 We're about to know that you're still there and watching the run-up and we're looking at now, right now, we're looking at what has been happening between the presidency and mostly APC governors who are challenging the president for a broadcast that he made extending the life of a particular note that was supposedly no longer supposed to be legal tender, that's the 200 Naira note instead of saying that all the old notes should come back into circulation and they're basing the people who are quarreling with the president are basing their argument on what the Supreme Court said, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court that there was a temporary injunction on the stoppage of the usage of the 200, 500 and 1000 Naira notes. So now we're being joined by Barrister Abumere Osara, who is talking to us from the UK, he's a legal practitioner and he's going to unravel some of these things to us. Good morning and welcome to the program, Barrister Osara. Good morning my good friend, let us just start by asking you, when you talk about a temporary injunction, how long is this supposed to last? Because the governors are all saying that the Supreme Court has made a pronouncement and because of that pronouncement, the president has no right to even say what he said. How long should an injunction, does an injunction of that nature even last? Because here it has a lifespan. Yes, that's true that ordinarily as the name suggests, supposes, it's an iterating measure that's not supposed to last for anything. Certainly it has a lifespan, if you look at the various rules of courts all over the country, federal high court rules, the state high court rules, is supposed to last for at least seven days, subject to renewal. But in this instance, the instance is of cardinal states against the AG federation. I think what the Supreme Court did was to make the order to last till the determination of the motion on notice. What that means is that the interim order will continue to be enforced until the hearing determination of the motion on notice, by the respective state government against the AG federation and the two states of Edouard and the Biasa who joined as co-defendants. Yes, an interim order as the name suggests is supposed to be for a temporary period, but since there's an order and all the Supreme Court saying that it should last until the hearing determination of the motion on notice, then that should be it. I also want us to bear in mind that the usual practice, and this has been laid down by several cases of the Supreme Court, right from the period of Vaswani and Savalak, gov. of illegal state and Uduku and the first Atlantic Bank, that we had as a matter in court, in respect of which an injunction is sought. Once the respondent or the defender has noticed of that application, irrespective of whether the court has made a formal order, restricting or restraining you from taking for that step, you are bound to cease action and wait until that application on notice is heard or determined. So that's the position of the law that I know it. Interesting, but the argument was that when the rule, I don't know how to put it, I'm not a lawyer, but the reason why the interim injunction is the way it is is so that the complainant may not use that because you could just go get an injunction and then whatever you want the case to be like for you, you delay the case until the time that you want it to last. For instance, in this particular case, let's say for instance, I'm just saying it, let's say it is because of the election and to curb vote buying that this narrow redesign was made. And 25th of February is the day of the election. And then someone goes to the court and just gets an injunction and has that injunction extended until the time that the election has passed. He has achieved his aim without the courts even hearing this matter. So how does that help in making the process transparent? How does that help in making sure that both parties are satisfied sort of or they are met halfway? If you say placing an injunction can make the case or the order stay until this case is heard. We are waiting for the case to be heard on Wednesday, for instance. And federal government felt that it was too long. Maybe that's what they felt. So how does it help to make the people feel that justice is being done or that both of them are considered in whatever case that is brought before the court? Yes, and I think that's a very good question. That's why it has nothing to do with the courts. Courts are very careful and very wary as not to allow itself to be used as a vehicle by the other side to achieve their nefarious objective. So that's why when matters are brought before a court and injunctions are sought because you find situations where parties they try to contrive an emergency situation so that they can use the court as a vehicle to achieve their objective. So courts have to be extremely careful and very vigilant so that it doesn't let itself as an instrument of oppression. So now, personally, what I expected the Supreme Court to have done as far as I'm concerned, my own take is that this matter should have been struck out the first day it came up. The Supreme Court on its own should have posed the question to counsel for Cardinal States to say, look, can you address me on the question of whether this is a matter in reference of which our jurisdiction can be involved in its original jurisdiction? My take, I've had experience before the Supreme Court, and the justices themselves raised the question. The jurisdiction is fundamental. The matters in respect of which the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction can be involved are clearly split out under the provision of Section 232 of the Constitution. Very limited is not an all-commerce affair. So and the Supreme Court is very careful in interpreting its original jurisdictional role. What I expected the Supreme Court to have done, taking into account its sensitive nature of this matter and the overall effect it was going to have with respect to the upcoming elections and the rest, the question should have been put to my very good friend, Ayou Bousfafra, S.A.N. Show us where the law gives us the power to look into this matter in our original jurisdiction. I still expect that on the next date, the Supreme Court will run that question. But I gather that the federal government has fired an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and I presume a two-state and biostat state will be likewise. What I also expect the Attorney General of the Federation to have done before now is to also have fired an application before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the charge of vacate the entering order. Just as you pointed out, it will appear as if that the purpose of this is, is designed to achieve a particular aim, which is to frustrate the implementation of the policy of the government. Drag the case on for a while and ensure that the policy does not work until after the election. So the court has to be careful that it does not lend itself to be used unwittingly if that is the plan of the current state government, could be state government, and Zafara state government, because I've also heard it said that people are beginning to be asking themselves some of these questions. As Erufei, who is a serial of order of court, as Erufei has not shown himself over the years, as someone who respects orders of court. The detail for the Cogis state of honor is not known to be someone enamored with propagating and seeking to defend the rule of law. Not to talk of the governor of Zafara state, Matawali. So this sort of situation should put the blended processes on guard, so that as you are posed by your question, the court does not lend itself unwittingly to be used as a tool by some persons from states to frustrate the implementation of the Naira design policy and achieve their goal. Okay, Barista, let me just give a room for my colleague too. He might have one question because we're running out of time, but he needs to just throw in something, a bio place. Let him take it briefly. Yeah, Barista, it's always a pleasure to listen to you. I'm just situating all of this within the context of the broadcast made by his excellency, the governor of Kaduna state. I don't know because you are out of the country at the moment. I don't know if you have the opportunity of hearing or seeing that broadcast and that has generated a lot of comments. He was basically saying people should continue spending the 180p. And recently he was even in the media that he's now asked his assistants to go around collecting monies and things like that. But how do you situate that broadcast within the context of all of this, especially the interim order given by the Supreme Court? And whether the motive of that broadcast, some people question the motive and those who supported him are saying no, he was right. But what's your perspective? Yes, at first I'd like to say I'm in Lagos, in Victoria Island, I'm in Duffield, Victoria Island, I'm not part of the country. Yes, the strands taken by Erufan, the governor, a recipe for anarchy. And they acted beyond their limits, clearly. The work has been made, in my view, clearly unconfirmed. The design is not carefully taken, it's not carefully handled, can lead to a constant crisis in the country if you don't need at this moment. Because the reason tying it to enforcing order of court is by itself lawlessness. They are in court and if you feel that another court made in your favor is being violated by the other side, then there's a civilized way, a procedure that are enduring our rules of court to resort to, which is you instruct your lawyers to file necessary applications before the court. And I'm happy, as I have learned, that the solicitors to U.D. Caduna and Zafara states, they have filed an application before the Supreme Court, taking to set aside the broadcast or the speech or the directive of the president. That is the legal way to go. You don't confront the federal government. Taking into account the fact that the question has clearly spread out in rules and duties of the states and the federal government, we trust it to show currency. Now, item 15 of the exclusive under the exclusive list clearly plays the issue of currency, legal tender under the overview of the federal government. Now, to enable the federal government to carry out activity, the National Assembly promulgated a law, the Central Bank Act of 2007, and by section 17 of that act, the Central Bank of Nigeria was vested by law with its exclusive powers to do what they have done. So this action, the action of the states is a call for rebellion. And all were meaning Nigerians to resist and have cautioned these governments to beat a Nazi retreat. It civilized me, prescribed down our laws by which if they are dissatisfied to ventilate their claim, it's to go to courts. And at the high court, they're going to make up the claim of the supreme court. Okay, okay. But that matter is how to challenge frontally. And I must commend, I must commend, I'll just give you a moment to say this. I have to commend the third way in which their president has handled the matter. Because the president had taken it all up on them, would have had a personal crisis on our hands, which we don't mean as the colonial time. Okay, Barista. Thank you very much. I wish we had more time, but we have more time before the election. So we might just call on you again before Saturday. We don't know. But thank you for your perspective, for giving us insight into this matter. We always feel very happy when you come on the show. So thank you for being a part of this show today. Thank you very much. It's my pleasure to be here. Thank you very much. It's deeply reflected as a democracy and the like name of the public on being ready to go. Thank you very much. We've been talking with Barista, Boumere or Sarah, a legal practitioner and notary public. And when we return, we wrap up on the run-up for today. Stay with us.