The Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia, Abia State, had on Friday, declared Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act illegal.
The House of Representatives has said it was not aware of the suit challenging section 84(12) of the Electoral Act in Abia State.
The spokesperson of the House, Ben Kalu (APC, Abia), stated this in a statement on Friday, in Abuja.
Justice Evelyn Anyadike of the Federal High Court in Umuahia, Abia State, had declared Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, illegal.
The section says: “No political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the Convention or Congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election.”
Mrs Anyadike had, in her ruling, declared the provision as conflicting with sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(f) and 182(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution.
President Muhammadu Buhari had raised concerns on the section and requested the lawmakers to delete it from the Act. The president also forwarded an executive bill to the two-chamber of the National Assembly asking that the section be deleted. Mr Buhari had signed the Electoral Bill into law on February 25.
As a pre-emptive move, the main opposition party, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had sued the President, Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Senate President, Speaker, House of Representatives, Clerk of the National Assembly, Senate Leader, House of Representatives Leader and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the matter.The court had granted the request restraining the above parties from amending the law.
Although the Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, had stated that the court could not stop the lawmakers from performing its Constitution role, the Senators rejected the bill during the second reading. Mr Kalu, in the statement, said the House cannot react to the judgement because it is yet to get a certified copy. He said the lower chamber has questions on who represented it in court.
“The House was not aware of this legal matter”. The House was not served—whether we were a necessary party or not. It is important to note that it is out of place to comment on the judgement that we have not seen. We are only reading it on social media.
