Since the Nigeria Supreme Court granted an exparte application filled by three States Governments and ordered the continuos circulation of the Old Naira notes pending the determination of the suit and invariably beyond the February 10 deadline of President Mohamadu Buhari and the CBN, the media space and parts of Abuja streets have been awashed with protests by people who are supposedly defending the Executive arm of government.

Expectedly, they have called the supreme court names with vehement insistence that the Courts lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The Federal Government had said the Apex Court acted outside it’s powers.

The question then is whether the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter as claimed.

The Apex Court had hiterto defended itself on the likelihood of matter like this. My reference is to the authority of Marwa v Nyako (2012) 6 NWLR (Part 1296) 199 where the Court held inter alia:

“When interpreting the Constitution, the court must bear in mind that it is dealing with an instrument which controls and regulates the powers and functions of government, controls the rights and obligations of the citizen and controls the peace and order of the society…..”

The Court went further to state that; “though the administration of the country is the near-exclusive preserve of the executive arm of government, this country will also be governed by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court as the rights of every Nigerian would be affected by the interpretation which the Apex Court gives to various provisions of the Constitution; whether liberal or restrictive.”

“…..A court of law is meant to give statutes their literal and unambiguous meaning where same is clear.

However, there are times when the intentions of the draftsperson of a law (including the Constitution) is obfuscated and the courts may have to jettison the literal rule of interpretation and adopt other modes of interpretation. It is in the exercise of these constructive modes of interpretation that the policy-making role of the Supreme Court is emphasized. One of the canons of interpretation which accentuates the policy-making role of the Apex Court is the purposive rule of interpretation wherein the courts embark on a jurisprudential odyssey to unveil the unclear purpose for which a legislation was enacted. In doing so, the courts shape (judicial) policy by the application of this liberal rule…”

Unarguably, the fulcrum of the argument of the dissenting opinions to the ‘exparte order’ granted by the Supreme Court with respect to the deadline of the old Naira notes usage is to the effect that whether the Apex Court had not acted outside the Powers confers on it by Section 232(1)(2) of the CFR 1999 as amended. Arriving from the ratio in Marwa v Nyako (Supra) therefore, I submit with respect that the Supreme Court had exercised it’s powers to fulfil the fundamental obligation of Law, which is to ‘maintain social order and defend the rights of citizens ‘(see para 2 above).

As to issue of jurisdiction, it’s a trite Jurisprudential fact, that the Law is what the Apex Court calls it. Even where it makes pronouncement ‘per incuria’, it holds the powers not to reverse itself as provided in order 8 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Act). (See the Balyesa case of David Lyon & APC v Douye Diri & PDP, (2020)..

Consequently, their lordship in their wisdom will decide on the premature issue of jurisdiction when the application to that effect is presented. As of now, they had only ruled on a motion exparte which does require other parties being put on notice.

The supreme Court had acted promptly on the side of the people to prevent avoidable anarchy.

Adenitan Akinola Esq.