… Want Policy Stopped
… Insist Citizens Suffering
Three States of Northern extraction, namely, Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara, have instituted a suit against the Federal Government at the Supreme Court, wherein they are seeking a restraining order to stop the full implementation of the demonitization policy.
By the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their lawyer, Abdul Hakeem Mustapha SAN, the three northern states want the apex court to grant an interim injunction restraining the Federal Government either by itself or acting through the CBN, the commercial banks or its agents from carrying out its plan of ending the time frame within which the now older versions of the 200, 500 and 1000 denominations of the Naira may no longer be legal tender on February 10, 2023.
Applicants in the suit filed on February 2, are the three Attorneys-General of Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara states.
Respondent in the suit marked SC/CV/162/2023 is the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami SAN.
The motion on notice was brought pursuant to Section 6(6)a of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended as well as under Section 17(D) and 22 of the Supreme Court Act.
Basically, Applicants are praying for “An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Federal Government of Nigeria, either by itself or acting through the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and/or the commercial banks; its agents; agencies; corporations; ministries; parastatals; organizations or through any person or persons (natural and artificial) howsoever, from suspending or determining or ending on the 10th of February 2023 the timeframe within which the now older versions of the 200, 500 and 1000 denominations of the Naira may no longer be legal tender pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit”.
In an accompanying affidavit to the motion on notice, the Applicants a erred that since the announcement of the new Naira note policy, there has been an acute shortage in the supply of the new notes in Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara States and that citizens who have dutifully deposited their old naira notes have increasingly found it difficult and sometimes next to impossible to access new naira notes to go about their daily activities.
Also, the affidavit stated that the inadequacy of the notice coupled with the haphazard manner in which the exercise is being carried out and the attendant hardship same is wrecking on Nigerians, which has been well acknowledged even by the Federal Government of Nigeria itself.
More so, they averred that the 10-day extension by the Federal Government is still insufficient to address the challenges bedeviling the policy.
By the suit, the Applicants want the Supreme Court to determine the following questions: “Whether the demonitization Policy of the Federation viz: the withdrawal of the old N1000, N500 and N200 Bank Notes being carried out by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Central Bank of Nigeria, under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is in compliance with the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and the extant laws on the subject?
“Whether the 3-month Notice given by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Central Bank of Nigeria under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the expiration of which the old Bank Notes shall cease to be a legal tender, satisfies the provision of Section 20(3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007 which specifies that “Reasonable Notice” be given by the Central Bank before it can call in its banknotes and after which same cease to be legal tender?
“Whether the demonitization Policy of the Federation viz: the withdrawal of the old N1000, N500 and N200 Bank Notes being carried out by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Central Bank of Nigeria, under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, does not directly interfere with the powers and functions of the Plaintiffs and the welfare of the citizens of the Plaintiffs’ State?
“Whether, in view of Section 20(3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Central Bank of Nigeria under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria have the powers to give a timeline for the redeeming any of its banknotes and the expiration of which timeline entitles the Bank to refuse to redeem same”.
Specifically, the three States are seeking, “A declaration that the Demonitization Policy of the Federation being currently carried out by the Central Bank of Nigeria under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not in compliance with the extant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and extant laws on the subject.
“A declaration that the three-month Notice given by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Central Bank of Nigeria under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the expiration of which will render the old Banknotes inadmissible as legal tender, is in gross violation of the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007 which specifies that Reasonable Notice must be given before such a policy.
“A declaration that in view of the express provisions of Section 20(3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007, the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Central Bank of Nigeria has no powers to issue a timeline for the acceptance and redeeming of banknotes issued by the Bank, except as limited by Section 22(1) of the CBN Act 2007, and the Central Bank shall at all times redeem its bank notes.
In addition, they want an order directing the immediate suspension of the demonitization policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Central Bank of Nigeria under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria until it complies with the relevant provisions of the law.
Meanwhile, the Applicants also filed a motion on notice for abridgement of time within which the Respondent may file and serve his Counter-Affidavit to the suit and an order for an accelerated hearing of thw matter.
