Supreme Court consolidates suits by 10 states on Naira swap deadline, refuses to join Abia state

Our reporter| The Supreme Court on Wednesday consolidated the suits instituted by the 10 state governments against the Federal Government challenging the implementation of the naira redesign.

At the last hearing on February 15, seven states joined the three initial states as co-plaintiffs, while Edo and Bayelsa states joined the Federal Government as co-defendants.

Expectations are high as the Supreme Court consolidated the suit on Wednesday.

The court, however, refused to join Abia State in the suit on the ground that it came late with its originating summons.

All efforts by Abia State Government to be joined in the suit, was turned down, and was ordered to present its case at a later date.

A motion for the consolidation was also argued by the Counsel for Rivers State, Emmanuel Ukala.

Moving the motion on notice, Ukala premised the consolidation request on the need for the suit to be heard without any hindrance since the matter bothers on same issue.

The head of the 7-man panel, Justice John Okoro, granted the request and ordered consolidation of the ten suits into one.

Now, the plaintiffs in the suit are the Attorneys General (AGs) of Kaduna, Kogi, Zamfara, Ondo, Ekiti, Katsina, Ogun, Cross River, Sokoto, and Lagos states while the defendants are the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), as well as the AGs of Bayelsa and Edo states.

Commencing arguments, counsel for the Federal Government, Kanu Agabi, said the Supreme Court held that all reliefs are rooted in section 20 of the CBN Act, therefore, the apex court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit as the action cannot commence with an Originating Summons.

He wondered why the plaintiffs did not bring the CBN governor to court as a respondent, after making reference to him 32 times in their Originating Summons.

He said the reliefs are against the CBN, yet they didn’t deem it fit to bring the CBN into the matter. He added that Nigerians had already began rejecting the old notes way before the President’s directive. He insisted that the President is not in violation of the Supreme Court order as under the constitution, the President is empowered to veto any legislation.