CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT: FG DRAGS NASS TO SUPREME COURT

DESPITE having just 36 days to leave office, President Goodluck Jonathan has ordered a law suit to stop the National Assembly from vetoing his refusal to assent the amended 1999 Constitution as passed by the two chambers of the National Assembly.
Subsequently, the Attorney General of the Federation has placed a suit before the Supreme Court, asking for the nullification of controversial sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended by the two chambers.
The suit taken out on behalf of the Federal Government by the chambers of the former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Bayo Ojo, was filed in Abuja, on Wednesday.The sole defendant is the National Assembly.
In suit no SC/214/2015, the plaintiff said the originating summons was brought pursuant to Order 3 Rules 6 of the Supreme Court Rules and section 9 (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), section 1 (1) (A) Supreme Court (additional jurisdiction) Act, 2002 and the inherent powers of the apex court as preserved by section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
The plaintiff claimed that as the chief law officer of the federation, he wanted the apex court to determine: “whether the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) by the defendant through sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, ((Fourth Alteration) Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as The Fourth Alteration Act 2015) which purportedly altered sections 8, 9, 34, 35, 39, 42, 45, 58, 84, 150, 174 and 211 of the Constitution without compliance with the requirements of section 9(3) of the Constitution is not unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void?
“Whether in the absence of compliance by the Defendant with the mandatory requirement of section 9(3) of the Constitution in the passage of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, the Defendant can competently exercise its powers under section 58(5) of the Constitution to enable the purported Act to become Law?
If the questions are answered in the affirmative, the plaintiff is asking for that “a declaration that the proposed amendment to the constitution through sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 which purportedly altered sections 8, 9, 34, 35, 39, 42, 45, 58, 84, 150, 174 and 211 of the constitution and passed by the defendant without complying with the mandatory requirement of section 9(3) and (4) of the said constitution stipulating passage by, at least, four-fifths majority of all members of each House specified in sections 48 and 49 of the constitution is unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”
The president also rejected the separation of the offices of Attorney General of the Federation, his counterparts at state level and Accountant General of the Federation.
Not specifying who would be the Chief Law Officer out of the two did not also sit well with the president, while kicking against the amendment that empowered the National Judicial Council (NJC) to recommend subsequent AGF and the Chief Justice of Nigeria to swear same into office.
The move by the legislature to have the absolute power of AGF to initiate and stop criminal prosecution, liable to judicial review, was also rejected by the president.
Source: Tribune