FG Asks Supreme Court to Nullify Amendments to Constitution by Tobi Soniyi

In a move aimed at thwarting moves by the National Assembly to override President Goodluck Jonathan’s veto of the Fourth amendment of the 1999 Constitution, the federal government has dragged the legislature to the Supreme Court asking the court to declare the amendments to the constitution as unconstitutional.

In the suit, the federal government is claiming that the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths of majority of members of the defendant and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the extant Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, was not followed.

In an originating summons filed on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice by Chief Bayo Ojo (SAN), the federal government is asking the Supreme Court to make an order nullifying and setting aside Sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 passed by the defendant.

The federal government is also asking the court to determine two issues: Whether the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, by the defendant through Sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Act, 2015, which purportedly altered Sections 8, 9, 34, 35, 39, 42, 45, 58, 84, 150, 174 and 211 of the Constitution without compliance with the requirements of section 9(3) of the Constitution is not unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void?

Whether in the absence of compliance by the defendant with the mandatory requirement of Section 9(3) of the Constitution in the passage of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, the defendant can competently exercise its powers under Section 58(5) of the Constitution to enable the purported Act to become law?

The government consequently asked the court to hold that the proposed amendments to the Constitution through Sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, which purportedly altered Sections 8, 9, 34, 35, 39, 42, 45, 58, 84, 150, 174 and 211 of the Constitution and passed by the defendant without complying with the mandatory requirement of Sections 9(3) and (4) of the said Constitution, stipulating passage by at least four-fifths majority of all members of each House specified in Sections 48 and 49 of the Constitution is unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

It also asked the court to declare that in the absence of compliance by the defendant with the mandatory requirements of Section 9(3) of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, which purportedly altered Sections 8, 9, 34, 35, 39, 42, 45, 58, 84, 150, 174 and 211 of the Constitution, it is unconstitutional for the defendant to exercise its powers under Section 58(5) of the Constitution to enable the purported Act to become law.

The originating summons was supported by an affidavit deposed to by one of the lawyers in Ojo’s chambers, Mr Theophilus Okwute, who claimed the AGF, Mohammed Adoke (SAN) told him that the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths majority of members of the defendant and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the extant Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

He further deposed as follows: That the defendant is making moves, with the tacit consent of all the State Houses of Assembly to employ certain provisions of the Constitution to now pass the purported Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 into Law.
•That the said purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 contains many proposed amendments inconsistent with the spirit of federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances, all of which constitute the hallmark of the Constitution and democracy. 

•That most of the provisions of the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 are contrary to public policy and good governance.

•That it will be in the interest of justice to grant all the reliefs sought in this suit.