President Goodluck Jonathan has asked the Supreme Court to declare the last amendment to the Constitution – the fourth alteration – unconstitutional.
Jonathan has refused to assent to the Alteration Bill sent to him by the National Assembly.
In a suit filed on his behalf by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN), Jonathan contended that the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths majority of members of the National Assembly (defendant) and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the extant Constitution, 1999 as amended.
In an originating summon, the plaintiff asked the court to make an order nullifying and setting aside sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, purportedly passed by the defendant.
The plaintiff also asked the court to determine two questions:
*Whether the proposed amendment to the 1999 Constitution by the defendant through sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Constitution (Fourth Alteration) Act 2015, which purportedly altered sections 8, 9, 34, 35, 39, 42, 45, 58, 84, 150, 174 and 211 without compliance with the requirements of Section 9(3) is not unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void; and
*Whether in the absence of compliance by the defendant with the mandatory requirement of Section 9(3) in the passage of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, the defendant can competently exercise its powers under Section 58(5) to enable the purported Act to become Law.
It prayed the court to hold that the proposed amendments through sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, which purportedly altered sections 8, 9, 34, 35, 39, 42, 45, 58, 84, 150, 174 and 211 and passed by the defendant without complying with the mandatory requirement of sections 9(3) and (4) stipulating passage by at least four-fifths majority of members of each House specified in sections 48 and 49 is unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void.
He also asked the court to declare that in the absence of compliance by the defendant with the mandatory requirements of Section 9(3) of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, which purportedly altered sections 8, 9, 34, 35, 39, 42, 45, 58, 84, 150, 174 and 211, it is unconstitutional for the defendant to exercise its powers under Section 58(5) to enable the purported Act to become law.
The plaintiff, in a supportive affidavit, stated that the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths majority of members of the defendant and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the extant 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The plaintiff stated that the defendant is making moves, with the consent of the Houses of Assembly to employ certain provisions to now pass the purported Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 into law.
He stated that the said purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 contains many proposed amendments inconsistent with the spirit of federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances, which constitute the hallmark of the constitution and democracy.
The plaintiff contended that most of the provisions of the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 are contrary to public policy and good governance.
He stated that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the reliefs sought in the suit.