would be nullified were doused last week when a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja
ruled that the court would not interfere in the affairs of another arm of government.
Ruling on an ex-parte motion filed by a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) senator, Gilbert
Nnaji (Enugu East), seeking to restrain the Nigeria Police and the executive from
interfering in the internal affairs of the Senate, Justice Gabriel Kolawole, held “that the
constitutional principle of separation of powers upon which the constitution is
premised,” needs to “be preserved and remain inviolate by any of the arms of
government.”
Joined in the suit as defendants are the Inspector General of Police (IG) and the
Attorney General of the Federation.
In the ruling, a copy of which was obtained by THISDAY, Kolawole submitted that
granting an ex parte motion sought by the defendant might not be the pressing issue
now, remarking that if the police prepare their report on the alleged forgery of Senate
Standing Orders in contempt of the existing originating summons, it is still within the
powers of the court to nullify such report in pursuant of Section 6 (6) of the
constitution.
However, the judge tasked the defendants to show why the plaintiff’s motion should not
be granted tomorrow when the matter will come up again for hearing.
According to Kolawole, the judiciary can only interfere in the affairs of the legislature
“where there is established, a substantial infraction of the Constitution,” noting that there
is not yet an attorney-general of the federation, who is one of the defendants in the
suit.
Kolawole further observed that “National Assembly, the Senate in particular, had been
convoked by the Clerk of the National Assembly on the authority of the president on
June 9 and elections were held into the principal offices of the Senate President and
that of the Deputy Senate President.”
He added: “It seems that the outcome of the said election did not go down well with
some members of the Senate. It is a normal development in any democratic exercise
where the majority is expected to have its way, while the minority is entitled to have
their say by way of protests which had ‘snowballed’ into legislative controversy which l
have alluded to in the beginning of this ruling.”
He cited the case involving the late Senator Abraham Adesanya and the Nigerian
President in 1981 in which Adesanya sought to nullify the decision of the Senate to
which he belonged at that time.
According to him, the National Assembly, being one of the three arms of government
needed to have a free hand to conduct its affairs in accordance with its own standing
rules, explaining that if a decision which violated its rules had been taken, the only
option available to members is to get that decision reversed through a democratic
process and not through the court.
He insisted that the judiciary as the third organ of government would not intervene in
any matter bordering on application or misapplication of Senate Standing Rules unless
such a matter violates the provision of the 1999 Constitution.
“The second issue is in relation to my understanding of the Supreme Court’s decision in
Senator Abraham Adesanya versus President of Nigeria and Anor (1981) NSCC having
regard to the ratio of the said decision, it is whether the plaintiff/applicant be accorded
a ‘standing’ in the court to challenge a decision reached by the majority on the floor of
the Senate. This is because the National Assembly, being one of the three arms of the
government of the federation, is expected to be free to run and conduct its affairs in
accordance with its own ‘rules’ or ‘standing orders.’
“Where it has taken a decision which did not follow its own internal ‘rules’ and ‘standing
orders,’ the choice open to members is to get the decision reversed only through
democratic process by mobilising the majority of the members to get the decision
reviewed and possibly reversed.
“The court as the third arm of government will only intervene in such disputes where the
disputes go beyond application or misapplication of the Senate’s own ‘rules’ or ‘standing
‘orders’ but also constitute a substantial infraction of the provisions of the constitution,”
Kolawole ruled.
While observing that the suit was filed to “protect the sanctity of legislative powers of
the National Assembly, the Senate in particular,” Kolawole added that if the matter
involving the police borders on infraction of the constitution, “the court has and retains
the powers to intervene in order to forestall a breach of the constitution by any of the
arms of government.”
No comments:
Post a Comment