The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the old 1000, 500 and 200 naira notes can still be used as legal tender in Nigeria. This is coming after an action was filed against the Federal Government by Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara states. However, there are uncertainties surrounding the ruling’s validity and impact given that the action was brought invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court against the Federal Government and not the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) which is a corporate body that can sue and be sued in its own name.
The states sought an interim injunction (temporary order) to stop the full implementation of the February 10 deadline given by the CBN as the deadline for the use of the old notes. The interim order was made pending February 15 when the court will hear the substantive suit.
According to the motion ex parte filed by the plaintiffs on February 3, 2023, since the redesign of the 200, 500 and 1000 naira notes, there have been challenges of acute shortage in the supply of the banknotes in the states, as well as long queues at banks even after citizens have duly deposited their old notes to the banks. More so, the plaintiffs argued that the notice period given by the Federal Government was not enough. However, the former January 31 deadline to deposit the old notes was extended to February 10, to allow more people time to deposit the old notes. It was submitted that this 10-day extension is insufficient to address the issues brought by the policy.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the old banknotes are still considered valid currency in Nigeria. The seven-man panel led by Justice John Okoro, granted an interim injunction preventing the Federal Government, the CBN, and commercial banks from implementing the February 10 deadline for the old 1000, 5000 and 200 naira notes to become invalid.
The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction on issues involving state governments and the federation of Nigeria, that is, the Federal Government is established by the 1999 Constitution. Section 232 (1) of the 1999 Constitution provides that “the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the federation and a state or between states if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether law or fact) on which the existence of a legal right depends”.
Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case, and it is a fundamental element in any action brought before the court. The jurisdiction of a court is not only determined by the parties before the court. The court must have jurisdiction over not just the parties but over the subject matter of the case which is the cause of action, and the geographical area where the events giving rise to the case occurred. If a court lacks jurisdiction, its decisions may be declared null and void, and the parties may be required to initiate proceedings in a different court with the appropriate jurisdiction.
Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria outlines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction refers to its authority to hear cases that are brought directly to it, as opposed to being referred to on appeal from a lower court.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has original jurisdiction to hear matters between the Federal Government and state governments. This means that the Supreme Court is the first and final court of appeal for cases that arise between the two levels of government in Nigeria. The Supreme Court is, therefore, the court of first and last resort when it comes to issues between the federation of Nigeria and state governments. In the motion ex parte filed by the states on February 3, 2023, the action was instituted against the Federal Government while the CBN was joined as a party.
Speaking on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, Abdulhakeem Mustapha, a senior advocate of Nigeria and counsel to the plaintiffs stated that “We invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court when there is a dispute between the state government and the Federal Government. It is one of the few occasions where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. So, we invoked the powers of the Supreme Court to hear this application”.
Read also: Afrigo: How the new domestic card by CBN will drive SME growth
A Lagos-based lawyer who pleaded anonymity stated that “the jurisdiction of the court is not only about the parties involved. The cause of action in a matter also determines if a court has jurisdiction. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is usually invoked in matters between states or states and the federation. However, the court must also look at the cause of action, which to my understanding here, is the fact that state governments are trying to prevent an independent body established by a statute – the CBN Act, from implementing a deadline which it has given”.
He further noted that “the Federal Government did not give the deadline but the central bank and a restraining order can only be against the body that gave the deadline which is the CBN. Therefore, if the CBN is the proper party in this case, the order ought not to have been brought in the Supreme Court”.
“More so, there was a preliminary injunction filed by the attorney-general of the federation challenging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the court should have heard this application first as jurisdiction goes to the root of a case” the lawyer stated.
On the effect of the court’s order, Michael Adeyemi, a Lagos-based lawyer stated: “that the interim order is to maintain the status quo before the court can give a judgement on the substantive suit. This is because the court is unable to hear the matter before February 10 which is the deadline set by the CBN for the deposits of old notes”.
“It is important to note that this is just a temporary order until the court gives a judgement on the substantive action”, he stated.
We await the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter.
