Alhaji Umar Ghali Na?aba V. Attorney General Of The Federation & Ors (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/225/2003 between Attorney General of the Federation vs. Chief Anyim Pius Anyim Senate President Federal Republic of Nigeria and 3 Others delivered on the 26th day of May, 2003.

The Plaintiff now 1st Respondent commenced this action at the lower Court against the Defendants and raised 7 issues for determination as follows:-

“(1) Whether the Defendants’ Constitutional power under Section 58(5) of the 1979 (sic) Constitution has become exercisable when the President has neither refused nor withheld his absent under Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution.

(2) Whether the passage by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Bill 2003 into law was proper and validly made while the President and the National Assembly were restrained by a Federal High Court Order of 12th March, 2003 from taking any step on the Bill.

(3) Whether or not the Bill could be said to have been sent by the National Assembly and received by the President whilst there was a Court Order restraining the Clerk of the National Assembly from taking any further steps on presenting the Bill to the President.

(4) Whether or not in the circumstances of this case the President could be said to have withheld his assent, as required by Section 58(5) of the Constitution to warrant the exercise of the National Assembly using a purported 2/3 majority of its members to pass the Bill into law.

(5) Whether or not in the circumstances, there was a 2/3 majority of the members of the Senate when 54 members were present during the mention and voting on the Bill and only 35 members voted to pass the bill into law and 16 members voted against it.

(6) Whether or not the Bill has become law considering the irregularities regarding its purported passage.

(7) Whether in view of Section 4(8) of the 1999 Constitution, the exercise of legislative powers of the Defendant is not subject to the supervisory powers of the Court.”

The Plaintiff then sought for the following reliefs:-

“(1) A Declaration that the Defendants lacked the legislative competence to pass the Bill titled ‘The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Bill 2003’ into law on 7th of May, 2003 and 8th of May, 2003 respectively when the President had in no way manifested any intention to either

withhold or refuse to assent to the Bill sent to him by the Defendants.

(2) A Declaration that the passage by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2003 into law is unconstitutional, illegal, ultra-vires, invalid, void and of no legal effect whatsoever.