The Supreme Court begin hearing in two suits separately filed by Ekiti and Lagos state governments challenging the validity and constitutionality of the Virtual Court Sittings procedure today.
The suit marked ‘’SC/CV/260/2020’’ filed by the Attorney General of Lagos State named the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Assembly as the first and second defendants.
Its also set to begin to hear on the suit marked, ‘’SC/CV/261/2020’’ filed by the Attorney General of Ekiti state against the AGF.
It listed also the Attorneys General of Lagos and Ogun states as the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Both Plaintiffs commenced their suits by way of an originating summons in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Lagos State, however, asked the Supreme Court to determine whether having regard to Section 36(1), (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) use of technology by remote hearings of any kind, whether by Zoom, Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp, Skype or any other audio visual or video-conference platform by the Lagos State High Court or any other Courts in Nigeria in aid of hearing and determination of cases are constitutional.
On its own, Ekiti is challenging constitutionality of the directive of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) to Head of Courts at federal and state levels to adopt Virtual Court sittings in courts.
Ekiti Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Wale Fapohunda, who filed the suit asked the apex court to issue an order to annul the directive for the adoption of the Virtual or Remote Court sittings. Ekiti, however, named the Attorneys General of Lagos and Ogun States as second and third defendants because they have implemented virtual court proceedings.
Fapohunda, however, wants the Supreme Court to nullify the directive to the extent that same purports to be binding on state High Courts and other subordinate courts in Ekiti State for being inconsistent with Section 1(3), 4(6), 5(2), 6(2), 36(3) and (4), 272 and 274 of the 1999 Constitution.
Ekiti State further wants the Supreme Court to determine whether the AGF’s guidelines are not a derogation from the legislative, executive and judicial law-making, law execution and adjudicatory rules making powers exclusively vested in states of the federation in respect of states courts, by virtue of Sections 1(3), 4(6), 5(2), 6(2), 272 and 272 and 274 of the Constitution.