|
BNW |
|
B N W: Biafra Nigeria World News |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Supreme Court rules on Lagos council funds suit Jan. 7
Expectant Lagos State local councils were told yesterday to wait another three months for the Supreme Court to resolve the matter of their funds being withheld by the Federal Government.
Seven of the apex court's justices, including Chief Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, reserved ruling on the matter till January 7.
The court also yesterday fixed for definite hearing on January 20, 2005, the suit filed by the Anambra State governor, Dr. Chris Nwabueze Ngige, against the Federal Government (FG) over the withdrawal of his security aides.
Yesterday, the Lagos State House of Assembly refuted reports that it had reverted to its previous 20 councils as against the 57 the number had been raised to.
The Lagos State government had through its Attorney-General, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), filed a suit at the court to seek a perpetual injunction against the FG from suspending the payment of allocations due to the state's local councils from the Federation Account.
In the substantive suit before the Supreme Court, the state is asking the court to determine whether or not President Olusegun Obasanjo or the National Assembly has the power to suspend or withhold statutory allocation due and payable to the state government under the 1999 Constitution.
At the session yesterday, the parties to the litigation made submissions in support of their respective averments and claims with the state praying the Supreme Court to compel President Obasanjo to immediately release the backlog of withheld funds and to declare the withdrawal unconstitutional.
The FG, on the other hand, urged the court to hold that the decision by the Lagos State government to conduct the council polls in the new local councils was illegal, null and void and of no effect.
Lagos State government was supported by former Federal Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim (SAN) who urged the court to hold against the Federal Government.
Ibrahim, supported by Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), appeared as Amicus Curiae (friend of the court).
The former Attorney-General (AG) asked the Supreme Court to pronounce that President Obasanjo was in breach of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, especially section 162 (5) by ordering the suspension of the release of funds meant for local councils from the Federation Account.
Lagos State government came to the Supreme Court with a team of over a dozen lawyers, including Chiefs Rotimi Okunu (SAN), Rickey Tarfa (SAN), Kola Awodein (SAN), Taiwo Osipitan (SAN), a professor of law and Babatunde Fashola (SAN).
Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) headed the FG's team that included Mr. Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), Seeni Okunloye (SAN) and eight others.
Osinbajo, who spoke for the state, said President Obasanjo has no constitutional power to withhold funds accruable to local councils from the Federation Account.
Osinbajo told the Supreme Court: "President Obasanjo has no constitutional power to withhold payments to the councils pursuant to Section 162 (5) of the 1999 Constitution. The powers that are exercisable under section 162 (5) are purely executive functions. The powers in that provision are not judicial or legislative."
The Lagos State legal team also canvassed the position that: "The President cannot withhold funds as a disciplinary measure but under section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, only the court can decide what disciplinary measure to enforce against alleged violator of constitutional provisions."
He continued: "It is unlawful and unconstitutional for the President to assume the power to issue sanctions by withholding funds. The President cannot act as a court unto himself."
Osinbajo said that Section 162 (5) of the 1999 Constitution provided that fund for local councils must be allocated to states for distribution.
But Babalola, insisting that the President was right in ordering the suspension of the payments, also stated that by the creation of new local councils in Lagos State, the old local councils in Lagos had ceased to exist.
Babalola stated that the National Assembly had a strategic role to play in the creation of new councils before they could be recognised.
He said: "By virtue of Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution, subsection 5 and 6, the constitution imposes express responsibility and duty on the National Assembly to amend the constitution, especially Section 3 (1) (e) as the creation of local councils."
Babalola added: "Section 7 (6) (A) of the 1999 Constitution shows that National Assembly has to amend the constitution. The new local government councils in Lagos State are not known to law. By creating new councils, the old councils have been obliterated."
The FG's lawyer urged the apex court to hold that until the new local councils are known to law, Section 162 (5) cannot apply to Lagos State.
The Chief Justice reserved January 7, 2005 for judgment. But the announcement of that date was not comfortably received by the over 1,000 people who travelled down from Lagos to witness the event. The crowd immediately shouted, "No, no, it is too long".
In an earlier court session, another panel headed by Justice Uwais fixed January 20, 2005 for definite hearing of the suit by the Anambra State governor questioning the decision of President Obasanjo to order the withdrawal of his police security.
The governor represented by a 30-man team of lawyers led by Chief Udechukwu Nnoruka Udechukwu (SAN) and the state Attorney-General. The FG's team was headed by Chief Philip Umeadi (SAN), a private legal practitioner.
The state's Attorney-General had filed the suit on January 19, 2004.
Cited as defendants are the Federal Republic of Nigeria, President Obasanjo, the AG of the federation and the 35 states.
The questions for the determination in the suit by the Supreme Court as framed by the plaintiff (Ngige) are:
"Whether the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, acting through the agents or agencies of the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, including the Inspector-General (IG) of Police have the constitutional right to remove police protection and detail from any governor of a state in Nigeria or to deny the facility of police protection from any governor of a state in Nigeria particularly the Governor of Anambra State, while that governor remains in office?
"Whether the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the constitutional powers to divest the IG to withdraw police protection from the governor of any state, including the Governor of Anambra State under Section 213 (5) of the 1999 Constitution such direction or withdrawal not being a measure for the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order and carried out without any order of a tribunal made under Section 285 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and without the occurrence of the event envisaged under Section 305 (3) (4) and (5) of the constitution and without the governor having been impeached under Section 188 of the constitution, or been adjudged to have resigned his office?"
The matter by Governor Ngige was adjourned because some states cited as defendants applied for extension of time within which to file their statement of defence.
Adamawa, Borno, Bauchi, Cross River, Edo, Bayelsa, Ondo and Enugu states were removed from the list because they did not file any statement.
Meanwhile, a refutal came yesterday from the Lagos State House of Assembly that it has enacted a law scrapping the 37 new councils and reverting to the old 20 in the state.
There were reports in some newspapers yesterday (not The Guardian) that the state has reverted to the old councils thereby jettisoning the new ones.
The House stressed in a press conference that instead of scrapping the new councils, what it did was to amend the local council law to clearly stipulate the 37 new councils created in addition to the 20 old ones, which brings them to 57.
This position was stated yesterday by the Speaker of the state House of Assembly, Jokotola Pelumi while addressing the press in Lagos to debunk claims that the House had amended the local council law to revert to the old 20 local councils.
His words: "I hereby state categorically that there is no truth whatsoever in this publication, which is nothing but a distortion of the amendment to the local government law by the House."
Besides, the Speaker said all the House did was to amend the local council law to clearly stipulate the 37 new councils created in addition to the previously existing 20. This is to remove any ambiguity that could create the misleading impression in some quarters that 57 new councils were created.
He said by listing the 20 old councils in the schedule and the 37 new ones in schedule 2, the amended law makes it obvious that only 37 new councils were created bringing the total in the state to 57.
The Speaker however declared that the House firmly stood by the creation of the 37 new councils which, he said, was in accordance with the will of the people.
Speaking in the same vein, the Information and Strategy Commissioner, Mr. Dele Alake, said that creation of new councils in the state became necessary because the old ones could not cater for the needs of over 15 million Lagos State residents.
|
|
||||||||||||
