In a recent legal development, Emmanuel Ekpenyong, a human rights and constitutional lawyer, has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, requesting a declaration affirming the National Assembly’s power to summon President Bola Tinubu. The summons aims to address inquiries about the measures his administration has undertaken to address the ongoing extrajudicial killings in Nigeria.
Ekpenyong, practicing at the Fred-Young & Evans LP law firm in Abuja, initiated the legal action in a case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/490/2021, dated and filed on June 17, 2021. The lawsuit names the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, and the National Assembly as the 1st to 3rd defendants, respectively.
During a recent hearing, the plaintiff urged Justice Gladys Olotu to affirm that the president, per Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution, can be summoned by the National Assembly as a person under their oversight jurisdiction.
Ekpenyong argued that President Tinubu qualifies as “any person in Nigeria” subject to NASS summonses within the oversight framework outlined in Sections 88 (1) (b), 89 (1) (c), and (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
In his supporting affidavit, Ekpenyong referenced a past incident from 2020 when, as he claimed, the House of Representatives resolved to invite former President Muhammadu Buhari to address the country’s security challenges.
He noted that the legislators requested the former president’s insight into the strategies in place to combat bandits, hooligans, and terrorists as part of their oversight duties.
Although Buhari initially agreed to the invitation, the former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), advised him not to attend due to his immunity under Section 308 of the Constitution.
In his application, Ekpenyong sought four orders, including a confirmation of his legal standing to initiate the proceedings.
He requested a declaration that the president fits the description of “any person in Nigeria” as outlined in Sections 88 (1) (b) and 89 (1) (c) and (d) of the Constitution, subject to summons by the National Assembly.
The lawsuit further seeks affirmation that Sections 88 and 89 empower the National Assembly to summon the president to provide information on actions taken to address the rampant killings in Nigeria.
As the legal battle unfolds, the court received a joint counter affidavit from Simon Enock representing the president and Attorney General on October 10, 2021, urging the dismissal of the lawsuit.
The counter affidavit, filed by litigation officer Barnabas Onoja from the Federal Ministry of Justice, disputed certain claims from the plaintiff’s summons.
Onoja emphasized the effectiveness of Nigeria’s security agencies in combating bandits, hooligans, and terrorists, suggesting that there is no systemic failure that would necessitate the creation of state police.
He highlighted the improved efforts of security agencies in addressing security challenges, referencing reduced incidents of violence and the surrender of former Boko Haram members, implying a safe environment for legal actions like the ongoing lawsuit.
Challenging Ekpenyong’s standing, Onoja alleged that the plaintiff is neither a Nigerian citizen nor a practicing legal professional in Nigeria, questioning the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case without proper legal standing.
In response, the National Assembly submitted a counter affidavit dated February 6, 2023, affirming its authority to summon individuals, including the president, for investigations under the Constitution’s Sections 88 and 89. However, the legislature raised seven legal issues for consideration by the court.
The lawmakers urged the court to examine whether the plaintiff’s failure to serve a pre-action notice to the National Assembly under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses Power and Privileges Act impacts the suit’s validity, among other matters.
In reply to these legal contentions, the plaintiff filed a Points of Law response dated November 3rd, 2021, and July 17th, 2024, contesting the defendants’ arguments.
Ekpenyong argued that his membership in the Nigerian Bar Association signifies his citizenship and legal accreditation, remaining unrefuted by the defendants.
He further asserted that the Legislative Houses Power and Privileges Act provisions are subordinate to the Constitution, which he seeks to interpret for the case at hand.
Addressing the President’s immunity under Section 308 of the Constitution, Ekpenyong clarified that such immunity applies solely to personal, not official, legal proceedings.
Justice Olotu scheduled the next hearing for November 5 to further review the case.