Why the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, By Kayode Oladele

In December 2022, the Federal Government through the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) introduced a demonetization policy that required the redesign of new naira notes to replace the old ones. The policy also set February 10 as the deadline for the elimination of high-value naira notes, otherwise known as naira exchange across the country.

As a result of the serious suffering caused by the “economic, trade and business disruptions and concerns over the effects of the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) naira redesign policy on its citizens, the state governments. Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara evoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria with take action against the federal government of Nigeria. In the suit, the three northern states asked the Supreme Court to grant an interim injunction to stop the Federal Government by itself or acting through the CBN, commercial banks or agents to stop it from carrying out the plan to stop the period. old version of N200 , N500 and N1,000 denominations of naira can again legal tender on February 10.

The suit also challenges the demonetisation Policy of the federal government currently being implemented by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as not in compliance with the existing provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended) and section 20 (3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and existing laws on the subject. It should be noted that the defendant in the suit is the Attorney General of the Federation as the Chief legal officer of the Federation.

The institution of the lawsuit has created a critical debate among lawyers and political analysts in the public space for various reasons, ranging from whether the subject is within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, whether the Central Bank of Nigeria should not have it. has been joined as a party or that the Honorable Attorney General of the Federation is a proper Defendant in the suit. My contribution to the debate will address these questions with the help of statutory provisions and judicial authorities.

Jurisdiction is generally the authority a court has to entertain and determine a cause of action brought before it in the manner prescribed by law. This is a threshold issue and is the basic position of the law which is the superstructure on which the judicial power is based. Thus, the general convergence of legal opinion is that jurisdiction is the life wire, blood, bedrock and foundation of all judicial proceedings. Therefore, it is very important and fundamental to the administration of justice in any judicial system because it touches the authority of the court to judge a matter. This is why it is important for the Court before which the issue is presented to determine to determine the same in limine before further steps in the proceedings in order to embark on an exercise in futility.

Suffice it to say that any decision passed without jurisdiction by a court of law or any court is void, void and of no legal effect whatsoever no matter how good, good, elegant or meticulous, the court or process may have been or how good, ingenuity or the depth of the resulting punishment. Take a look All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) V. Senator Christiana ND Anyanwu & 2 Ors. (2014) Lpelr-22182 (Sc).

The original jurisdiction of the High Court is limited by the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the Supreme Court (Addition of Original Jurisdiction) Act No.3, 2002. There are certain conditions that must be met. encountered under the law and these conditions will be discussed in this paper. Of course, those who argue about the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to judge this case may do so based on the subject matter of the dispute without considering that the jurisdiction in this case is the existence of a dispute between. State Plaintiff State and the Federal government which in view, implicates the Party’s jurisdiction given by the Constitution rather than the subject of jurisdiction. In my opinion, to use the subject-matter of jurisdiction to determine the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in this case can be an aggravated mischaracterization of the law, practice and procedure. This is because the case presents a clear legal dispute between the plaintiff state and the federal government) to invoke the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Nigeria. See cases from State Attorney General Bendel vs. Attorney General of the Federation (1981) 10 SC 1 at 32, lines 37 to 42.

The High Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suits brought by the States as at present. When considering the plenitude of judicial powers of the High Court as provided in section 6(6) (b) of the Constitution (as amended) which “shall extend to all matters between persons, or between the government or authority and any person in Nigeria, and all actions and proceedings concerned, to determine any question of the civil rights and obligations of the person. See also the provisions of section 232 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as well as section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Law No. 3, 2002.

In other words, the Supreme Court can invoke and exercise original jurisdiction under the combined provisions of section 232(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and section 1(1) of the Supreme Court ( Supplementary Original Jurisdiction Act, 2002 as long as the following conditions are met:

a) There must be a just dispute involving a question of law or fact.

b) The dispute must be between:

i) The Federation and the States in their capacity as one of the constituent units of the Federation of the Federation; or

ii) The Federation and other countries that have the capacity as members of the constituent units of the federation; or

iii) States in their capacity as members of the federation; or

iv) States in their capacity as members of the federation; or

v) National Assembly and President; or

vi) National Assembly and State Assembly; or

vii) National Assembly and States of the Federation

c) The dispute must be one that exists or the extent of legal rights in the said capacity involved

Read: AG Federation vs. AG Lagos State (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1556) 20 @ 45, 49, 56.

It is apposite to reiterate here that the word “OR” was deliberately used by the legislature to engender options, and a disjunctive meaning. Now, the word “OR” has a disjunctive meaning when used in a law or statute. Read: Abubakar vs. Yar’Adua (2008) 4 NWLR (PT. 1078) 465. So, I strongly believe that the conditions outlined above can be applied disjunctively, and they have been followed to give original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in this case.

More importantly, the filing of the lawsuit presupposes that there is a legal dispute about the question submitted to be determined before the court and the arguments in support of which the defendant must respond and join the issue with the Plaintiff. At AG of the Federation vs. AG of the Federation AG of Lagos State (supra) at page 42, Para E, The Supreme Court defined the dispute as follows: “The word “dispute” means the act of arguing, controversies, debates and claims about rights, claims etc. or about opinions.“

In this case, the Plaintiff State felt aggrieved by the way the Federal Government implemented the demonetization policy which has imposed untold suffering on the people and the economy, therefore, the State has no alternative but to request the intervention of the Supreme. Courts to protect citizens and alleviate suffering.

Some legal analysts have also argued that the honorable Attorney General of the Federation is not the proper party to the suit as a defendant, but some are of the opinion that the proper party should be the Central Bank of Nigeria. With respect, these statements are invalid because they are not correct in law. The Attorney General of the Federation is a proper party and a nominal party because it is his position to defend the suit before the Supreme Court in its eminent original jurisdiction. This is because the Attorney General of the Federation is the chief legal officer of the Federation and the appointee of the Federal Government to ensure compliance with the Constitution and other laws.

It is trite that the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria is the chief legal officer of Nigeria. Read: C & CB Dev. Co. Ltd. vs. Min. EH & UD (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 484; AG Anambra State Vs. AG Federation (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 4; Erokoro Vs. The government. Of Cross River State (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 185) 322 @ 336. As the Chief Legal Officer of the Federation, the Attorney General of the Federation can sue or be sued on behalf of the Federation or any agency. Obviously, the Central Bank of Nigeria is an agency of the Federal Government of the Federation of Nigeria.

The Attorney General of the Federation is a proper and nominal party in any setting where a decision or activity of the Federal Government or any agency is contested or challenged in court. In other words, the Attorney General of the Federation is like the Attorney General of the State, as the Chief legal officer of the Federation. The Attorney General of the Federation is the person who has the responsibility under the Constitution to take and defend actions on behalf of the Federation. Any action brought against the Federation in the name of the Attorney-General of the Federation shall have jurisdiction over the Federation in any court in which the Federation may or may be sued and any order made against the Attorney-General of the Federation is made against the Federation. In other words, the office of the Attorney General of the Federation and the state is created under section 174 and 195 of the Constitution. They can sue and be sued in matters affecting the Federation and the country. Take a look AG Anambra State V. AG Federation (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt.1047) 4; Erokoro V. Gov. From Cross River State (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 185) 322 @ 336, Paras.GH; Sambo V. Bello (2017) LPELR 43022 (Ca); Abubakar Rimi V. Okeke (2017) LPELR-43181(CA).

Furthermore, the provisions of section 232 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and section 1 (1) (a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2022 relate to the dispute. which may be brought before the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction. As stated above, this is a dispute between the Appellant State and the Federal government. To this effect, the Supreme Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and determine this suit as it now stands.