The old and redesigned Naira banknotes are to continue circulating together as legal tenders till Wednesday, February 15, pending the hearing on the appeal filed by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, against Wednesday’s order by the Supreme Court suspending the February 10 deadline set by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) for the use of the old N200, N500, and N1000 banknotes as legal tenders in the country.
AGF Malami who gave this indication on Thursday while featuring as guest on the Arise Television breakfast programme although he has since filed a preliminary objection to challenge the Supreme Court’s order against the CBN deadline, the government had to bend backwards to obey in the interest of the rule of law.
He said the Federal Government faulted the order of the apex court on the ground that the CBN, as a central party in the matter, was not joined in the suit filed by Attorney-Generals of three northern states of Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara.
Malami said the Federal Government’s argument was that joining the apex bank in the suit by the three states would have denied the Supreme Court the jurisdiction necessary for it to hear the case as the court of first instance.
Despite that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to order the suspension of the February 10 deadline set by the CBN for the continued use of the three categories of old banknotes as legal tender in the country, the AGF said Federal Government was compelled to abide by the ruling by five days until next Wednesday for the sake of the rule of law.
“The order granted by the Supreme Court will lapse on Wednesday, the day of the hearing of the appeal. We have already taken steps to file an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain the matter, on the ground that when you talk of monetary policy, regardless of the characters they take, the Central Bank is an indispensable and necessary party for that matter.
“What we have at hand is a situation where the Central Bank as an institution was not joined as a party. The position of the law is clear that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be properly invoked to hear the case on that instance.
“So, we have given considerations to diverse issues, inclusive the issue of jurisdiction. And come Wednesday, we will argue the case from that perspective, amongst others.
“I think what we are talking about is not whether the ruling is binding or not binding. We are talking about what we intend to do. There is no doubt that the ruling of the Supreme Court, regardless of the prevalent circumstances, is binding.
“Then, within the context of the Rule of Law, you can equally take steps that are available to you within the context of the spirit and circumstances of the Rule of Law and what we are doing, in essence, is compliance with the Rule of Law, both in terms of obedience to the ruling and in terms of challenging the ruling, by way of putting our own side of the story, putting across our case, challenging the jurisdiction.
“So, the issue of obedience to the ruling of the Supreme Court is out of it. We are wholeheartedly in agreement that, naturally, we are bound by it and will comply accordingly. But within the context of compliance, we shall challenge the ruling by way of filing an application seeking for it to be set aside. It is all about the rule of law.
“The Rule of Law provides that there has to be obedience to the judgment and orders of the Supreme Court; that when you are not happy with a ruling, you can file an application requesting for it to be set aside. And in compliance with the rights and privileges vested in us as a government, we are equally looking at challenging the order and seeking for it to be set aside”, the AGF explained.
