Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja has fixed May 20 for judgment in the suit by suspended Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi.
The judge picked the date yesterday after a six-hour legal battle by lawyers to parties in the case. Proceedings began at 11.30 am and ended around 5.30pm.
The court took arguments on both the defendants’ preliminary objection and the substantive case.
Sanusi is challenging his suspension by President Goodluck Jonathan. Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the Inspector General of Police (IGP) are co defendants.
Plaintiff’s lawyer, Kola Awodein (SAN) argued that the President lacked the powers to unilaterally suspend the CBN Governor despite his alleged offence.
He argued that the President’s exercise of the executive powers provided in the Constitution was subject to the Act of the National Assembly.
He contended that in this case, the President was expected to exercise his power to remove the CBN governor in accordance with the provision of the CBN Act.
“There is contention that there is no power to suspend the CBN governor under the CBN Act. The ACT in section 7(4) has provided when somebody can act in the place of the CBN governor,” he said.
Awodein argued that the since there is no provision for the suspension of the CBN governor in the CBN Act implies that the President has no powers to suspend the governor.
He further argued that the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of the other, to support his position that the non-reference to suspension in the Act implies that it is not allowed.
“If it was the intention of the law to give the President the power to suspend, it would have expressly provided that,” he said, stressing that the CBN Act has effectively prohibited the President from suspending the governor of the CBN.
He argued that under Section 1(3) of the CBN Act, the bank is made an independent body with the intention of making the bank operationally independent, so that there will not be interference of any sort in its operations, except as permitted under the Act.
Awodein contended even if the President was to exercise control over the bank, which include the suspension of its governor, such must be done with the support of 2/3 majority of the Senate.
He urged the court to hold that his client has made out a proper case for the court to void his suspension.
Responding to the defendants’ objection to the suit, Awodein argued that the defendants misconstrued the plaintiff’s suit.
He contended that the suit simply seeks the court application of its interpretative powers to interprete the provision of the CBN Act vis a vis the action of the President.
Awodein argued that the defendants were in error when argued that the case was employment related and should be struck out.
He argued that as against the position of the defendants, the plaintiff. Is not an employee of the President to have qualified that case as a dispute between an employee and an employer. He said his client is an employee of the CBN,
He urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ objections.
Defence lawyers – Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and Solomon Umoh (SAN) had while arguing the preliminary objections, urged the court to strike out the suit because it was employment related.
They argued the by virtue of Section 254(1)(c) of the Constitution, the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdictional powers to hear the case.
The defence lawyer further argued that the plaintiff’s claims were caught by the exclusivity confered on the National Industrial Court by 4ection 254(1)(a) of the Constitution.
On the main suit, they argued that the suspension of the plaintiff by the President was within his powers. They contended that the CBN was an agency of the Executive arm of the Federal Government, whose powers as contained in Section 5 of the Constitution is vested in the President.
They contended that the plaintiff is a public officer and an employee of the Federal Government by virtue of his appointment, was not immune to the control of the President.
They argued that the President, in suspending Sanusi did not terminate his employment, but merely asked him to step aside to enable the Financial Regulatory Council (FRC) a statutory body, perform it’s it’s role of investigating allegations of procedural and financial breaches raised against him.
The defence lawyers noted that the suspension was intended to enable an unbiased investigation of allegations that Sanusi awarded contract of about N163billion, amounting to 63 per cent in excess of the CBN’s authorised share capital.
They urged the court to hold that the President acted within his powers and dismiss the suit.
Before the commencement of proceedings, the judge denied insinuations that he was under pressure from the defendants in his handling of the case.
There had been rumours that in view of the last victory recorded by Sanusi before a Federal High Court in Lagos, the judge in Abuja was being put under pressure to determine the case in the Abuja FHC against Sanusi
Justice Kolawole yesterday dismissed the insinuations, insisting that he was not under pressure from any of the defendants in the suit.
The judge said he would gladly yield the case to be returned to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge if parties in the case were doubting his integrity.
“Is it by the President, or the AGF, or the IG? Is it the Federal Government that is pressurising Justice Kolawole to do a case against a party?
“I am saying this to give the plaintiff the opportunity to go to another court. I have spent several years on the bench and I can tell you that nobody pressurises me – nobody is pressurising Justice Kolawole on this matter.
“I said I will mention this not to create sensation but for anybody who is not comfortable to go to another place.
“If I am being pressurized, it is by my own conscience. None of the parties should be under the impression that I am being pressurized by the Federal Government.”
“Anybody who does not have confidence in Justice Kolawole in this case should go back to the Chief Judge (of the FHC).
“This kind of thing is highly demoralising. You do your best for your country and yet all this kind of things keeps coming up. Must every judge be corrupt?” the judge said.
He noted that if he was unfair to all in the manner he was handling the case, he would not have adopted an accelerated approach by choosing to hear the preliminary objections and the originating summons simultaneously.
In their separate reactions to the judge’s comments, lawyers in the case assured the judge of confidence in him. They said they had never and would not question his integrity and ability to dispense justice to the case.
Sanusi’s lawyer, Kola Awodein, SAN, said he was ready to go ahead with the case before Justice Kolawole.
