Supreme Court keeps Buhari waiting on Section 84(12) of Electoral Act

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment in a suit filed by President Muhammadu Buhari and the Attorney General of the Federation, asking the court to interpret Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022.

The apex court, after taking arguments from parties and adopting their processes, resolved to communicate its decision to the parties involved in the suit.

The seven-man Supreme Court panel was led by Justice Mohammed Dattijo.

At the proceedings, the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), and the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), brought applications, seeking to be joined as interested parties.

APGA, however, withdrew its application for joinder which was subsequently struck out by the court.

But the NBA insisted that Nigerians do not have representation in the suit, the reason it decided to join the matter.

In the suit, the defendants were the National Assembly, Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, and the Attorney General of Rivers State.

READ: Appeal court nullifies judgment expunging Section 84(12) of Electoral Act 2022

Counsel to President Muhammadu Buhari, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) objected to the application of the NBA to be joined, either as an interested party or as amicus curiae, insisting the NBA was already holding an opinion on the matter.

An amicus curiae is an impartial adviser to a court of law in a particular case.

Eventually, the plaintiff counsel conceded to the application for NBA to be joined as amicus curiae, stressing its submissions on the matter will be strictly on giving an interpretation of the said Section 84 (12) and not join issues.

The panel in a short ruling joined the NBA as an amicus curiae.

Counsel to the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly and Attorney General of the State, Emmanuel Ukala, citing Supreme Court Additional Jurisdictions Act, said Buhari lacks locus standi to institute such a suit as he is not directly affected by the Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act.

He said the appointees affected by the said section should have been the ones to institute the suit for being shut out from exercising their rights.