 But let's move away from this situation to another one that we're dealing with, which is the Supreme Court judgment on the old 200, 500 and 1000 NARA being legal tenders until 31st of December 2023. The Supreme Court delivered judgment on the suit filed by some state governments to challenge the federal government's NARA redesign policy. The controversial monetary policy being challenged at the Supreme Court had last year introduced nearly redesigned 200, 500 and 1000 NARA notes with tight deadline to mop up the old notes from circulation. The policy has led to scarcity of currency notes, bringing untold hardship to millions of citizens in an economy significantly driven by informal sector with a large proportion of unbanked persons. The question is, why do we continue to have NARA scarcity despite this judgment? Johnson, please come in. This is a question of fact, and if you ask me, I will say who I will ask, but let us look at it more objectively. The circulation is in the preserve of the central bank of Nigeria. So we've just seen a fair decision by the Supreme Court asking the central bank to put money into circulation. And in fact, it tried to specify for the central bank the type of money she put into circulation. It would have even been better if the central, the Supreme Court has said central bank by issue, print more new currencies and put them into circulation if the objective is to ease off the scarcity of currency in circulation. But what is so peculiar about the old notes that it has to remain in circulation? I haven't understood it, and that is why the judgment of the Supreme Court, of much as it is the final decision of the court of the land, which must be complied with by all persons in the territory of Nigeria, it seems that it is difficult to obey because we must also accept that after a judgment has been met, it's relying the hands of the secretary to implement it just the way it implements other laws. So the situation where a judgment looks like it is incapable of being implemented in the form that has been pronounced, it will look like the courts have acted in vain and we are asked, or some of the things we are taught in our students' class is as loyal as that the court should never act in vain. Okay, please explain this to us, explain this to us because you are the lawyers here, I need to understand and I imagine that a lot of our viewers need to understand, when the Supreme Court makes a judgment, must the president, that's the executive, come out to tell the people, okay, you can obey this, or is it given that when the Supreme Court has made a judgment, that Nigeria should just go ahead and begin to... The rule is that once the court has made a pronouncement, every person in the country begins to comply with that, or directs. We are not necessarily waiting for the federal government to make an announcement. Nobody should wait for anybody because everybody is equal and required to comply with the law and what the court has just pronounced is interpretation of what the law should be. Alright, but what Nigerians are facing right now, which is a major reason for the scarcity of the Nara, even after this judgment, is that you go to some banks, commercial banks, opposite banks and you'll be told that they are still waiting for directives from the central bank before they start issuing out money. That is why I was saying that the Supreme Court did not consider the implementation of the order it was making before it's made it. So it's not just about making orders, you should make orders that are implementable. Now, how is this order going to be implemented? Okay, so these monies remain legal tender, but in whose office is it to direct the circulation or manage circulation of money? The CBN or the president or anybody who would simply say they have not done anything to prevent circulation of money, they have only regulated how money is circulated. I don't know if you get what I'm explaining. It's a tough situation that we have found ourselves in. Maybe I think the Supreme Court was just angry that the federal government did not comply with his interim orders and gave these judgments in my view with a lot of anger. I'm afraid I might run into contempt of the court, but this is how I see it. I'm criticizing the judgment. All right, Barry Salmoring. You know, when we started, the judgments of court are obeyed. Yes, but also it is open for people to analyze and look at the judgments. But like the lawyer to the federal government said, the Supreme Court has put everybody must comply. Yes, but there are issues in this matter that physics me. One of them is this. The judgment of two people was one about sending a bunch of nightmare. Because it is pretty central by acts. Now, in Rats on Cootie, again at the federal of the federation, the Supreme Court state is something very explicit. Since 1978, I mean 1977, as I was born. But fundamental rights in Nigeria, those rights that are fundamental rights are superior to all other rights. Once fundamental rights is breached, any other thing you do falls on the basis of fundamental rights. Now, the Supreme Court has decided, yes. However, the Supreme Court, the Central Bank of Nigeria that is directed to carry out this policy, or not a party before the Supreme Court, the rights of Central Bank of Nigeria, which is a question of a person, have they not been, are those right to fair hearing of the Central Bank, not breached by this decision? Did the Supreme Court hear from the Central Bank of Nigeria? Yes, the Supreme Court may have felt, the justices may have felt, whoa, the president has was thumbing his nose at them. Yes, but in matters like this, and how did the Supreme Court arrive at December 31st? Policies are not functions of the courts. And not, when I said earlier, when we started this program, I said there are three branches of government. There is executive branch, there is a judicial branch, and there is legislative branch. None of these should step into and take over the function of the other. The reasons why this, and the executive took these decisions are not only issues of security. Since that money, this money we designed, you've seen that people kidnapped and stopped, banished and virtually stopped. Boko Harambo, the last time they did was because they were allegedly attacked people. The kidnappers had gone off kidnapping. The people who were attacking trains had gone off. Because they knew that there was no money. If you kidnapped somebody, you just keep the person there. So what you see, let me say this, the problem is the problem of the Central Bank. You see, when children are doing work, you see how they suffer. All right, Barissa Moran. Barissa Moran, we're going to take a break. Just hold your thoughts. We're going to take a break, we'll come back. After the news, we'll come back to continue with this. You're watching the run up on Plus TV Africa and I've had Barissa Imanu Umoring, Barissa Johnson-Ago and Adebayo Olouoke discussing these issues with me. We'll take a break, we'll be back after the news to continue with our discussions. Stay with us. You're welcome back to the run up on Plus TV Africa. Time to coast home. We still have 25 minutes to do that, though. I have Barissa Imanu Umoring, legal practitioner as one of my host guests. I also have Barissa Johnson-Ago with us. Not forgetting my co-host, who is joining us virtually, Adebayo Olouoke. Hello, gentlemen. Do I still have you all on? Okay. All right, Barissa Umoring, before we took that break, before we took that break, I had told you to hold your thoughts. Let's continue from where you stopped. Okay, to recap a little before I get there. I was talking about how the Supreme Court arrived at December 31st. That it's a policy, yes, the Supreme Court is a policy court. However, policies of the federal government, it is the executive that executes the policies of the federal government. And the reasoning for some of the policies of the federal government that is executing, may not be, reasons may not be within the knowledge of the justice of the Supreme Court, of any court. Like now, the fact of the redesign of the Naira had reduced at almost terminated. It not been a banditry, a quorum, and other crimes. Even bribery had been reduced tremendously because nobody would ask you to transform money to him because it would be traced. And nobody had cash to give to anybody. Nobody would kidnap because if you kidnap the person, the person would end up, you just have to give the person. So nobody would have cash anywhere to give. All right, Adebayo, let Adebayo come in here. Adebayo, I'm sure you have a question to ask. Please do that. Yes, I do, Maureen. And I was wondering actually, based on discussions with a few competitors as well, on, we know the Supreme Court has the authority. One's cases are referred to me. It's to adjudicate on matters affecting us all and it's the highest cut in the land. But those who were wondering why in this particular case, the focus wasn't on requesting an order to get Central Bank to print more new notes. And while the order was on the Supreme Court, rather, to authorize this continuous spending of the old notes. And the reflection was around the fact that a lot of people do not have the old notes anymore. And the complaint was that they don't have the new notes, not that they wanted to keep spending the old notes. So what informed this kind of litigation and what could have been the benefit? I think maybe our colleagues, I guess, might be able to throw some light on that. Okay, very so, Johnson, what you want to answer that? Actually, that's what I started with when I made my initial comment. I said that the logic does not follow. If the problem is scarcity of currency, the solution should be a directive to print more currency, especially of the instant design. The new design, if you have paid it in short supply, bring more to saturate the market and reduce the scarcity. I do not see or I would like someone to tell me what is very peculiar about the old versions of the notes which have been withdrawn. Is it that someone is keeping some somewhere and he wants an additional window to legitimately spend them? This, in my view, will be the very policy, the very evil, the policy of this redesign that wants to call. So the Supreme Court's directive will be, let me say, defeating the very purpose for which the design was made. But if the question or if the basis for Supreme Court's directive to circulate currency is to reduce scarcity, my thinking is that the best option is a directive asking CBN to quantify the designing, I mean, the new currency in the market and supply as much as is necessary to meet the needs of the market. That's the way I see it, and that's actually how I started. So the concern that the people raised, they are very, very valid. And one wonders why such information is not in the public. I don't have it, so I'm not able to comment on facts. So I will also wonder like those who have won that which a colleague has referred to. It does appear to me that we are going between, is it a case of the banks cannot or is it that the banks will not? And that is giving birth to, because we've had so many policies, some assaults and court injunctions that were not obeyed. And so Nigerians have become very uncertain as to what to think at this point. However. Okay, go ahead. I have a very strong opinion that the Supreme Court's decision, though it is a decision of the Supreme Court, it stands, but I am a very strong opinion that the Supreme Court decision was without jurisdiction. The issue of the decision of the right of central bank was deliberately not added because then the price of the Supreme Court of its right, I mean, right to hear the case. If you take away the origin of the Supreme Court, its central bank was added. Now, the fact that it was not added and decisions were made against it is a breach of its fundamental rights. It affords the jurisdiction of Supreme Court to go on into that matter. That's one. Two is this. The system, the system, we've seen the system for several years running very poorly. Children who want to do work, you see the way they suffer. Children want to do job, you see the way they suffer. See Nigerians suffer to get PVC. See the way Nigerians suffer to get a VIN. See the way Nigerians suffer to get the vaccination. See when Nigerians suffer to get, what do you call it? This bank identification number that they gave us. We, to get everything in Nigeria, it's run poorly. This is what has affected us. Why did the central bank not know that directs all banks, that every bank, every money that is coming, that we're going to supply to the HEMs? Why? That any bank that be any cobalt, any Naira that is replying, a cobalt that is not paid to the HEMs would take the license of the bank. I just, so, my sister. Which state in Nigeria will a governor call a branch manager and tell him, oh, you have 50 million. Let me have 40 million. And the branch manager will say no. Well, at this point, let me ask you, let me ask you of your assessment of the CBN governor, generally. Oh, Maureen, what's your assessment of the CBN governor? Amir Fene. It's unfortunate how did the CBN governor take leave? 30 days leave in the process of this major decision. He's a 61-year-old man. He was there in 1984 when the currency was changed also. And he saw the mess it was made of. So why would he leave the country and take his annual leave for 30 days? They are all because of his problems. If he had supervised equally, he was sitting in Nigeria. Before this policy was pronounced, he had taken all the chairman of banks and the managing directors to meet with him and the president. And the president had read back to them that, look, any cover of this matter that does come out of the HEMs, you will hear from me and the security agencies. And your license will be on the line. I tell you, none of those banks would do what they had. The fact was that the monies were not allowed to be paid to Nigerians. If the monies were paid to HEMs, you would have seen. All right. You might as well have been there. All right, time will not permit us to go further than this. But before we go, Barista Agu, briefly, briefly give us your assessment of the CBN governor, Godwin Amir Fene. Okay. He's a public servant. And he appears not to know the fullest extent of his powers and his limits. So in some instances, you've seen him dabbling into areas that are supposedly fiscal policy, not monetary policy. There's a difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy. But some of the things he does will fall into the remit of fiscal policy. Regarding the monetary policy, he hasn't done perfectly. That's exactly why we have these exchange rate problems, the multiple exchange regime and all of those. Now, maybe I shouldn't blame him for dabbling into the fiscal policy regime. If the government of the day and the minister of finance and the economic team of the existing regime were doing their job properly, there would be no room for the CBN governor to resolve the fiscal policy making obligations and duties. So in my view, the CBN governor most probably is trying to cover up a lapse. And in so doing, he has taken more than is within his legal remit and more than he himself can chew. That's my honest assessment of him. Maybe because I don't have all the facts, but the much I can see, this is the much I can say. Maybe if he's given opportunity to explain away some of the reasons why we've come to these conclusions, our assessment might change. I know it's not always fair to judge a person when you've not had him. Yeah, and finally, Barysel Moran, you know, he did say that it would appear that the whole essence for all of this policy has been defeated. We're at the fourth coming election on the 18th. The human and environmental development agenda that's a group have called on the EFCC and the CBN to investigate illicit fund transactions by corrupt politicians and vote buying. How do you respond to that? Yes, I think you see, these are, you see, I don't understand why the EFCC would wait for petitions. I don't know. We have other agencies like that all over the world. Why would we wait for petitions? When people are breaking the law, you see them. Why do you have to wait for petitions? And you know, I've just, what I said is since 2003 when the EFCC, I mean, 2003, when the EFCC, the Act was passed, 2007, when the Act was passed. You see, the EFCC is a major problem in our country. I'll give you an example. Now, in 2007, Patience Uniter was arrested for money laundering in river states. And she was to be deported. I asked the EFCC on national television, why have you not joined the bank at ADP and Jonathan in money laundering? That case has died. But what you are able to prosecute properly, what you are supposed to do, you are doing it, you will achieve the objective of the law that protected you. You do not pursue the little price and leave the big features. Leave the big features that create the problems until you get them, the young small fries will not look at it and see that you are serious. Yeah, well, there's a good place to stop this discussion. Yeah, Barrister Umaren, tell her not allow us to continue, but I love these conversations that we've been having today. Barrister Umaren, a legal practitioner and Barrister Johnson-Argo have joined Adebayo Alawake and I today to take a look at very serious issues of the NARA redesign policy and the court order that INEC has been given to allow the use of temporary water cards in the March 18 election. Thank you, gentlemen, for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I am Maureen Menonwes. You got many thanks for watching. Good afternoon.