Naira Notes: Supreme Court order an effort in futility [Opinion]

Shortly after that order was granted, a video surfaced online showing Kaduna State Governor, Nasiru El-Rufai, addressing a group of people, informing them that the old notes will still be valid for the next four years, despite the substantive case still pending at the apex court.

Many Nigerians have also joined him to applaud the Supreme Court for the ruling with knowledge that the order may turn out to be fruitless and nullity ab initio.

The CBN recently redesigned the 200, 500 and 1000 naira notes and directed everyone with the old notes to deposit same on or before 31st of January, 2023. Even though many Nigerians had complied, the deadline was shifted to February 10, 2023, after series of interventions.

As someone who is familiar with the psyche of the nation, I had predicted that some elements would try to use the court to restrain the CBN from implementing the new naira policy. The prophecy finally came to pass on Wednesday. 

Before I delve fully into the legal implications here, it's germane to quickly revisit the reasons behind the introduction of the new naira policy. On the 29th day of January, 2023, the Governor of CBN released a press statement that in 2015, the amount of naira that was in circulation was N1.4trillion.

Even though it rose to N3.3 trillion in 2022, the amount within the banking system was only N500billion, which means the remaining N2.7trillion was stuck outside the banking system and perhaps in some people's homes. These monies kept by individuals certainly cannot be in the interest of the masses.

In order to get the money back into the banking system as well as smoke out the currency hoarders and prevent them from using their stashed cash to influence the upcoming elections to the disadvantage of poor Nigerians, the CBN insisted that the old notes will cease to be legal tender before the the elections come around.

Therefore, many Nigerians have observed that this is the primary reason politicians, especially those belonging to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), are hell bent on frustrating the CBN policy.

1. For a party to invoke the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and for Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction to hear the matter there must be;

a. A dispute between the Federation (I.e. Federal Republic of Nigeria) and A State or

b. A dispute between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.( See section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended). see also A.G.BENDEL STATE VS A.G.OF THE FEDERATION (1981)10 SC 1.

In the instant case, the parties are 3 States (plural) Vs. A.G. of the Federation which is not contemplated by the constitution and the dispute is simply about legal tender which is an exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. See section 251(1)(d). It reads;

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures."

2. Central Bank of Nigeria was not a party to the suit. It is trite law that for an order of Court to bind someone or a party, the person must be a party to the suit. See LAWRENCE S.U.AZUH VS UNION BANK OF NIG LTD (2014) AELR S.C. and AZUBUIKE VS PDP & ORS (2014) 7 NWLR PT 1406. If a person is not made a party and you make an order against him, it will amount to a breach of the person's fundamental right to fair hearing as enshrined under section 36 of the Constitution. 

In the case in view, CBN was never a party and still not a party to that suit as such the order cannot bind them.

It is important I state at this juncture that the CBN is not only a juristic person but an independent corporate organisation. See sections 1 (1)(2)(3) of the CBN Act, 2007. By her independence, she's not answerable to the Federal government so to say or to the Attorney General of the Federation.

By the virtue of section 2 (b), it shall be the duty and objective of the CBN to issue legal tender currency in Nigeria. There's no other body that is statutorily empowered to do so. So, anybody or group of persons that have issue with the new naira policy and thought it necessary to file a suit must make the Central Bank of Nigeria a party ( necessary party) which might even entail service of pre-action notice. 

It's, therefore, pitiable and unfortunate that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria who is supposed to be a senior minister in the temple of Justice would allow the three northern states descend to the level of a rookie law student and file such incompetent suit knowing full well that the inclusion of the apex bank in the suit would obviously strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.

One would expect that this level of abuse of court process will be kept in check by the Legal practitioners disciplinary committee and the Nigeria Judicial Council. 

Finally, I pray and wish that ministers in the temple of justice, especially members of the bench will put themselves in the shoes of all these suffering Nigerians and do the right thing irrespective of whose ox is gored.

In the interim, I'd advise Nigerians to go and deposit their old naira notes in the bank or dash them out to their loved ones before it's too late

Thank you and God bless us!

_==_

About the author: Agbasiere Kelechi Anthony (KSJI) aka (Celebrity Barrister) is a practising lawyer in Awka, Anambra State. He's also a human rights activist and philanthropist.

Disclaimer: This article is the opinion of a Pulse Contributor, it doesn't reflect the opinions of the company.