Deployment Of Soldiers: FG Appeals Judgment

Deployment Of Soldiers: FG Appeals Judgment 

Twenty four hours after a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos declared that President Goodluck Jonathan lacks the constitutional powers to deploy
members of the Armed Forces for security reasons during elections; the federal government has appeal the judgment.

The government in a notice of Appeal filed before the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal, is urging the appellate court to dismiss the judgement of the lower
court and the entire suit for lack of merit.

It will be recalled that Justice Ibrahim in a judgement on Tuesday held that there are no constitutional provisions to support the deployment of military officers to any part of the country for security reasons during elections.

The judge, eho cited He Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Armed Forces Act and stated that  the Sections did not give a role to the military during elections, while he also maintained that Section 217 of the same Act can only be applicable when there is a disruption, insurrection, or insurgence.

The suit was instituted by a member of the leader of opposition in the House of Representatives, Mr Femi Gbajabiamila.

Joined as respondents alongside President Jonathan are the Attorney General of the Federation, the
Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief of Army Staff, the Chief of Naval Staff, and the Chief of AIR Staff.

However, in a swift move, the President Jonathan through his lawyer, Dele Adesina (SAN) yesterday filed six grounds of appeal wherein he asked the court to dismiss the judgement of the lower court and the entire suit for lack of merit.

The lawyer said that the judge’s decision did not
represent the state of the law, “particularly his lordship decision regarding the validity of the originating process is not correct”.

He also argued that the judge’s reliance on the election petition appeal relating to the issue of the deployment of troops will have to be tested on appeal.

According to the first ground of appeal, the trial judge erred by “dismissing the objection filed by the 1st and 6th Defendants and assumed jurisdiction when he held that the Plaintiff sought and obtained leave to issue and serve the Originating Summons outside Lagos State when indeed the grounds of the objection was noncompliance with the provisions of Section 97 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act”.

"It stated that by virtue of the provisions of Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, every writ of summons for service out of the State in which it was issued shall in addition to any other endorsement or notice required by the law of such State have endorsed thereon a notice indicating that the originating process is to be served out of the State and in which State it is to be served.

"It is settled law that compliance with the provision
of Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is mandatory.

"The second ground of the appeal sated that the trial judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction and proceeded to determine the matter to judgment when indeed, he lacks the jurisdiction to do so.

"It stated that the originating process having failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act was not issued according to due process and therefore incompetent and liable to be struck out.

“A competent Court cannot sit on an incompetent Suit. The law is settled that where a Court
lacks jurisdiction, its proceedings no matter how well conducted and its judgment or Orders are a nullity”, stated.

Another ground stated that the trial judge erred when he held that the plaintiff had the requisite locus standi to institute this action and that it was a matter of public litigation.

“The Plaintiff is the minority leader in the
House of Representatives who has canvassed this same arguments andreliefs on the floor of the House of Representatives and lost to the majority.

The members of the House of Representatives are elected by the citizens to represent their interest and having lost to the majority decision in the House, he has removed this matter from the purview of public interest litigation.

"The facts of the case are on all fours with the Supreme Court decision in Abraham Adesanya Vs. The President of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria”.

The appeal further stated that by virtue of Section 8(1) and Section 8(3) of the Armed Forces Act. While Section 8(1) gives the President Powers to determine the operational use of the Armed Forces, Section 8(3) defines operational use of the Armed Forces to include maintaining and securing public safety and public order.

“The Armed Forces Act of the Federation is
an existing Act pursuant to Section 318 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and therefore was deemed enacted
pursuant to Section 217 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)”.

The appeal therefore seeks an order setting aside the judgement of the lower court, or in the alternative, an order dismissing the entire suit for lack of merit.