The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) set a deadline of February 10 for the exchange of the old naira notes for the newly redesigned notes, and the Federal Government has stated that it will abide by that decision.
Abubakar Malami, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice verified this on Thursday, February 9, in an interview with Arise Television. He added that the administration has high hopes for the ex parte decision, which is set to expire on Wednesday, February 15, 2023.
Malami's statement comes less than a day after he had, on behalf of the Federal Government, submitted an objection and asked the Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit brought by three states (Kaduna, Zamfara, and Kogi States) challenging the Central Bank of Nigeria's (CBN) naira redesign policy.
The minister made it clear that even though the federal government intended to appeal the ruling and would do so in accordance with the law, it would nonetheless do it out of respect for the rule of law.
The directive was given during a decision on an ex parte petition against the AGF filed by the states of Kaduna, Kogi, and Zamfara. In order to prevent further government action while their lawsuit contesting the CBN's naira redesign policy is heard and decided, they sought the court to grant an interim injunction against the government.
The three states contended, among other things, that the policy had placed the nation in a terrible predicament and that if the Supreme Court didn't act swiftly, there may be anarchy in the nation.
They claim that since the policy's release, there has been a severe shortage of the new naira notes in their states, making it extremely challenging for individuals to obtain the new notes.
They contended that the federal government's notice period was insufficient, but that the CBN did not implement the programme according to the prescribed process.
In a brief decision, the top court approved the temporary injunction and prohibited the federal government from outlawing the old naira notes until the lawsuit's outcome. The hearing was then scheduled on February 15 by the Supreme Court.
However, in response to the interim order of the Supreme Court, the AGF said yesterday in an interview with Arise News Channel that the government has the right to appeal any decision it did not like. He declared that the law would be used as a tool by the government to take action in this case.
Malami stated: “The rule of law provides that there has to be obedience to the judgement and orders of the Supreme Court. The rule of law provides that when you are not happy with a ruling you can file an application for setting it aside and in compliance with the rights and privileges vested in us as a government, we are equally looking at challenging the order and seeking for it to be set aside.”
Malami disclosed that the federal government had already put machinery in place to challenge the jurisdiction of the apex court to hear the suit of the three states. He contended that the singular fact that the CBN was not joined as a party in the suit robbed the apex court of necessary jurisdiction.
He said when the court reconvened next Wednesday, the federal government, on one hand, would be challenging the jurisdiction of the apex court to entertain the suit, and on the other, see how the interim order would be vacated.
He said, “The order was granted by the Supreme Court and the order incidentally lapses on Wednesday, which is the day of the hearing, with that position in mind we have taken steps to file an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter.”
The minister explained, “Jurisdiction on the grounds that when you talk of monetary policy, regardless of the characters they take, the central bank is an indispensable and necessary party for that matter.
“What we have at hand is a situation where the central bank was not joined as a party and if the central bank as an institution was not joined as a party, the position of the law is clear that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be properly invoked.
“So we have given consideration to diverse issues, inclusive of the issue of jurisdiction, and come Wednesday we will argue the case from that perspective, among others.”
Malami added, “I think what we are talking about is not whether the ruling is binding or not binding, we are talking about what we intend to do, there is no doubt about the fact that the ruling of the Supreme Court, regardless of the prevailing circumstances, is binding and then within the context of the rule of law.
“You can equally take steps that are available to you within the context of the spirit and circumstances of the rule of law.
“And what we are doing in essence is in compliance with the rule of law both in terms of obedience to the ruling and in terms of challenging the ruling by way of putting across our own side of the story, putting across our case, challenging jurisdiction.
“So the issue of obedience to the ruling of the Supreme Court is out of it. We are wholeheartedly in agreement that naturally, we are bound by it and will comply accordingly. But within the context of compliance, we shall challenge the ruling by way of filing an application seeking for it to be set aside, it is all about the rule of law.”
Specifically, the federal government, in its preliminary objection to the suit, insisted that the Supreme Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the first place.
It was the argument of the federal government that the agency (CBN), whose Act was being complained about by the plaintiffs, was a statutory body with legal personality that could sue and be sued in its name.
In the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by its lawyers, Mr Mahmud Magaji, SAN, and Tijanni Gazali, the respondent claimed that the suit of the three states ought to have been instituted before a Federal High Court and not the Supreme Court, as done by the plaintiffs.
Besides, the respondent argued that “the plaintiffs have equally not shown the reasonable cause of action” against it.
In the 11 grounds of objection to the suit, the respondent stated that the plaintiffs were challenging the powers of the Federal Government of Nigeria through its agency, the CBN, to withdraw old banknotes and introduce new ones.
The AGF further posited that the plaintiffs' suit was about the powers vested on the CBN by the CBN's 2007 Act to call in its banknotes and introduce new ones.
The respondent also submitted that the suit as presently constituted fell 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.
While describing the instant suit as an abuse of the judicial process, the AGF urged the apex court to strike out the suit in the interest of justice, adding that the plaintiffs will not be prejudiced if the preliminary objection is upheld.
The respondent submitted, “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. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute this action. The plaintiffs have no reasonable cause of action against the defendant.