The Supreme Court has lambasted the Federal Ministry of Justice for appearing before it to defend President Muhammadu Buhari’s certificate.
The apex court panel which was headed by Justice Mary Odili said it was bad for the ministry and the Attorney General of the Federation to use public fund to defend a case in which Buhari was sued in his personal capacity.
The court wondered why a Principal State Counsel from the Federal Ministry of Justice, Mr Abdullahi Abubakar, should be the one to announce appearance for a private individual.
Frowning at the development, Justice Muhammad Dattijo, said it was high-time Nigeria started practising democracy as it was done in countries like the United States of America, where he noted that the Justice Department never appeared to defend numerous private cases that were filed against Bill Clinton while he held sway as President.
“Clinton, in his numerous private litigations, never used government organs, but rather personally sponsored all his private cases”, Justice Dattijo noted.
He warned lawyers in the Justice Department against embarking on actions that amount to gross contravention of the Code of Conduct for Public Servants, stressing that such action could attract consequences.
While adopting Justice Dattijo’s observation, Justice Odili, said: “The court notes the inappropriate appearance of Mr Abdullahi Abubakar, state counsel from the Federal Ministry of Justice, representing the first respondent Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) in his personal capacity.
“This practice must be discouraged, appeal haven been withdrawn, it is hereby dismissed”, Odili said.
The appellate court had in its lead judgement that was delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris, held that the Originating Summon the appellants entered against Buhari, was defective, noting that Registry of the High Court failed to transmit the record of proceedings within the period allowed by the rules.
“Once the Originating Summon is dead all the other processes are also dead as something cannot be placed on nothing”, Justice Idris held.
Besides, the appellate court held that going by affidavit evidence before it, the cause of action arose on October 18, 2018, when the said Form CF 001 was submitted to INEC, and not on September 28, 2018, when the APC held its primary election to nominate President Buhari as its candidate.
The court noted that the litigants filed their suit on November 5, 2018.
It held that delving into the merit of the case would amount to an academic exercise since the 180 days prescribed for trial of such case had elapsed.
The appellate court held that the 180 days within which it could have been able to invoke section 15 of its Act to hear the matter on merit, expired on May 4.
Justice Idris held that both the appellate court and the trial court had lost jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The appellants who identified themselves as electorates and taxpayers had prayed the court to invoke its original jurisdiction to determine whether or not Buhari supplied false information about his educational qualification and certificates, in the affidavit and bio-data he tendered to INEC.
In the appeal marked CA/A/436/2019, the litigants urged the court to determine whether the office of the Attorney General of the Federation or Ministry of Justice, was competent to file processes to defend their allegation that Buhari lied on oath about his qualifications.
They prayed the appellate court to not only set aside the verdict of trial Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the high court that dismissed their case but go ahead and hear all the substantive legal issues they raised against Buhari in their suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1310/2018.
Cited as respondents in the matter were President Buhari, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC.