Wilson Adekumola
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami has defended President Muhammadu Buhari noting that he has not acted in breach of the Supreme Court’s injunction halting the federal government from implementing a deadline on the use of old naira notes.
The AGF made this know at the 67th ministerial press briefing at the state house on Thursday. Vanguard reports.
He noted that there are multiple ways around the order of the Supreme Court.
Recall on February 8, the apex court issued an injunction restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria from enforcing the deadline on the use of the old N200, N500 and N1000 notes.
The order followed an ex parte application brought before the court by three northern states – Kaduna, Kogi, and Zamfara states.
Now, the plaintiffs in the suit are the Attorneys General of Kaduna, Kogi, Zamfara, Ondo, Ekiti, Katsina, Ogun, Cross River, Sokoto, and Lagos states while the defendants are the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, as well as the AGs of Bayelsa and Edo states.
Subsequently, after listening to the case on Wednesday February 22, the Supreme Court adjourned the case instituted by the state governments against the Federal Government challenging the implementation of the naira redesign till March 3.
President Muhammadu Buhari, had, in a national broadcast last Thursday, ordered the apex bank to release old N200 notes into circulation to co-exist with new N200, N500 and N1,000 banknotes for 60 days, till April 10, 2023. He also said old N500 and N1,000 banknotes cease to be legal tender in Nigeria.
There were swift reactions and stern criticisms against the President’s directive including some governors of his party, the All Progressives Congress.
Governors Nasir El-Rufai, Kaduna, Abubakar Badaru, Jigawa, Rotimi Akeredolu, Ondo, Umar Ganduje ,Kano; Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila; Minister of State for Labour and Employment, Festus Keyamo; and many chieftains of the ruling APC have openly censured and criticized the President’s directive, claiming that it has not grounds because the case is before the apex court.
