The Kingdom Human Rights Foundation International has dragged the All Progressives Congress (APC) before the Federal High Court, Abuja, over the leadership of the ninth National Assembly.
Also listed as defendants in the suit filed yesterday and marked as FHC/ABJ/CS/477/2019 are the National Assembly and the Federal Character Commission of Nigeria.
The case has not been assigned to any court for hearing, but the plaintiffs, which also include Kenneth Uzochukwu, want the court to, among other prayers, determine whether the first defendant could ignore the provisions of Section 224 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in zoning which of the six geo-political zones in Nigeria (recognized in the Federal Character Establishment Act) could produce the presiding and principal officers of the incoming National Assembly.
The plaintiffs through their lawyers, Okere Nnamdi and Zaro Melchizedek, also is also seeking a declaration of the cvourt on the decision of the 1st defendant to zone the Office of the Senate President to the North East, Deputy Senate President to South-South; and Speaker of the House of Representatives to the South west and Deputy Speaker to North Central and thereby “totally excluding/obliterating/annihilating the South east geo-political zone in the political arithmetic of Nigeria breaches the express provisions, spirit and tenor of sections 14 (3) and (4) and 244 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); and offends the Federal Character Principle of Nigeria.”
In its third prayer, the plaintiffs prayed the court to declare that the National Executive Committee or the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant cannot take any decision to zone or cede principal and presiding officers of the National Assembly of Nigeria in a manner that offends the express provisions, sprit and tenor of sections 14 (3) and (4) and 224 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended); in view of the combined reading of section 1 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Article 2 of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress 2014 (as amended).
The APC had announced the adoption of Ahmad Lawan (North East) and Femi Gbajabiamila (South West) for the president of the senate and House of Representatives, respectively.
among others to determine whether the first defendant (APC) could ignore the express provisions of Section 224 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in zoning/determining which of the six geo-political zones in Nigeria (recognized in the Federal Character Establishment Act) produces the presiding and principal officers of the ninth National Assembly comprising of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The plaintiffs through their lawyers, Okere Nnamdi and Zaro Melchizedek, also want the court to decide whether the decision of the 1st defendant to zone/cede the office of the Senate President to the North East, Deputy Senate President to South-South; and Speaker of the House of Representatives to the South west and Deputy Speaker to North Central and thereby totally excluding/obliterating/annihilating the South east geo-political zone in the political arithmetic of Nigeria, particularly in the 9th National Assembly breaches the express provisions, spirit and tenor of sections 14 (3) and (4) and 244 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); AND complies with the Federal Character principle of Nigeria.
3. Whether in view of the combined reading of Section 1 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Article 2 of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress 2014 (as amended), the National Executive Committee or the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant can take any decision to zone principal and presiding officers of the National Assembly of Nigeria in a manner that offends the express provisions, sprit and tenor of sections 14 (3) and (4) and 224 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended); by subjecting the Igbos of South-east Nigeria to discrimination, marginalization, humiliation, domination, suppression, hatred and inequality in Nigeria.
AND UPON THE DETERMINATION OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS THE PLAINTIFFS WILL SEEK THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS:
1.
AND UPON THE FOLLOWING DECLARATIONS:
(a) An order of the Court directing/compelling the 1st Defendant to review/reverse its unconstitutional, unjust, discriminatory and clannish decision to zone/cede the presiding/principal officers of the National Assembly in a manner that offends the Federal Character of Nigeria, provided for in section 14 (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
(b) An order directing and compelling the 1st Defendant to observe the Federal Character Principle of Nigeria in every of its decision(s) and program(s) in line with the express/mandatory provisions of section 224 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(c) An Order of compelling/mandating the FEDERAL CHARACTER COMMISSION of Nigeria to carry out its constitutional/statutory responsibility of working out equitable formula for the distribution of all cadres of posts in Public Service of the Federation, particularly the present composition of the government of the Federation; to wit: (a) President Muhammadu Buhari (President) North. (b) Prof. Yemi Oshibanjo (Vice President) South-west (c) Justice Tanko Muhammed (Chief Justice of Nigeria) North; in such a way that the Heads/Presiding Officers of the National Assembly must balance the equation among the six geo-political zones recognized by Law.
(d) And such other Orders as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of the case.
In the affidavit in support of the originating summons, the plaintiffs deposed partly as follows:
(a) That Kingdom Human Rights Foundation International is a non-governmental organization that promotes human rights, good governance, rule of law, due process and accountability in Nigeria. The certificate of incorporation and Constitution of the Foundation are hereby pleaded as exhibits KHRFI 1 AND 2.
(b) That Kingdom Human Rights Foundation International achieves her aims and objectives through independent monitoring, investigation and evaluation of the extent of compliance with accountability, transparency, due process and rule of law and tackling corrupt practices in public offices and through seeking judicial interpretation in matters of public interest in Nigeria.
(c) That the 1ST Plaintiff has instituted this suit pro bono on the instructions of the 2nd plaintiff who is a registered member of the 1st defendant. The membership card of the 2nd Plaintiff is hereby pleaded as exhibit KHRFI 3.
(d) That the 2nd Plaintiff is a member of the 1st defendant and is aggrieved by the recent decision of the 1st defendant to totally exclude the people of south east of Nigeria comprising of Abia, Imo, Anambra, Enugu And Ebinyi sates in the composition of the leadership of the National Assembly comprising of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Computer generated copies of newspapers reports of the unjust and unconstitutional decision is herein pleaded as exhibit KHRFI 4 series.
(e) That the decision of the 1st defendant is discriminatory, and has subjected the entire Igbo race to discrimination, marginalization, humiliation, domination, suppression and inequality and losing their sense of belonging, loyalty and nationality in Nigeria contrary to the Federal Character principle of Nigeria expressly provided for in the Constitution.
(f) That there are members of the 1st Defendant from the south east of Nigeria comprising of Abia, Imo, Anambra, Enugu And Ebonyi sates who have been elected in both the Senate and House of Representatives to represents various constituencies in the forthcoming 9th National Assembly.
(g) That the constitution of the 1st defendant is not Superior to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, and decisions of the leaders of the 1st defendant to unconstitutionally exclude the south east of Nigeria in the election of the presiding and principal officers of the 9th National Assembly contrary to the express provisions of section 224 of the 1999 ought to be set aside by the court.
(h) That the 1st defendantís led Federal government of Nigeria believes in injustice, practices nepotism and has by its decision further divided Nigerians along ethic and geo-political lines, contrary to the express provisions of the constitution.
(i) That equitable spread of elective political/appointive offices in Nigeria is constitutional by virtue of sections 14 (3) and (4) and section 224 of the 1999 Constitution and should be strictly followed in the appointment, election, selection, nomination or endorsement of all persons to occupy all political offices in Nigeria.
(j) That the Federal Character Commission Act and the establishment of the Federal Character Commission under the Constitution was to ensure fairness, equality and justice in the distribution of political offices in Nigeria and in the composition of the government at all levels and the need avoid domination of one ethnic group over the other(s).
(k) That the programmes, activities, as well as aims and objectives of political parties in Nigeria, especially the nomination, selection, election and endorsement of candidates for the Principal Positions in the Executive and Legislative arms of government and other political offices at the State and Federal levels must comply with provisions of section 224 of the 1999 constitution.
(l) That it was the intention of the drafters of the constitution to prevent PREDOMINANCE of persons from one ethnic group or a section of the Federation or few ethnic or other sectional groups in the government of the Federation, State or any of its agencies of such governments in such a manner as to recognize the diversity of people within its area of authority and the need to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among the peoples of the Federation.
(m) That it will be in the best interest of justice and in public interest if reliefs sought in the originating summons are granted.