Senate President Ahmad Lawan has said the Federal High Court ruling will not stop the National Assembly from amending the Electoral Act 2022.
The court sitting in Abuja on Monday barred President Muhammad Buhari, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Senate President from tampering with the act.
- NIGERIA DAILY: How Genotype Tests Put Families In Jeopardy
- Reps seek humanitarian aid for Nigerians trapped in Ukraine
The judge, Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling on an ex-parte application by the PDP, said the electoral act, having become a valid law, could not be amended without following the due process of law.
President Muhammadu Buhari had, in a letter to the National Assembly last week, asked the federal lawmakers to amend the act, by deleting Section 84 (12), which, according to him, constituted a “defect” that is in conflict with extant constitutional provisions.
The section bars political appointees from contesting elections.
But the Senate president said the court ruling violated the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) on separation of powers.
Speaking after the Electoral Act 2022 (Amendment) Bill scaled first reading, Lawan said it was within the exclusive right of the parliament to consider the bill.
He noted that no arm of government could stop the other from carrying out its responsibilities.
Senator Gabriel Suswam (PDP, Benue) also faulted the ruling of the Federal Court.
Senator Ike Ekweremadu, while citing Order 52(5) of the Senate Standing Order, urged the Senate to abide by the court ruling. He advised the National Assembly to discharge the court order.
Lawan said, “My opinion about anarchy is when either arm of government decides to go into the exclusive preserve of the other.”
At the House of Representatives, Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila read President Buhari’s letter on the request to amend the electoral act.
However, Herman Hembe (APC, Benue) reminded the Speaker, that there is a subsisting court order regarding the removal of the section in the Electoral Act.
Responding, the Speaker said: “You are talking about the court process that was served on us? Yes, I am aware of it; that there is a court process on an injunction.
“I am still obligated to read the letter, the communication from Mr President on the floor. Your point is well noted.”
