The Peoples Democratic Party is set to hold Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami on the jugular for supporting the Federal High Court judgment deleting Section 84(10) of the Electoral Act.
The PDP said it was exploring the option of reporting Malami and Justice Evelyn Anyadike of the Federal High Court in Umuahia, to the Nigerian Bar Association and the National Judicial Council respectively.
Section 84(10) of the Act makes it compulsory for political appointees planning to run for office to resign at least 30 days before any primaries they plan to take part in. The section also states that political appointees would not be allowed to vote in primaries.
Read also: Senator attacks Obaseki over Utterances on Cross River PDP, Wike
Malami, who is believed to be eyeing the Kebbi State governorship seat, had rejected the provision, insisting that he would not resign.
A member of Action Alliance, Nduka Edede, subsequently filed a suit before the court challenging the section. Malami, who was the only defendant in the suit, agreed with the plaintiff thus securing a favourable judgment.
Read also: PDP Governors decry rising insecurity in Nigeria
Earlier last Friday, Justice Anyadike ruled that the section was unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever and cannot stand, as it is in violation of the clear provisions of the Constitution.
In a statement by Mr Malami’s spokesman, Umar Gwandu, the minister said he would obey the court order, delete the “offensive” provision and gazette the act.
In his reaction, the National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, Mr Debo Ologunagba, told our correspondent in an interview on Saturday that Malami had abused his office by placing his personal interest ahead of that of the public.
Ologunagba also wondered how the case, which was instituted barely a week ago, was swiftly heard and judgment was delivered. He said the intention of the plaintiff was suspicious as he neither joined the National Assembly nor the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The PDP spokesman stated, “The basis for this order is curious. We see it as an ambush instigated by the office of the AGF and it shows the irresponsibility of the holder of that office. Number one, the job of the AGF is to defend the constitution which he swore to do.”
He added, “Who is the plaintiff in this matter? What is his personal interest? Why were the necessary parties like the National Assembly, which made the law, and INEC, which ought to implement this provision, not joined in this suit? That is why we cannot look beyond the AGF who is planning to participate in the elections.”
The PDP spokesman wondered why Malami, who is not always keen on obeying court judgments, was seeking to implement this particular order immediately.
Ologunagba added that the PDP was looking into the matter with a view to taking action against Malami and the judge that delivered the judgment.
On whether petitions would be written to the NJC or the NBA, he said, “All options are on the table. Nothing will be left out. We will study it and take necessary decisions to protect our democracy and ensure that this recklessness by people in office does not stand. That is what we are going to do. All the options will be taken and if there are necessary actions, we will take them.”
Falana fault court’s judgment
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Femi Falana, has faulted the decision of a Federal High Court in Umuahia, the Abia State capital, ordering the deletion of Section 84 (12) of the amended Electoral Act.
In separate statements issued Saturday, the senior lawyers raised pertinent questions about the judgment, noting that the decision of the court was a great error.
Falana argued that the learned trial judge fell into a great error.
Falana, a former President of West African Bar Association (WABA), said that sections 66 (1) (f), 107(1) (f),137 (1) (f) and 182 (1) (f) of the Constitution relied upon by his lordship required persons employed in the public service of either the federal government or state governments.
According to him, “Each of the aforesaid sections provides that no person shall be qualified for election into the Senate or House of Reps if: (f) he is a person employed in the public service of the Federation or of any State and has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from such employment 30 days before the date of election.”
Falana argued that by virtue of Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution, political appointees “are not included in the list of persons employed in the public service. To that extent, Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act was annulled on a very faulty ground.
“No doubt, the judge would have dismissed the case if his attention had been drawn to the cases of Dada v. Adeyeye (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 920) 1 at 19 ASOGWA v. Chukwu (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. 811) 540 Ojonye V. Onu & ORS (2018) LPELR-44223) where the appellate courts have held that political appointees or political office holders are not public servants as provided for under the Constitution,” Falana said.
Senate unaware of the judgment
The Senate said on Friday that it was not aware of any court judgment which struck out the controversial Section 84 (12) from the newly amended Electoral Act 2022.
The Chairman, Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Dr. Ajibola Basiru, stated this while responding to a question put to him on the matter in Abuja.
The Senate spokesperson insisted that he would not react to a story read in the media.
Basiru said he would only react when a copy of the verdict is served on the National Assembly.
The senator said: “I’m not aware of the suit and whether the National Assembly was a party or was served and/or represented.
“I have also not seen or read the judgment or whether the National Assembly has been served with the judgment or any order of court.
“I cannot react to newspaper reports of court judgment without seeing the actual court judgment.”
President Buhari had, while signing the amended Electoral Act, urged the National Assembly to delete the provision.
