Naira Swap Deadline: Buhari’s Disobedience Of Supreme Court Is ‘Executive Rascality’- Lawyers Berate President

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, and the former 2nd Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Ubani Monday Onyekachi, have publicly criticized the 60-day extension for the circulation of the old N200 naira notes approved by President Muhammadu Buhari today, amid a Supreme Court ruling that had said old denominations should remain legal tender pending the determination of a suit before it.

They claimed, in separate statements on Thursday, that the president flouted the orders of the highest court in the land by his action, amounting to alleged contempt.

THE WHISTLER earlier reported that the apex court had on February 8, 2022, in an exparte motion filed by the governments of Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara states granted “an interim Injunction restraining the federal government through the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) or the commercial banks from suspending or determining or ending on February 10, 2023, the time frame with which the now older version of the 200, 500 and 1,000 denomination of the naira may no longer be legal tender pending the hearing and determination of their motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction”.

The state governments had alleged that the scarcity of the new naira notes is already causing crisis in their respective states.

But preliminary objections have been filed against the suit by the Attorney-General of the Federation while about 10 states ( Ondo, Lagos, Edo, Bayelsa, etc) have been joined in the case as co-respondents and co-plaintiffs, by the apex court.

On February 15, the apex court was told by the plaintiff’s counsel, Abdulakim Mustapha SAN that the federal government had violated its interim injunction on the deadline but the AGF’s counsel, Kanu Agabi SAN described his allegation as a “rumor”.

Nevertheless, the apex court directed the plaintiff to include such an allegation in the affidavit that will be heard on behalf of all the plantiffs on the next date of sitting (February 22).

The court also drew the attention of all parties on the need to abide by the developments in court saying, ” “Learned counsel Mustapha and Agabi. I want to draw your attention, Once you submit yourself to court, you have to wait. You are reminded.”

Reacting to Buhari’s fresh directive on Thursday morning, Adegboruwa said in a statement that under section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the President is statutorily obliged to obey, enforce and give effect to the decision of the Supreme Court.

“(1) The decisions of the Supreme court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the supreme Court.”

“Since he (Buhari) already admitted that the matter is subjudice, the President should not have proceeded to vary the order of the Supreme Court.

“The president and indeed the executive should not give the impression that citizens can brazenly disregard lawful orders of any court, as that will only encourage anarchy and lawlessness.

“It amounts to executive rascality and brazen disregard and contempt of the Supreme Court, for the President to separate the denomination of the old notes for legality. It is not open to the President to choose which portion of the order of the Supreme Court that will be obeyed.

“The President should reverse his directive and add the N500 and N1000 old notes, failing which the Supreme Court should overrule the directive of the President in on February 22 when the case comes up,” Adegboruwa added.

For Ubani, he accused the president of overruling the Supreme Court by allowing only 200 naira old notes and the new denominations to be legal tender till April 10.

“The President’s announcement this morning to the country is in clear contempt of the Supreme Court’s earlier order restraining the government from deadlining the old currency notes of 200, 500 and 1000 respectively until the application on notice before it is heard.

“He should have allowed the judicial process to run through. His intervention though well intended as posited by some economists, sends a dangerous signal in our democracy.

“The international community are watching seeing how much we mess our system up. It is ill advised and no lawyer worth his salt should make unfounded allegation of bribery as reason to undermine the judiciary,” he stated via his Facebook page.