Old Notes: Kogi, Kaduna, Zamfara accuse Malami, Emefiele of violating S’Court order

Forum 1 year ago

Old Notes: Kogi, Kaduna, Zamfara accuse Malami, Emefiele of violating S’Court order

Three northern states, Kogi, Kaduna and Zamfara, have initiated contempt proceedings against the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami, SAN, at the Supreme Court, following his alleged refusal to comply with the order that extended the deadline for the use of the old N200, N500 and N1000 banknotes as valid legal tenders.

Equally joined in the contempt action was the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, Mr Godwin Emefiele.

The three states, in the two sets of Form 48 they lodged before the apex court, warned both Malami and Emefiele of the consequence of their continued disobedience to the interim order the court made on February 6, which halted the full implementation of the new monetary policy that was introduced by the CBN.

Specifically, Form 48, which has already been served on both the AGF and the CBN Governor, read: “Take notice that unless you obey the direction contained in the attached Order of the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered on 3rd day of February 2023, you will be guilty of contempt of Court and will be liable to be committed to prison.”

Vanguard learned that the contempt action by the three states who had originally gone to court to set-aside the initial February 10 deadline the CBN gave for usage of the old Naira banknotes, will form part of processes the Supreme Court will consider on Wednesday.

Basically, a Form 48 (notice of consequence of disobedience of court order), is followed with a Form 49, should the party it was served on continue to disregard the court order alleged to have been flouted.

Upon receipt of a Form 49, the alleged Contemnors would be compelled to show cause why they should not be committed to prison for disobeying a subsisting court order.

It will be recalled that the three states had on February 15 when proceedings resumed on the legal dispute sorrounding the Naira swap policy, drew attention of the apex court to the fact that FG had through the CBN, banned the use of the old N200, N500 and N1000 banknotes, despite the ex-parte order that restrained it from doing so.

Counsel to the plaintiffs, Mr. AbdulHakeem Mustapha, SAN, while accusing FG of engaging in “Executive recklessness”, urged the apex court to extend the interim order.

Mustapha, SAN, further indicated that he had filed an affidavit to establish how the express order of the Supreme Court was disobeyed by FG.

However, FG’s lawyer, Mr. Kanu Agabi, SAN, urged the apex court to disregard the allegation by counsel to the plaintiffs, insisting that it was based on “mere rumour”.

Before adjourning the case till Wednesday, the seven-member panel of the apex court led by Justice Inyang Okoro, stressed that parties, having submitted themselves before the court, ought not to take any action that would affect the subject matter of the suit.

Even though only the AGF was initially cited as the sole defendant in the matter, the panel however granted applications that Edo and Bayelsa states filed to be allowed to join the suit to support FG as co-plaintiffs.

Likewise, the court allowed seven states- Lagos, Cross River, Ogun, Ekiti, Ondo, Sokoto and President Buhari’s home state, Katsina- to also join the case to challenge the new monetary policy.

On the other hand, Rivers, Kano and Jigawa states filed separate suits to vacate the cash withdrawal limits the CBN allowed for corporate entities and individuals, respectively.

The court held that all the suits would be consolidated for a hearing.

Meanwhile, barely 24 hours after the court proceeding, President Muhammadu Bihari made a nationwide broadcast and restated the ban on all the old banknotes except N200 which he okayed to remain a valid legal tender till April 10.

Aggrieved by the action, the 10 states that are now plaintiffs in the suit marked: SC/CV/162/2023, re-approached the apex court with another process to invalidate the President’s directive on the old banknotes.

It will also be recalled that Malami had filed a Preliminary Objection to dismiss the suit, even as he contended that the Supreme Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain it.

Listing his grounds for challenging the power of the Supreme Court to intervene in the matter, Malami, accused the plaintiffs of opposing FG’s power, through its agency, the CBN, to withdraw old banknotes and introduce new ones.

According to him, “The Plaintiffs’ suit is about the power vested on the Central Bank of Nigeria by the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 to call in its Banknotes and introduce new ones.

“This suit as presently constituted falls under section 251(1)(a)(p)(q) & (r) of the Constitution (exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court) by virtue of the subject matter and parties.

“The Claims or reliefs are not against the Federation, but the Federal Government and its Agency, the Central Bank of Nigeria.”

“The Federal Government of Nigeria is distinct from the Federation or the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Plaintiffs have no grievance whatsoever against the Federation of Nigeria.

“This Suit has disclosed no dispute that invokes this Court’s original jurisdiction as constitutionally defined. This suit is an abuse of the judicial process.

Plaintiff has no locus standi to institute this action. The Plaintiffs have no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant”, Malami argued.