Redesign Naira notes: FG asked S’ Court to strike out 3 state governments’.suit

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami SAN, has asked the Supreme court to strike out the suit filed by Kaduna,Kogi and Zamfara States against the Federal Government for want of jurisdiction.

Apex Court on Wednesday ruling on ex-parte motion filed by counsel to the three state governments temporarily suspended the February 10, deadline set by Central Bank of Nigeria to phase out N200,N500 and N1000 old Naira notes.

But last night, Malami filed the Federal Government objection challenging the jurisdiction of Supreme court to hear the state governments suit.

In ten grounds objection
Malami observed that “the Plaintiffs filed an Originating Summons before this Honourable Court on 3rd February, 2023 seeking several declaratory and other
reliefs against the Defendant.

He said that”the Plaintiffs’ suit is challenging the power of the Federal
Government of Nigeria through its agency, the Central Bank of
Nigeria, to withdraw old Banknotes and introduce new ones.”

Malami said that the Plaintiffs’ suit is about the power vested on the Central Bank of Nigeria by the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 to call in its Banknotes and introduce new ones.

He said “this suit as presently constituted, falls under section 251(1)(a)(p)(q) & (r) of the Constitution (exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court

Malami said that the Claims or reliefs are not against the Federation, but the
Federal Government and its Agency, the Central Bank of Nigeria.

That the Federal Government of Nigeria is distinct from the Federation
or the Federal Republic of Nigeria .

That the Plaintiffs have no grievance whatsoever against the Federation of Nigeria.

“This Suit has disclosed no dispute that invokes this Court‟s original
jurisdiction as constitutionally defined”.

“This suit is an abuse of judicial process and the Plaintiff have no locus standi to institute this action.

“The Plaintiffs have no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant.”