Log In
updated 10:20 AM UTC, Dec 13, 2023

FG Warns Senate, Reps To Stay Action On Veto

 

ABUJA, Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Federal Government, on Thursday, asked the Senate and the House of Representatives to stay action on the planned veto of President Goodluck Jonathan’s refusal to sign the amended 1999 Constitution into law, as passed by the two chambers, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the suit challenging the amendments.

 

It placed the suit before the apex court on Wednesday.

 

In separate letters to both the Senate president and Speaker of the lower chamber, counsel for the Federal Government and former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Chief Bayo Ojo, said it was settled in law that “the pendency of a suit automatically bars further actions on it, until the suit is disposed of.”

 

The letter to the Senate president, dated April 22, 2015, entitled: “Re: Suit No. Sc 214/2015 Attorney General Of The Federation And National Assembly,” read in part: “we are counsel to the plaintiff in the above quoted suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria and hereby use this medium to humbly draw the attention of the Senate of the National Assembly through your distinguished office to same.

 

“To proceed with the process of passage into law of the Fourth Alteration Act 2015, despite the pendency of this suit under reference will be an affront to the rule of law and democracy. We are convinced, particularly from the commendable record so far of the current National Assembly, that it will not do that.”

 

Senators seek accelerated hearing

 

Senators, on Thursday, asked the Supreme Court to expedite action on the suit filed by the Federal Government against the Fourth Constitution Alteration Bill passed by the National Assembly, which has been vetoed by President Goodluck Jonathan.

 

Two senators, who spoke on the matter in separate interviews, said the president’s action was proper, but added that the Supreme Court should ensure that the suit received accelerated hearing.

 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Business, Senator Ita Enang and the chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Senator Umaru Dahiru, said the steps taken by the president were in order.

 

Speaking in an interview on Thursday, Senator Enang said Jonathan acted within the law by taking the matter to the Supreme Court.

 

“We should apply for accelerated hearing, so that this matter can be decided by the full Bench of the Supreme Court within the lifetime of this parliarment and so that it will not be taken as a step which the president or the Attorney-General has taken to frustrate actions we have done so far.

 

“I do not at all quarrel when anybody goes to court, I quarrel when you start calling press conferences and abusing the other party,” he said.

 

Senator Dahiru also spoke in a similar vein, adding the the Supreme Court should ensure accelerated hearing,

 

“There is nothing wrong with that, the implication is that if the executive feels that something is wrong, then it can go to court. The constitution is very clear, if you do not agree with anything, either the National Assembly or the Federal Government can take either one to court,” he said.

 

 

 

Reps ready to square up with Jonathan in court

 

The House of Representatives, on Thursday, openly declared that it would not take chances in defending itself against a suit instituted at the Supreme Court by the Federal Government, to nullify the proposed amendments to the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

 

The Minority Whip, Honourable Samson Osagie, for the first time, made public the position of the House to President Goodluck Jonathan’s insistence to withhold his assent to the Constitution alteration Bill.

 

President Jonathan had argued that not less than four-fifth majority members of each houses of the National Assembly was required to effect the change and demanded that evidence be made available to show that such was duly complied with.

 

Giving reasons why it felt that the president erred over his refusal to assent the amended constitution at a briefing, the House ad hoc committee on constitution review, chaired by the Deputy Speaker, Honourable Emeka Ihedioha, represented by Honourable Osagie, said the requirement was met, as evident in the votes and proceedings of July 24, 2013, when attendance of members as registered was 338, ayes votes in support of the clause was 317, nays votes were six and 15 abstained, arguing that four-fifths of the 360-member House is 288.

 

On the concern by the president that the provision in the proposed new section 45a seeking to guarantee the right to free basic education was open ended, as it did not separate private schools, which ordinarily should not be compel for such, from the public schools, and also free primary and maternal care in the new section 45b, the House argued that “it is not every detail that should be spelt out in the constitution, as the institutions against whom constitutionally guaranteed rights are usually sought to be obtained from are known by the citizenry.”

 

He said the amendment to Section 58 to the effect that if a president fails to assent to a bill, or indicate his withholding of assent , the bill shall automatically become law after 30 days interval “was made to cure the current practice whereby bills are sent to the president for assent, but he neither assent nor indicate withholding of assent, sometimes months after, much more than the 30 days period mandated by the constitution.”

 

According to him, the amendment to Section 82 on the number of months allowable for government to spend while awaiting the passage of a running year’s budget, from six to three months, on the grounds that “allowing the Appropriation Act of a previous year to continue to run six months into a new fiscal year distorts and destabilises the budget process and should be stopped.”

 

On the president’s contention that separating the offices of the Attorney General of the Federation from that of the Minister of Justice, and that of Commissioners for Justice in the states negates the principle of the separation of power, the House said it was rather to guarantee the impartiality of the offices over public prosecutions, while the Minister of Justice serve as chief legal adviser to the government.

 

Credit: Tribune (Nigeria)

 

Leave a Reply