The senate Spokesperson Senator Ajibola Basiru has described the supreme Court judgement on Friday dismissing the suit brought against section 84(12) of the Electoral act 2022 as a vindication of the National Assembly.
President Muhammadu Buhari and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, had filed a suit at the Supreme Court, seeking an interpretation of the controversial clause in the Electoral Amendment Act 2022.
The Supreme Court on Friday struck out President Muhammadu Buhari and the Attorney General of the Federation’s suit challenging Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act.
The case was expunged on the grounds that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and is an abuse of court process.
Basiru had blamed the Attorney general for always giving the President legal advise that cannot stand the test of judgement
“The judgement of the supreme Court just validate some of our opinions that the President is not receiving very sound legal advise from the office of the attorney general.
“Like he was also misled over the issue of grazing roots in the past, the same thing, having assented to a bill, the same President cannot go ahead to seek to delete an aspect of the bill.
“So we hope the President will be alive to getting second opinion on legal matters so that the Federal Government would not be embarrassed on plain legal matters that are very elementary.
When asked on the position of the national Assembly over the judgemwnt he said, it shows that the judgement did not consider the constitutionality or otherwise of section 84(12) and so the court declined to invalidate the law that means that the law still stands as at today.
“Section 84(12) still stand as part of the extant laws of the country and that any political party that does not comply with the provision does so at his own peril. “I also know that for instance notwithstanding the case filed by the Attorney general even the President complied with the law by asking his appointees to resign and they resign and those of them that resigned were not even reappointed.
“So in terms of the implementation of the law the President and the political parties implemented the law so one would not know what was the interest of the Attorney general litigating the provision that had been complied with by even his President and the political party.
