A lagos High Court sitting in Lagos has voided the Newly Amended Constitution following the case brought by former President of Nigeria Bar Association, (NBA), Olisa Agbakogba. The judge while giving his ruling stated that Mr. President must append his signature to the constitution before it becomes valid since the bill which gave rise to the constitution was an 'ACT' of the National assembly.

This vedict has rendered the current constitution amendment process in both houses of assembly none and void as spoke person for the Senate has told the press that the Senate would appeal the decision. However chairman house rules and business committee of the House of Representative has told the press that the house would abide by the ruling of the court for now but the House would seek to get the matter settled once and for all and most likely, getting the matter settled in final finality by the supreme court.

So where do we go from here? There are two options:

1. The first option is Mr. President signs the amended constitution with some many flaws and wie ranging implications or the president withholds his assent for 30days with grave implication and political limbo for not just INEC but several functions of the government could also be affected.

2. The second option is for the Cheif law officer of the Federation to approach the suprem Court and seek an experte hearing of the case in order to resolve the matter once and for all.

The first of the two options is more likely as the present timid AG has failed to live up to his responsibility on issues which bothers on constitutionality

Could this be the part two of the third term agenda of former President Olusegun Obasanjo?,  Your guess is as half good as mine 

Source of info, please

This is some serious shyte!

[size=14pt]Amended Constitution Can’t Become Law Without Presidential Assent – Court [/size]
We’ll Appeal -NASS
Mon Nov, 08 2010
By Tobi Smith 

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has held that the amendment recently carried out on the 1999 Constitution by the National Assembly cannot become law and operational without the assent of the President.

The court, presided over by Justice Okechukwu Okeke, also ruled that the purported amendment to the Constitution remains inchoate until it is presented to President Goodluck Jonathan for his assent and approval.

The court also declared the 2010 Constitution amendment act as null and void, saying it would remain void until it is sent the President.

Justice Okeke came to the conclusion while delivering judgment in a suit filed by the former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), challenging the refusal of federal lawmakers to forward the amended Constitution to the President for his assent.

However, the National Assembly, insisted that it would appeal against the ruling since the Federal High Court is not the highest court in the country. 

Agbakoba had sued the National Assembly and the Federal Attorney General and Justice Minister, Bello Adoke, challenging the legality of the claim by the lawmakers that Jonathan’s assent is not required before the amendment to the Constitution can become operational.

But the National Assembly had through its lawyer, Johnson Usman filed a preliminary objection to the suit, urging the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost.

Usman formulated three grounds for the court to strike out the suit, which were; lack of locus standi, lack of jurisdiction and that the court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter.

Usman, had while arguing the matter, contended that only the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) is empowered under the law to institute such suit.

He further argued that the cause of action arose in Abuja and that Lagos was a wrong place to have filed the suit.

On his part, Adoke, in his preliminary objection, argued that he was not a proper party to the suit being a member of the executive arm of government, and that the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action against him.

Ruling on the preliminary objections, Justice Okeke held that the plaintiff (Agbakoba) has sufficient locus standi to institute the action since the suit was not a challenge to the debate on the floor of the National Assembly, but the refusal by lawmakers to send the amended Constitution to the President for his assent.

While citing Section 150 of the Constitution, the court held that Adoke is needed in the proceedings, being the Chief Law officer of the country even as a nominal party or at least to witness the proceedings.

The court thereafter dismissed the preliminary objections filed by Adoke and National Assembly.

In his judgment on the main suit, Justice Okeke, who cited Section 2 of the Interpretation Act to back his position, noted that the Constitution, having came into law through an Act, can only be amended through an Act, and that an Act of the National Assembly cannot become law without the assent of the President.

He added that the National Assembly can only go ahead to enforce the Constitution where the President refused to sign it thirty days after receipt.   

“Having failed to comply with the provisions of Section 58 of the Constitution, the purported 2010 amended constitution remains inchoate until it is presented to the President for his assent,” Justice Okeke held.   

According to the suit, Agbakoba wants the court to hold that the ‘Constitution (First Amendment) Act 2010’ passed by the National Assembly cannot take effect as law without the assent of the President.

The ex-NBA boss is contending that the exercise by the lawmakers without the assent of the President was illegal and unconstitutional, urging the court to nullify the amendments on the grounds that the National Assembly had contravened section 58 of the 1999 Constitution.

He further wants the court to hold that in view of the provisions of section 58 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, the assent of the President is a prerequisite before the amendments can become law.

At Tuesday’s proceedings, Agbakoba’s lawyer, Emeka Chijioke adopted his written arguments and urged the court to grant all the relives sought by his client.

He also urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objections filed by the National Assembly and Adoke

Replying, National Assembly lawyer, Johnson Usman adopted his written briefs on the matter and urged the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost.

Usman urged the court to disregard Agbakoba’s further affidavit and reply on points of law, saying that the processes were filed out of time.

The National Assembly, in its objection, formulated three grounds for the court to strike out the suit, which are; lack of locus standi, lack of jurisdiction and that the court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter.

Adoke, in his objection, argued he was not a proper party to the suit being a member of the executive arm of government, and that the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action against him.

http://www.thetimesofnigeria.com/Article.aspx?id=2937

This is insane. So the court is saying that one little man in Abuja can veto an ammendment passed by a two-thirds majority of both houses and 26 state assemblies?
This ruling has serious and far reaching consequences. It means it is now nearly impossible to pass any ammendment that in any way limits presidential power as the president can unilaterally block it. The president can also blackmail the national assembly by refusing to sign an ammendment unless it include clauses that favour him (think of GEJ trying to change the electoral act to allow public officers to vote as delegates in primaries)
The court just made it easy for a corrupt president to transform himself into a Hugo Chavez/Mugabe type tyrant. If this ruling survives on appeal it will be a major flaw in our constitution and the National assembly will have to pass another ammendment to fix it fast.
And then we'll have to hope that GEJ signs it (and being a PDP man, he probably won't). God help us.

Evil Brain:

This is insane. So the court is saying that one little man in Abuja can veto an ammendment passed by a two-thirds majority of both houses and 26 state assemblies?
This ruling has serious and far reaching consequences. It means it is now nearly impossible to pass any ammendment that in any way limits presidential power as the president can unilaterally block it. The president can also blackmail the national assembly by refusing to sign an ammendment unless it include clauses that favour him (think of GEJ trying to change the electoral act to allow public officers to vote as delegates in primaries)
The court just made it easy for a corrupt president to transform himself into a Hugo Chavez/Mugabe type tyrant. If this ruling survives on appeal it will be a major flaw in our constitution and the National assembly will have to pass another ammendment to fix it fast.
And then we'll have to hope that GEJ signs it (and being a PDP man, he probably won't). God help us.

Your analysis is overly alarmist. A president can be impeached if he/she strays beyond their powers or displays dictatorial tendencies.
We arent talking about everyday legislation here, it is a whole set of constitutional changes. How do you change the constitution without the consent of the country's leader? The Presidency and legislature are set up to check and balance the power of the other (with the Presidency holding the advantage); you wouldn't expect the President to be able to unilaterally change the constitution, so why should the legislature have that power? Both sides must agree any changes.

The behaviour of the NASS on this issue is a disgrace and I can not believe anybody in NASS thinks we should wait for the court to remind us of such a simple principle of seperation of power between the Legislature and Executive.

Honestly the NASS should stop wasting our time and send the amended constitution to the President. Let Jonathan veto the ammended constitution if he does not like it and I believe if he does that then he will have to explain to the Nation why? That is how democracy works.

The NASS can not usurp the powers of the executive.

And quite frankly this looks to me like a VERY MADE UP CONTROVERSY. Because we have seen this same NASS make up confusion between the Senate and House of Reps on where Yar'adua should present his 2011 Budget Speech merely because Yar'adua is too sick to present the budget live and they want to hide the facts to the Nation.

Who is to say this is not the leadership of the NASS colluding with the Executive to destroy a bill that has been passed on the floor of the Senate?
David Mark is too much in sync with Jonathan to engage in this childish and senseless controversy for nothing.

Somebody in the Executive in hiding on the back of the NASS leadership to kill a bill they do not want.

Otherwise let NASS immediately send the bill to Presidency. Jonathan can veto it if he likes and then he will tell the country why? Let the circus stop!!!!!!!

It is called checks and balances man. The NASS has become a "congregation of thieves" shouting hallelujah to their already overstreched bellies, allocating money to themselves and their cronies. This daylight robbey cannot continue uncorrected for too long.

Evil Brain:

This is insane. So the court is saying that one little man in Abuja can veto an ammendment passed by a two-thirds majority of both houses and 26 state assemblies?
This ruling has serious and far reaching consequences. It means it is now nearly impossible to pass any ammendment that in any way limits presidential power as the president can unilaterally block it. The president can also blackmail the national assembly by refusing to sign an ammendment unless it include clauses that favour him (think of GEJ trying to change the electoral act to allow public officers to vote as delegates in primaries)
The court just made it easy for a corrupt president to transform himself into a Hugo Chavez/Mugabe type tyrant. If this ruling survives on appeal it will be a major flaw in our constitution and the National assembly will have to pass another ammendment to fix it fast.
And then we'll have to hope that GEJ signs it (and being a PDP man, he probably won't). God help us.

Beaf:

Your analysis is overly alarmist. A president can be impeached if he/she strays beyond their powers or displays dictatorial tendencies.
We arent talking about everyday legislation here, it is a whole set of constitutional changes. How do you change the constitution without the consent of the country's leader? The Presidency and legislature are set up to check and balance the power of the other (with the Presidency holding the advantage); you wouldn't expect the President to be able to unilaterally change the constitution, so why should the legislature have that power? Both sides must agree any changes.

There are already plenty of checks on the NASS's power. The NASS can't unilaterally change the constitution, they need two-thirds of the state assemblies to do that.

The person who's power needs to the checked is the president who is already far too powerful in my opinion. He already has a huge amount of influence in any ammendment process simply by controlling the flow of government money. Its now much easier for the president to tilt the balance of power in his direction. Gradually over time, the president will thus become stronger and the other arms of government, weaker. A Chavez type dictator is almost inevitable when the president can have the constitution changed to remove checks on his power.

Given the type of leaders we've had in the past, it would be extremely naive to asume that the president won't abuse any power you give him. We should all be very worried about this ruling.

What should we expect when the educational requirement for even the highest political office in the country is School Certificate (one P8)? If presidential consent and assent are required for our laws, does commonsense not tell our senseless legislators that same are needed to amend our laws and grundnorm? Except we step up the educational requirements, our political office holders will continue to reason like wild carnivores that always want to harm or kill and eat even stronger animals.

Evil Brain:

This is insane. So the court is saying that one little man in Abuja can veto an ammendment passed by a two-thirds majority of both houses and 26 state assemblies?
This ruling has serious and far reaching consequences. It means it is now nearly impossible to pass any ammendment that in any way limits presidential power as the president can unilaterally block it. The president can also blackmail the national assembly by refusing to sign an ammendment unless it include clauses that favour him (think of GEJ trying to change the electoral act to allow public officers to vote as delegates in primaries)
The court just made it easy for a corrupt president to transform himself into a Hugo Chavez/Mugabe type tyrant. If this ruling survives on appeal it will be a major flaw in our constitution and the National assembly will have to pass another ammendment to fix it fast.
And then we'll have to hope that GEJ signs it (and being a PDP man, he probably won't). God help us.

The court says that for the process to be complete the President must sign the amendment. The legislature does not want the Pres to take credit for the amaendment. The Senate wants it to be refered to as David Marks amendment. MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

Pls can someone hint me on Why NASS doesn't need the presidential assent or any magumagu inside? The court is right

Pls can someone hint me on Why NASS doesn't need the presidential assent or any magumagu inside? The court is right

Our leaders are clearly being irresponsible.

Are they saying it is impossible to obey the decision of the High Court on this occassion, send the amended constitution for the President to sign so that it becomes operation and so that INEC can legitimately use it.

And then go to court afterwards to determine how their process works since they have been in office for 3years and don't seem to know.

There is more to this than meets the eye. This is clearly a made up controversy over a non-issue