According to Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN, Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has been instructed to postpone its scheduled deadline for the use of the previous N200, N500, and N1000 banknotes.
Malami claims that the administration will abide by the ruling until it is overturned. He has now filed a preliminary objection to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision.
When FG made an appearance as a guest on Arise Television, the AGF made it clear what FG thought about the situation.
He criticized the Supreme Court’s decision on the grounds that the CBN, a necessary party, was not included in the lawsuit brought by three northern states.
Malami argued that including the CBN in the Kaduna, Kogi, and Zamfara states’ lawsuit would have stripped the Supreme Court of its authority to hear the case as the first instance court.
He emphasized that FG would comply with the ruling due to its propensity for the rule of law, despite the fact that the apex court lacked the authority to postpone the February 10 deadline for the end of the country’s use of old banknotes as let tender.
Malami stated, “The Supreme Court granted the order, and the order was to laspe on Wednesday, which is the day of the hearing.” We have taken steps to file an objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to consider the matter in light of this position.
“Jurisdiction due to the fact that the Central Bank is an indispensable and necessary party when discussing monetary policy, regardless of the forms it takes.
“What we have here is a situation in which the Central Bank is not joined as a party. If the Central Bank as an institution is not joined as a party, the legal position is clear that the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction cannot be properly invoked.
Therefore, we have considered a variety of issues, including the question of jurisdiction; on Wednesday, we will, among other things, present the case from that point of view.
“I believe that what we are discussing is what we intend to do, not whether the ruling is binding or not. In the context of the Rule of Law, you can also take steps that are available to you within the context of the spirit and circumstances of the Rule of Law. What we are doing in essence is compliance with the Rule of Law both in terms of being obedient to the ruling and in terms of challenging the ruling by way of putting our own side of the story, putting across our case, and challenging jurisdiction. There is no doubt that the ruling of the Supreme Court is binding regardless of the prevalent circumstances.
“The question of complying with the Supreme Court’s decision is therefore out of the equation; we are completely in agreement that, naturally, we are bound by it and will comply accordingly; however, within the context of complying, we will challenge the decision by submitting an application seeking to have it set aside; it is all about the rule of law.
He continued, “The Rule of Law provides that there must be obedience to the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court.” “The Rule of Law provides that when you are not satisfied with a ruling, you can file an application for setting aside,” he said. “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.”