Ten federation states have filed a new suit in the Supreme Court challenging President Muhammadu Buhari’s naira swap policy.
The state governments want the Supreme Court to rule that President Buhari’s directive to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to recirculate only old N200 notes until April 10, 2023, was unconstitutional.
They contended that the President’s declaration in his speech contradicted the Supreme Court’s earlier directive to keep all old notes in circulation as legal tender pending the outcome of a suit before it in that regard.
The attorney-generals of Kaduna, Kogi, Zamfara, Ondo, Ekiti, Katsina, Ogun, Cross River, Lagos, and Sokoto states filed a new suit before the Supreme Court, marked SC/CV/162/2023.
WITHIN NIGERIA, the attorney-general of the federation (AGF), as well as the attorneys general of Edo and Bayelsa states, were named as defendants.
The relief sought by the applicants reads:
An order setting aside the directive contained in the special and presidential media Broadcast delivered on Thursday, the 16th of February, 2023 by the president of the federal republic of Nigeria (the substantive 1st defendant in this suit) for being an unconstitutional overreach and usurpation of the judicial power of this court on a matter constituting the subject matter of the pending suit herein; and in respect whereof there subsists an order of interim injunction binding on all parties inclusive of the president who is a party through the named nominal defendant in person of the 1st defendant as the chief legal officer of the federation.
They further accused the federal government and the CBN of making pronouncements contrary to the existing position of the Supreme Court on the new naira policy which according to them is misleading Nigerians.
Contrary to the order of the honourable court, the substantive 1st defendant through the president of the federation, and its agent, the Central Bank of Nigeria, have repeatedly released statements that the old Naira Notes are no longer legal tender, hence resulting in misleading the general public on what the status quo to be complied with, pendente lite, should be, the statement it reads in part.
Discussion about this post