, while the attorneys-general of Edo and Bayelsa states were joined as co-respondents.
The court has however, fixed hearing of the case to February 22.
The court ordered the original plaintiffs and the respondent, the attorney-general of the federation and minister of justice to amend the processes already filed to reflect the new parties.
Meantime, the court has adjourned till Feb 22, to consolidate all the cases and probably hear and determine it, as other parties joined in the matter.
However, it warned the parties, that having submitted the matter for adjudication, they are not to take any action that would affect the subject matter of the litigation.