The supreme court has slammed President Muhammadu Buhari and his minister of justice and the Attorney General of the Country, who is a senior advocate of Nigeria, Abubakar Malami for abusing court processes regarding Section 84(12) of the electoral act 2022.
After signing the electoral act passed by the National Assembly, President Muhammadu Buhari ordered the National Assembly to amend section 84 (12).
While the national assembly refused, stating the principles of separation of powers and the power to make laws which is clearly stated in the constitution, Buhari’s minister of Justice went to court and secured court blessings that he should delete the contentious section.
When the matter reached the apex court of Nigeria, the Supreme Court dismissed the Buhari and the AGF’s suit stating that their case is an abuse of court processes.
The court held that President Muhammadu Buhari cannot fault the provisions of a law he signed nor can he compel the National Assembly members when it comes to discharging their constitutional duties.
In a judgment of the apex court by a seven-member panel, headed by Justice Musa Dattijo Mohammed, the court was unanimous in holding that Buhari, having participated in the making of the law by assenting to it, could not turn around to fault its provisions.
The court, which upheld the objections raised by the National Assembly and other defendants against the suit, declined to determine it on the merit but declared that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear it and that the suit was an abuse of court process.
Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, held that it was an attack on the democratic principle of Separation of Powers for the President to seek to direct/request the Legislature to make a particular law or alter any law.
“The President lacks the power to direct the National Assembly to amend or enact an act..it violates the principle of separation of powers.
“There is no part of the Constitution that makes the exercise of legislative powers subject to the directive of the President,” the court said.