Appeal Court adjourns hearing on deregistration case between NCP, AGF, fixes January 6 date

The legal fireworks expected to spark off at the Appeal Court sitting in Lagos on Monday was quashed as the court adjourned hearing on the deregistration matter between the National Conscience Party (NCP) and the Attorney General of the Federation.

The case with appeal number CA/L/880/22, which also has the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as second respondent, meant to be heard on September 23, 2024, was adjourned till January 6, 2024, by the honourable court because the appellants filed an application for an amendment of their brief of argument.

Mr Marcus Eyarhono, Counsel for NCP speaking to Journalists on what transpired in the court disclosed that the appellants filed an application for an amendment of their brief of argument which was taken and also granted.

The Legal Counsel who argued in court that the matter be heard as scheduled spoke on why the case was eventually adjourned, “The appellants were of the view that since all the parties in the case have filed their written submissions on the matter, the court can go ahead and hear the appeal, but it was the opinion of the court that they need time to read the argument of both parties before the date of the hearing, that is the reason the court did not hear the appeal today.”

Speaking further the Legal icon disclosed that the National Conscience Party did not agree with the decision of the lower court and that was why it appealed the case.

He said “The lower court in their judgement stated that the power of the National Assembly to amend the constitution is an absolute power, that the national assembly in exercise of that power can even convert a woman to a man, and vice versa, and we are saying no, because the power of the national assembly to amend the constitution is derived from the constitution itself, and the constitution has placed some limit on how that power can be exercised by the national assembly. If a power is derived from a particular source, and that source says, this is the limit of your power, any time you exceed that limit conferred on you by the source of that power, you have acted against the source of that power and the constitution says it is supreme and its provisions are binding on all persons and authorities including the national assembly.”

Speaking on the amendment which states that political parties must win elections to continue to function as political parties and which is the reason for the court action, Eyarhono spoke on the implication of such a law on the political space in Nigeria. “They said you must win election, indirectly they are saying election is a do or die affair. If in a particular election the electorate decide not to vote us, fine, that is for that election, before the next election we may be able to sell our programmes to them and convince them as to why they have to vote us in the next election. The national assembly cannot at a particular point in time determine the future of any political party.

“In our affidavit we stated how the African National Congress “ANC” of South Africa was founded in 1912 and that party did not win election until 1994; that is over a period of 82 years. And we are saying that if they were deregistered on the ground that they have not won any election would it have been possible for them to have that landslide in 1994? We also gave example of Barack Obama in America, a black man for the presidency of America, it took them over two centuries for a black man to emerge as the president of America, and our argument is that if, while they were struggling to produce a black president, if they were deregistered or stopped from taking that step on the ground that they have failed and continued to fail, would it have been possible for Barack Obama to emerge as the first black president of America in 2008, no. And we went round, we looked at the constitution of other countries of the world: America, South Africa, India, Nigeria is the only country with this kind of clause, provision that if you don’t win election, you can’t continue to exist as a political party.”

Barr. Eyarhono said that the party in its appeal has the backing of the authority of the supreme Court which state that in amending the constitution, there are no go areas and pillars in the constitution that must not be touched and argued that what the national assembly did by enacting laws that deregister parties, it has encroached on those pillars. “The Supreme Court has decided long before now that the National Assembly does not have the power to legislate the conditions of eligibility for political parties to continue to function as political parties. That is exactly what they did in this case.”

He argued that the national assembly rather than amending the constitution to determine eligibility of political powers, it should rather be concerned with the fraud and electoral malpractices that have bedeviled the electoral system including the humongous fee demanded by political parties for expression of interest form. “Now all of us know how much people rig election in this country particularly the ruling party, why is it not an issue to the national assembly? If you look at so many judgements on election petitions, it has been judicially established over and over again that parties, particularly the ruling parties, they are involved in rigging elections, why is the national assembly not concerned about that? What about the issues of nomination, the millions they ask candidates to pay for expression of interest form, we are saying we cannot practise that kind of politics, we don’t have such requirement in our own political party, and we cannot be equally yoked with these political parties, so leave us to be alone, if it takes the electorate in Nigeria 100 years to accept our programmes, fine and good.”

The erudite lawyer expressed optimism that the party will get judgement in their favour. “Our submission is very very clear, and we have the Supreme Court authority and firm support for our position. That authority says that there is what is known as the basic structure doctrine, the pillars upon which the constitution rests, that the national assembly in the guise of amending the constitution cannot amend, cannot alter cannot touch those pillars. The amendment we are talking about here certainly encroaches on these areas of the constitution.”

Speaking on the implication of the lingering nature of the case he said, “The delay is very very discouraging, it is very frustrating and tiring. I don’t know if you heard one of the Justices when he said they have over 14, 000 cases in the court, the courts are congested. I think that blame goes to the executive arm of government, because we don’t believe that the government does not have enough funds to establish more courts, employ more lawyers and justices just because they are not concerned about the institution. From time to time we hear about how much they spend on themselves, how much they spend on their official activities.

“Before this matter got to the court of appeal, the court of first instance, it took that court if I am not mistaken over a year to deliver the judgement after the parties have adopted their written addresses. Under the constitution it is a maximum of 90 days, but it took the court over a year to deliver that judgement; that contributed significantly to the delay.

Respondents to the matter, the Attorney General of the Federation and the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) were fully represented in court by their lawyers.