 You're welcome back. The Supreme Court has adjourned the suit filed by governors to challenge the Naira redesign policy of the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, to Wednesday, February 22. The apex court said it would consolidate on all the cases, stressing that all the states would abide by its decision on the matter. Mustafa, who is the lawyer in the case, told the court that, contrary to the order, CBN had scenes invalidated the old 200 Naira, 500 Naira, and 1,000 Naira notes. He therefore pleaded the apex court to reinstate the interim order, saying he had also filed a process to reflect federal government's disobedience of the court order. Joining us to understand this better is Utman Isat Tochuku Esquire, a legal practitioner who will help us to clarify some gray areas in this case. Utman, welcome to the program. Thank you very much for having me. Okay, now we are looking at the Naira redesign and the court cases, and what seems to be at the front burner now is not even what was taken to the court, but the federal government is challenging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to, even in the first place, hear that matter and take a decision. So what does the law say about cases like this? Thank you very much for having me. I think to start with, we need to understand the issues that brought us around the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by law has two types of jurisdiction. The first jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is appellate jurisdiction, right, as provided under Section 233, Sub 1 of the 1999 Constitution, while the second jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided under Section 232, Sub 1 of the 1999 Constitution. Now, what Section 232, Sub 1 provides, which is the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is that the Supreme Court shall have the original jurisdiction to entertain matters between the federation and the state, or between the states, right, when there are laws or issues of fact that are in contention between the federation and the state or the state. This with regards to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. And then when you come to talk about the issue that relates with the appellate traditions of the Supreme Court is where matters have been heard by the court below, i.e. the High Court, and the court, the matter goes to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal decides on the matter, and then the matter moves from Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. In that instance, the Supreme Court will assume appellate jurisdiction on the matter. Now, I haven't explained this. When you bring it, narrow this issue down to the issue in question about the case between the Central Bank of Nigeria and that of, you know, the governors who have gone to the court to file a suit and then joined the federal government against the state. It is somewhat confusing because if you look at the course of action, it is arising as a result of the policies that the CBN came, right? But again, you need to also look at it from another perspective, whether the CBN was joined on the matter is a different issue. But then the Supreme Court has not even gone into the substantive issue. What the Supreme Court had already had done was to say parties should stay statusful and based on the expatriate order given by the Supreme Court. So whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, has not come to fall, it is not debatable because the matter has not been decided by the Supreme Court. What we expected federal government to do in this instance is, first of all, obey the order of court on the entering, pending the determination of the suit, right? Because there is a pending application motion on notice pending before the Supreme Court will be determined on Wednesday. So we should have expected that the federal government should comply with that expatriate order before they go ahead to challenge the order, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the matter. But in the instant case, I think what should be done at best is in order for us to continue to maintain the rebarred institution of the judiciary as an independent institution and also one of the three arms of government, what we should do is to respect the order of court as it were and as it stands for us to continue to use the old Naira note in Parifasu with the new Naira note, pending the determination of the motion on notice before the court. Otherwise, I fear this would amount to the contempt of court and it will not be good for the precedent that this stance may set in our country in future. Okay, this brings to the to the fore a question about the independence of the CBN because you have talked about the judiciary being independent. Yes, but what about the independence of the CBN? Where does it start and stop? Because if we understand it well, the CBN though has affiliation with the federal government, but it shouldn't be directly under the federal government in such a way that the federal government dictates to it what it should do. And now that it was not joined in the suit, how will the federal government stop what an independent agency or organization or body has done because it has the right to do? How can the federal government enforce this? Yeah, that's the very intelligent and smart questions to ask. But you see, if you look at the provisions of the laws that established the central bank, which is the CBN Act, Section 40 specifically provides that CBN is an agent of the federal government and among other material of authorities by the court. In the case of Falsi against ELCC, the Confaqil had also maintained that CBN is an agent of federal government. However, it's independent, right, does not disassociate from the, you know, part of the management and control of the federal government in the Ministry of Finance. In that instance, when an order like this comes up, what is expected of the federal government to do is to issue a circular to the central bank and direct it to comply with the order of court, just like the actual general said when that order was to be decided. And then the general issued a statement that they were going to obey order of court. So what do we have expected? Barista, we can't seem to hear you. Maybe it's a problem of your earpiece or something. Could you just do without it if it is possible? So now we get to hear you better. Okay, we're talking with Uttman Isato Chuku, he's a legal practitioner. We're trying to unravel the mysteries behind the court judgment, the fight between the federal government and the Supreme Court, the CBN's policy, where the new narrow nodes are supposed to be the ones being used now and the other ones no longer legal tender. And the case that has been adjourned until Wednesday next week, the February 22nd. So we had some little problems. We'll just take a break now. When we return, we'll continue this conversation with Uttman. Stay with us. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. I think your headphones or something, your earpiece. I think it was my network. What can you hear me now? Yes, it's a lot better. Please. Okay. Okay, so we'll come back. Yes. To the same. So you just take your... Yes. You just continue with what we're saying. Let's take it from that independence of... Yes, yes, yes. We're standing by, yes. Bring us back. I would like to know that you're still there and watching the run up. We're talking about the narrow redesign and we're trying to look at the case of the federal government and the Supreme Court, federal government fighting or saying that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction and all that. And we got to the point where we're talking about the independence of the CBN. Where does it start and stop? And that's where our guest, Uttman Tochoku, was trying to unravel the mystery behind all the legal jagon that's behind the case that we're talking about. So Uttman, we're still with you. Talk to us about how the independence of the CBN, some people are seeing it as it's being trampled upon by whether federal government or whether the Supreme Court and all that. And the fear is that someday, if this is allowed to stand, someday somebody can just rise up and use the Supreme Court against the people, against any policy that the CBN brings up and all that. So like you were saying, just continue to tell us where the CBN's independence starts and stops. I will say that in section 40 of the CBN Act, which provides for the food provides that CBN is an agent of the federal government, right? And then in the case of Fioshe against AFCC, the Court of Appeal heard that the CBN is an independent institution. And for that purpose, the independence of CBN on that ground does not in any way be shaded from complying with an order that affected with regards to the federal government. In this instant case, for example, CBN cannot claim because they are independent, because they were not joined as a party to the matter that they are not going to comply with the order of government. Because in that particular case, the Court of Appeal has established that the federal government can rise to the CBN but a circular so that they can comply to the order of court. They cannot begin to claim independence. And the fact that the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain the case is questionable. The question to ask is this. Before you can ask a court to excuse itself on the matter of jurisdiction for an order that is already existing, you have to first of all obey such order. You cannot disregard an order of courts and come back to that same court to seek an order. So if you look at it, it doesn't really make sense. You have to first of all obey another of courts and then come back to that same court and seek for the court to look at itself and see whether or not they have jurisdiction to entertain such matters. So if it's a question of whether the independent of the CBN would not allow to obey this order, the court has said no. Independent of the CBN does not apply in this instant case because the federal government is the chief CEO. It is the federal government that appoints, that regulates the activities of the CBN based on the statutory act of the National Assembly that established CBN. So CBN is an act of the National Assembly. CBN is an institution established by an act of the National Assembly. In section 40 of the CBN Act, it is an agent of federal government, right? And the federal government has the right to write it by a circular tool, direct it to comply to the order of court, while the matter should be determined appropriately on Wednesday. If they have any matter as to the questions of the reasons of the Supreme Court, let them come back to the court on Wednesday and file their processes proper. Let the court hear them. But in this instant case, the CBN is bound to obey the order through the circular that should be sent to them by the federal government. Okay, I'm trying to understand this. So the Supreme Court is infallible that even if they make a decision in the wrong, the order is supposed to be obeyed. Is that what you're saying? What I'm saying is that even if Supreme Court makes a decision in the wrong, the question, the answer to this question is yes, you are supposed to obey the order and come back to the same Supreme Court to tell the Supreme Court that this order you've made was made on a wrong footing. And the Supreme Court deserved the right to overrule itself if you find merit on what you brought before it. And that's what the Supreme Court said. We are not final because we are infallible. We are rather infallible because we are final. They are the only courts that can overrule itself. So if you have any substantive matter or reasons why Supreme Court should overrule itself, you come back before it appropriately. He who seeks equity must do equity. And he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. So these are principles of law that is very extant. You cannot disobey and show disregard to order of court. And then you want to come back to the same court to seek an order. It will be very difficult for even the courts to hear you. So I think the best the Sibian can do now is for them to the best the federal government can do because it is not even appropriate to be using Sibian-Sibian on this issue because they are not parties to the matter. And we need to understand the technicalities that surrounds this issue. Right? The reason, hello, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Go ahead. There are extent we can go in discussing this issue so that it will not amount to sub-gd since the matter is depended before the court. So that we don't preempt the court. However, the reason why these issues are being raised as to whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction is because the Sibian is arguing that their agent of the federal government and as such, they are not bound by the order of court because the issue of original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court should not be activated to hear this kind of issue. But another question you should ask yourself is that if you look at the motion exported that was filed before the Supreme Court, the parties on that suit is federal government against the state, which I earlier explained to you when I explained to you the two types of traditions of the Supreme Court. I talked about the original. Regional appellate, yes. If they had done ahead to file that suit joining Sibian, like Sibian against the state, the matter will have to start from the court below, no matter how to go proper from the High Court Court of Appeal up to the Supreme Court. But because they already knew what was going to be at stake, they had to join federal government at the state and file it at the Supreme Court Direct so that the Supreme Court can activate their original jurisdiction. And that is the beauty of the matter. That's why I'm saying the Sibian may even have a valid argument to say that they want to challenge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But then you already have an interim order on you. You have to first of all comply by that order before we now approach the court and say, courts, look at this issue. I do not think that your jurisdiction is enough to entertain the matter. Well, yeah, because the next question would have been why in the first place was the Sibian not joined in the matter. But you've just explained that they had to permit it, cut corners, because they knew that the process might belong. But when we're talking about who has come to equity will come with clean hands and all that, it was funny because the hands of the Supreme Court is debatable whether they are clean or not clean, especially when we talk about the cases and the political cases of Appabio in Acquirebom State, for instance, and Yobbe where we have the Senate president. But if we have time for that, we could discuss that more. But right now the case has been moved to Wednesday next week, February the 22nd, yet the president has made a pronouncement today. He addressed the nation today and seemed to have met the governors and the CBN in the middle. Do you think it will have an implication on the case to be decided on the 22nd of February? The truth is that with all due respect to Mr. President, I have a personal reservation on that statement that was issued today by the president. If you look at it, the president had directed that the 200 Niranos should be acceptable as a legatender until next month. And the Supreme Court had given you an order for both the 200, 500 and 1000 Niranos to be legatender. So if you look at it, it's a conflicting. That particular statement is conflicting with that of the order of court. And it doesn't look well for our nascent democracy and rule of law. I one would have expected that the statement of the Mr. President should comply with the order of court by directing everyone to maintain the status quo by using the 200 Niranos including that of 500 and 1000. Pending the determination of the substantive suit on Wednesday. And whether the Supreme Court is going to tilt to the argument on religion or whether the Supreme Court is going to determine the matter based on agreeing with the state to allow the Niranos to phase out in one year or more than that as they had prayed on their motion paper. We don't know. But I think there will be this first statement that the president has given today is going to actually, it's like preempting the court and it's not good for our democracy and it's not good for our rule of law. It's interesting but you know, when you talk about the three arms of governments, the executive, judiciary and the legislature, we know they should function individually, independently and all that. But there's also the issue of national security. Is national security big enough to make sure that all the arms of government do not function the way they should function? I don't know whether I'm putting it rightly. But can reasons of national security give the executive, for instance, the power to overrule even what the judiciary has done? Because one of the things, apart from the election that he mentioned, gave the impression that he wants to have a level playing field, another thing is security where ransom payment and all the likes have reduced and that was part of the reason that these policies came up. So because of national security, is it possible that the Supreme Court or the judiciary as a whole can be overruled no matter what they have said? You see, this question is very tight because you are trying to actually box me into the corner. But what the law provides, even when you want to bring issues of national security, the law provides that the executive should first of all declare state of emergency right on national security. So you cannot be having an issue pending before the court. And then you want to squeeze in issue of national security inside. It's a two different thing. While we admit that there are independent guidelines that guides the tripartite institutions when you talk about the three arms of government, i.e. the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, you cannot also divorce the fact that there is a concept of separation of powers as propounded by Baron de Montesqui. So when you talk about the independence of these arms of government, you need to also look at the issues of separation of powers, where each of them have to act as a chain to each other. What we're talking about, the fact is that an issue has been lodged before the court. The court has not said, I think we need to clarify Nigeria's here on this platform, that the court, the Supreme Court has not said, we have heard this matter. Do you want the Supreme Court to come and hear you? The Supreme Court said, we are not going to hear this matter wait, right, until we hear the matter. The Supreme Court has not entertained this matter. So it is like trying to preempt the outcome of the proceedings of court. So the Supreme Court is saying, hold on, state status quo, until we hear the matter on Wednesday. What is wrong with that? Just comply to the order of court and come back on Wednesday. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to hear the court. They're still postponing it. And what if there is a thing that gave rise to this policy, is an urgent thing that needs to be curbed and cannot be said to everybody's hearing. There is superior intelligence somewhere, and then the Supreme Court is just dragging its feet. So anyway, I'm not trying to stand in for the federal government. These are also issues that we cannot discuss here on this platform, because they are sub-judice. I'm very sorry. I cannot get into the issue. Yeah. Okay. I understand that. But you have really thrown light to a lot of issues. The final word to Nigerians regarding the election, regarding whatever you want to say, because a lot of people have said that from the 25th of February, Nigerians are going to decide. And this election is also a determinant of the future of Nigeria. So everybody's excited about it. Your word to Nigerians, ask a lawyer and ask a citizen of Nigeria. My final word to Nigerians is that we should continue to maintain peace. We should get disease from destroying any of the government properties or the financial institutions like banks, protesting to block roads and all of that. It will still come back to us to fund us as citizens of this country. Go and get your PVC and go to the polls and decide based on your conscience and your convictions. You have seen what is happening in Nigeria. I don't think you would like to continue to face this problem in the next four to eight years that will be coming. Election is the only means through which you can enthrone government in a democracy. So you cannot, in any order, bring in government except through election in a democracy. And with that being in mind, you need to get your PVC and go to the poll and exercise your right. Take all those with your angers to the poll and vote in an election. Choose your best candidate and then let Nigeria continue in peace. I order all of us to go to the polls and cast our vote problem. Thank you very much. Udman is sad to Chukwu for coming on the program. It was really enlightening. Okay, we've been talking with the illegal practitioner Udman Isato Chukwu and he was talking about the Naira redesign, but we were zeroing in on the case of the federal government and the states that now there are about 10 states that have gone to court to make sure that the federal government complies and stops the implementation of the new Naira policy that the CBN brought. So we hope that we've learned something. We'll take a break now. When we return, other issues will come up. Stay with us.