A legal practitioner has approached the Abuja division of the Federal High Court to stop the Federal government from disbursing the sum of N100 billion to Myetti Allah as allegedly promised by the immediate past Minister of Interior, Lt-Gen Abdulrahman Dambazau (retd).
The lawyer, Malcom Omirhobo in his suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/506/2019, urged the court to hold that the Federal government or the Ministry of Interior, has no constitutional right to dole out money without recourse to budgetary allocation.
Omirhobo, who sued in the name of the board of incorporated trustees of Malcom Omirhobo Foundation, said the money was huge enough to build schools, roads and other infrastructural services.
Joined as respondents to the suit are the Attorney General of Nigeria, Minister of Interior, the National Assembly, the Inspector General of Police and Accountant General of the Federation.
The action which is commenced by an originating summons was brought in pursuant to Order 3 rules 6, 7, and 9 of the High Court (Civil Procedure, Rules 2009. He specifically asked the court to determine the following questions: “Whether by the interpretation and/ or construction of Section 1 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended ), the Nigerian Constitution is the ground norm of Nigeria and its provisions have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout Nigeria including the defendants?
“Whether by the interpretation and/or construction of Section 80(1) (2 ) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended ), all revenues or money raised or received by the Federation shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.
“Whether by the interpretation and/or construction of Section 80 (2), (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended), monies could be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation where such is not authorized by an Appropriation Act or Supplementary Act by the 5th Defendant and without compliance with the provisions of Nigeria Constitution?
Should the court answer the above questions in his favour, then, it should proceed to make a declaration “that by the interpretation and/ or construction of Section 80(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), all revenues or money raised or received by the Federation (not being revenues or other monies payable under the Constitution or any Act of the 5th Defendant, into any other Public Fund of the Federation established for a specific purpose) shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.”
Meantime, the lawyer had in a separate suit asked the court to stop the revocation of gun licence by the Federal government.
In an originating summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/564/2019 he urged the court via an ex parte motion for an interlocutory injunction, to halt the revocation of gun licence by President Buhari.
He told the court that the president has no such power under the constitution.
He said it was in public interest that Nigerians should hold on to their guns to defend themselves.
“He should come and tell the court why he is withdrawing the licences. Does he want to make Nigerians defenceless? In fact, every Nigerian should be made to carry guns,” Omirhobo argued.
However, after listening to submissions of counsel to the plaintiff, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu ordered that the respondents to be put on notice as the allegations were too weighty in nature.
In her ruling, Justice Ojukwu held
that the exhibits contained in the averments in both suits were weighty, hence the need to hear from the defendant.
She held that Nigeria’s resources cannot be allotted unnecessarily hence there was the need for the Federal government to come to court and explain why the plaintiff’s application should not be granted.
“The court finds it necessary to put the defendant on notice, including the substantive suit, asking the defendant to come and show cause why the application should not be granted,” the court held.
Consequently, Ijeoma adjourned the two suits to September 30, 2019 for hearing of the motion on notice and originating summons.