lexy2014:
Why are "the law courts (including the Supreme Court) are neither empowered nor equipped to determine which policies of the executive branch are substantively ‘good’ or ‘bad'"?

Where did you get that from?

According to you:

"The constitutional power of Judicial Review granted to the judiciary is limited to deciding if laws/policies are in compliance with the law"

Did the judgment by the supreme court not address the above?

9jaRealist:


No, it did not….

The power of Judicial Review means that if the policy was not made in accordance with the law or constitution, the remedy to be provided to the courts is to throw it out. It is not to come up with alternative policy or to modify it according to what the justices’ preference. In effect, by substituting the President/CBN’s deadline with the Supreme Court’s December 31 date, what the justices have essentially done has been merely to SUBSTITUTE their own policy preference (ie, for a 10-month deadline extension) in place of that of the President/CBN who are constitutionally and statutorily with EXCLUSIVE authority over currency management (which of course is an integral part of monetary policy). It’s a slippery slope to Hades, and the courts are neither empowered or equipped to make such substantive policy choices.
>

lexy2014:
According to you:

"Why are "the law courts (including the Supreme Court) are neither empowered nor equipped to determine which policies of the executive branch are substantively ‘good’ or ‘bad'"?

I asked...Where did you get that from?

Was the policy made in accordance with the law or the constitution?

lexy2014:
According to you:

"Why are "the law courts (including the Supreme Court) are neither empowered nor equipped to determine which policies of the executive branch are substantively ‘good’ or ‘bad'"?

I asked...Where did you get that from?

Was the policy made in accordance with the law or the constitution?

lexy2014:
Why should the supreme court not be able to sit on monetary issues brought before it?

streetfabulous:
The Supreme court is not challenging the powers of CBN to create and drive monetary policies.
Please understand that even with the powers CBN has, there are certain monetary policies that the Apex bank cannot take unilaterally without proper consultation with key stakeholders and economic decision makers in the country.
The Supreme court is faulting the recklessness of implementation in that the CBN did not even consult the Council of state, Federal executive Council, National Economic Council e.t.c.

The CBN governor went straight to the President who demonstrated ignorance by signing the policy without demanding that the CBN carry out the necessary consultations.

Hence, the court rebuked Buhari for acting ultra vires and as a DICTATOR. This recklessness on the part of CBN and Buhari created aggrieved parties and represents a breach of fundamental human rights.
That is why the Supreme court insisted that they have a right to hear the case because if the powers you have infringes on human rights and creates aggrieved parties then the court can hear the matter. After all, every power, even the powers of CBN and the President is derived from the Law.

9jaRealist:


The Constitution specifically provides the powers (including advisory powers) of these bodies (see Part I of the Third Schedule) and there is NO such consultancy powers or requirement provided therein.
>

Odidigboigbo:
So Emefile is now FG. May be you don't know what contempt is all about. If they want to do a Claver work, they should have joined the CBN and Emefile in the suit. Provided they are not part of the suit contempt does not arise. The only people the court can accused of contempt is Buhari and the AGF because these are the people that was sued not Emefile.

IfnobeGod20:

The question now is, if the president erred in law by giving definite directive to CBN without consulting the council of states for the expiration of the old naira notes, does supreme court have powers to make same definite pronouncement on when the old naira notes will no more legal tender? Which section of the law empowers them? Because I don't think there is any section of the constitution that says December 23 shall always be the date for the expiration of any naira notes if the nation want to change its money.
What I expected the supreme court to do is to void the president directive and ask the president to follow the law and not giving directive on monetary policy. I don't think it is within supreme court purview.

9jaRealist:


The same reason the CBN cannot sit on legal issues brought before it…
>

9jaRealist:


That’s a substantively different issue, where I also happen to think the Court was wrong (for example, the Constitution SPECIFICALLY enumerates the functions of the Council of State in Section 6(a) of Part I of the Third Schedule - and currency management was NOT one of the areas that the Constitution granted the COS advisory powers), but I do not even think we need to get there.

Because even conceding (for argument’s sake) that the Court CORRECTLY held that the policy was NOT made in accordance with the law or the constitution, it is limited to NULLIFYING the law (or in certain exceptional cases, nullifying those aspects of the law in breach of the law or the constitution). It is NOT empowered (either by the Constitution or any law) to CHANGE OR REPLACE the policy.
>

lexy2014:

According to you:

"Why are "the law courts (including the Supreme Court) are neither empowered nor equipped to determine which policies of the executive branch are substantively ‘good’ or ‘bad'"?

I asked...Where did you get that from?

Was the policy made in accordance with the law or the constitution?

lexy2014:
According to you:

"Why are "the law courts (including the Supreme Court) are neither empowered nor equipped to determine which policies of the executive branch are substantively ‘good’ or ‘bad'"?

I asked...Where did you get that from?

Was the policy made in accordance with the law or the constitution?

lexy2014:
what reason is that?

Asour:
What you're saying it an interpretation. (Right or wrong).

Where parties are at loggerheads about what is deemed right/legal, Courts come in.

Interpretation not necessarily as a subject matter expert but to listen to aggrieved parties with a view to upholding justice — according to the law.

Supreme courts all over the World (including Nigeria) have adjudicated on all sorts of matters for which they aren't Subject experts.

9jaRealist:


NOPE! That Part I of the Third Schedule of the Constitution, which created the Council of State, SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATES the subject matters over which the Council has an advisory role (see Section 6(a)) is a FACT and NOT an opinion or “interpretation”

Meanwhile, the issue that I raised has NOTHING to do with subject matter expertise but rather with the Court’s constitutional and/or statutory powers (yes, even the courts themselves are SUBJECT to constitutional/statutory LIMITATIONS).
>

BreconHills:

This is NOT monetary policy. Monetary policy has well established ways of mopping up excess cash. If you issue a bond at an attractive rate it will mop up currency. If you adjust bank reserve limits upwards, it will mop up currency.

This is not a currency change because in a currency change as the name implies one swaps old notes for new. This is naira confiscation because it deprives account holders access to their funds and undermines the relationship between the bank and the account holder. Every account holder has the right to withdraw his money in part or on whole from any commercial bank ON DEMAND. This right has been taken away - by what authority or what legislation?

Btw any court can make an orders or such ancillary orders as to give effect to his judgement. So the putting of a date on the currency swap period is well within the authority of the court.

Re my putting words in the mouth of the original poster. The original poster implied that the SC had no jurisdiction over the actions of the President because they relate to monetary policy. Sorry, but the Court has a right to hear cases brought before it. Secondly where any office holder holding power under the Constitution has their powers or the extent of those powers questioned then the court can decide if the said official or person has acted ultra vires or outside the scope of those powers.

In the President case, no President has the power to place limits on how much an account holder can take from his own account unless it is under emergency powers or an amendment of the CBN Act.

Anyone questioning the right of the Supreme Court to question the limits of a duly elected person's authority is a closet fascist who supports executive tyranny.

Asour:
What you call "Facts" mean nothing until interpreted.

You're making an interpretation WHICH is a court's responsibility.

The supreme Court rules on ALL matters under the sun. And Yes including the CBN.

9jaRealist:


Nope! What I call FACTS are exactly that - verifiable FACTS in and of itself!
Different people can draw opinions and interpretations from FACTS but the FACTS themselves remain FACTS.

That the Council of State is created in Part I of the Third Schedule of the Constitution is a verifiable FACT…
That Section 6(a) of Part I of the Third Schedule SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATES its advisory role is a verifiable FACT.

Based on the foregoing verifiable FACTS…
Different folks (including the courts) can reach different opinions/interpretations, but the FACTS themselves remain UNCHANGED!

PS: Furthermore, just as an aside. NOPE! The Supreme Court CANNOT rule “on ALL matters under the sun”…
Even Supreme Court has LIMITATIONS on its powers. It is created by the Constitution and only derives it powers therefrom.
>

Asour:

Of course facts are facts.
But FACTS mean nothing in and of themselves.

For instance, The number '2' means nothing on its own.
Its meaning derives from its interpreted context.

Consequently, if the interpretations you've drawn from facts (in law) are different from what I have drawn from the same facts (in the same law), who helps to arbitrate?
Isn't it courts?

To the extent that ANYTHING in law (CBN or any other Acts) can be disagreed on, such a disagreement must be arbitrated by a law court.

If I as a person have an issue with the CBN Can't I take them to court?

Why not allow the court interpret whether or not I can take anything to it. Whether or not it can sit on a matter.

Your verdict on whether a matter can/cannot be taken to the Supreme court is an OPINION in itself.

Cheers.

9jaRealist:


Not to beat a dead horse, but…
First, “hearing” and “ruling” are NOT synonymous terms.

Accordingly, the statement that the Court cannot “rule on ALL matters under the sun” is empirical FACT…
Which particular case the Court ends up hearing or ruling on is what’s an opinion/interpretation (of the Court).

That’s a distinction with a difference!
>

9jaRealist:


From the constitution…

You just seem to be going around in circles now. Nonetheless, the judiciary (just as the two other branches of government) derive their power from the constitution. Accordingly, they are NOT empowered to undertake functions that the constitution does not grant them the authority to, such as (in the instant case) CHANGE/REPLACE the President/CBN’s deadline with their own December 31, 2023 date.
>

9jaRealist:


Nope! What I call FACTS are exactly that - verifiable FACTS in and of itself!
Different people can draw opinions and interpretations from FACTS but the FACTS themselves remain FACTS.

That the Council of State is created in Part I of the Third Schedule of the Constitution is a verifiable FACT…
That Section 6(a) of Part I of the Third Schedule SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATES its advisory role is a verifiable FACT.

Based on the foregoing verifiable FACTS…
Different folks (including the courts) can reach different opinions/interpretations, but the FACTS themselves remain UNCHANGED!

PS: Furthermore, just as an aside. NOPE! The Supreme Court CANNOT rule “on ALL matters under the sun”…
Even Supreme Court has LIMITATIONS on its powers. It is created by the Constitution and only derives its powers therefrom.
>

9jaRealist:


Even if it was not…
Courts are NOT empowered to REPLACE the policy with their own policy!

PS: Meanwhile, even though I am reluctant to go down this road, suffice it to note that Part I of the Third Schedule of the Constitution, which created the Council of State (as well as the National Economic Council) SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED the matters on which the Council has an advisory role, and currency management (nor monetary policy) was NOT among those. In contrast, the constitution and the extant law (specifically BOFIA) gives the President/CBN sole and exclusive powers over currency and monetary matters and policies.

As citizens, we are bound to obey Supreme Court (and other court) orders, but that does NOT render their judgment infallible or beyond criticism. On the contrary, one of the duties/responsibilities of citizenship is to hold the authorities accountable.
>

9jaRealist:


Because the CBN is neither empowered nor equipped to arbitrate over legal issues…
It is a power reserved by the Constitution and extant law for other public institutions (the courts, etc.)
>

0monnak0da:

Ogun will kill my mother

0monnak0da:
God please kill my mother. I want to be motherless this year.

Buhari4sale:
My mother will die from snake bite

lexy2014:
Where is it in the constitution that "the law courts (including the Supreme Court) are neither empowered nor equipped to determine which policies of the executive branch are substantively ‘good’ or ‘bad'"?