Electoral Act: I Did Not Order Senate To Remove Section 84 (12) – Buhari

The President told the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja that he did not order the senate to the remove section 84 (12).

Buhari while reacting to the suit filed by the Peoples Democratic Party instituted against him and 12 others, said he only expressed reservations and concerns in respect of the aspect of the Electoral Act.

The view of the President was revealed in a counter-affidavit filed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria SAN, Oladipupo Okpeseyi and deposed to by Abimbola Akintola, a legal practitioner.

According to Malami, President Buhari on February 25, 2022, gave proper, full, and unconditional assent to the amended Electoral Act.

The counter-affidavit read in part, “The assent of the 1st defendant (Buhari) to the Electoral Bill given on February 25, 2022 was proper, full and unconditional.

“The 1st defendant (Buhari) assented to the Electoral Bill 2022 on February 25 but did not give conditions or directives to the National Assembly in the manner erroneously deposed to by the plaintiff (PDP).

”At no time did the 1st defendant (Buhari) give any directive to the management or leadership of the National Assembly as regards the removal of section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act 2022; from the Act.

“Prior to assenting to the Electoral Bill 2022, the 1st defendant (Buhari) merely expressed his observations and concerns about the constraints of section 84 (12) of the Bill on serving public office holders and political appointees but gave his assent to avoid further delay as time was of essence.

“That the 1st defendant (Buhari) merely expressed his views not only to the National Assembly but to the entire nation as regards the inconsistency of section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act with other provisions of the Constitution.

“On March 8, 2022, 1st defendant (Buhari) officially wrote the Senate President and House of Representatives Speaker to express his concerns about section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act and formally requested for amendment to be effected on the section so as to eliminate areas of infarction with the Constitution.

“I’m aware that the National Assembly neither accepted nor acted on the opinion or suggestion of Buhari.

“In this instance, 1st and 2nd defendant, (Buhari and Malami) truly and firmly believe that section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act disenfranchises and discriminates against Nigerians in public service or public office holders who are political appointees and prevent them from engaging in the electoral process in exercise of their inalienable rights in a participatory democracy.

“That Buhari and Malami have never taken it upon themselves to declare section 84 (12) or any provisions of the Electoral Act unconstitutional as such is beyond their constitutional power.”

President Buhari and Malami also claimed that the Federal High Court in Abia State in March through a ruling passed by Justice Evelyn Anyadike ordered that section 84 (12) be deleted from the Electoral Act.

They noted that only the Court of Appeal can restore the section into the Electoral Act and not any high court.

Buhari and Malami while asking the court to dismiss the case, stated that the PDP suit has become academic and constituted an abuse of court process on the strength.

They argued that PDP should not be allowed to take over the functions of the National Assembly since it has no power to amend or enact the law.

Buhari and Malami also averred that PDP has nothing to suffer if the contentious section is deleted adding that removing the section will deepen the practice of democracy and stop discrimination against public servants and public office holders.

Justice Inyang Eden Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja on March 7 had stopped Buhari, Malami and Senate President from tampering with the Electoral Act.

The judge in a ruling on an ex-parte application by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, agreed that the Electoral Act having been assented to by Buhari has become a valid law and cannot be tampered with without following due process of law.

Justice Ekwo agreed with Chief James Ogwu Onoja SAN, counsel to PDP, that the proper place to challenge the validity of any existing law or the Electoral Act is a court of competent jurisdiction.

Specifically, the court had restrained all the defendants in the suit from removing section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act or preventing it from being implemented for the purpose of the 2023 general elections.

Meanwhile, a hearing in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/ 247/2022 has been fixed for May 16 by Justice Ekwo.