In a suit filed by President Muhammadu Buhari and the Attorney General of the Federation seeking an interpretation of Section 84(12) of the electoral act of 2022, the Supreme Court has reserved judgement.
The seven-member panel, led by Justice Mohammed Dattijo, has stated that the date will be communicated to the litigants.
The Supreme Court reached this verdict after hearing the arguments of the parties and adopting their procedures.
The All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) filed an application to be joined as interested parties during proceedings on Thursday.
However, APGA opted out by withdrawing its application for joinder, which was then dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The NBA, however, stood firm, insisting that Nigerians do not have representation in the suit, that is why it has opted to join the matter.
In the suit, the defendants were the National Assembly, Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, and the Attorney General of Rivers State, on account of this the NBA insisted it was to represent the interest of Nigerians by joining the suit.
Counsel to President Muhammadu Buhari, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) objected to the application of the NBA to be joined either as an interested party or as amicus curiae in the suit.
Fagbemi objected to the NBA joining as amicus curiae in the matter, insisting it holds an opinion and is taking sides on the matter already.
Eventually, the plaintiff counsel conceded to the application for NBA to be joined as amicus curiae, stressing its submissions on the matter will be strictly on giving an interpretation of the said Section 84 (12) and not join issues.
The panel in a short ruling joined the NBA as an Amicus curiae
An amicus curiae is an impartial adviser to a court of law in a particular case.
Counsel to the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly and Attorney General of the State, Emmanuel Ukala, citing Supreme Court Additional Jurisdictions Act, said Buhari lacks locus standi to institute such a suit as he is not directly affected by the Section 84 [12] of the Electoral Act.
He said the appointees affected by the said Section Electoral Act should have been the ones to institute the suit for being shut out from exercising their rights.