By G9ija

The Supreme Court has reserved judgement in a suit filed by President Muhammadu Buhari and the Attorney General of the Federation, seeking an interpretation of Section 84(12) of the electoral act, 2022.

The seven-man panel led by Justice Mohammed Dattijo, says the date will be communicated to the parties involved in the suit.

The Apex Court arrived at this conclusion, after taking arguments from parties and adopting their processes.

At the proceedings on Thursday, the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), and the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), brought an application, seeking to be joined as interested parties.

APGA, however, opted out by withdrawing its application for joinder which was subsequently struck out by the Apex Court.

The NBA, however, stood firm, insisting that Nigerians do not have representation in the suit, that is why it has opted to join the matter.

In the suit, the defendants were the National Assembly, Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, and the Attorney General of Rivers State, on account of this the NBA insisted it was to represent the interest of Nigerians by joining the suit.

Counsel to President Muhammadu Buhari, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) objected to the application of the NBA to be joined either as an interested party or as amicus curiae in the suit.

Fagbemi objected to the NBA joining as amicus curiae in the matter, insisting it holds an opinion and is taking sides on the matter already.

Eventually, the plaintiff counsel conceded to the application for NBA to be joined as amicus curiae, stressing its submissions on the matter will be strictly on giving an interpretation of the said Section 84 (12) and not join issues.

The panel in a short ruling joined the NBA as an Amicus curiae

An amicus curiae is an impartial adviser to a court of law in a particular case.

Counsel to the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly and Attorney General of the State, Emmanuel Ukala, citing Supreme Court Additional Jurisdictions Act, said Buhari lacks locus standi to institute such a suit as he is not directly affected by the Section 84 [12] of the Electoral Act.

He said the appointees affected by the said Section Electoral Act should have been the ones to institute the suit for being shut out from exercising their rights.