Counsel Appeals For Court’s Interpretation Of National Assembly’s Power To Call Tinubu

Counsel Appeals For Court’s Interpretation Of National Assembly’s Power To Call Tinubu

Human rights and constitutional lawyer Emmanuel Ekpenyong has petitioned the Federal High Court in Abuja to confirm that the National Assembly has the authority to summon President Bola Tinubu regarding the government’s measures against extrajudicial killings in Nigeria……. CONTINUE READING

Ekpenyong, a legal practitioner from Fred-Young & Evans LP, filed the case on June 17, 2021, with the case number FHC/ABJ/CS/490/2021. The defendants include President Tinubu, the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the National Assembly.

In his petition, Ekpenyong argues that Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution permit the National Assembly to summon any individual, including the President, to answer questions about governmental actions. He cites a 2020 incident where the House of Representatives invited former President Muhammadu Buhari to address issues of insecurity, though Buhari later did not attend due to legal advice citing presidential immunity under Section 308 of the Constitution.

Ekpenyong seeks four declarations from the court:
1. That he has the standing to bring this action.
2. That President Tinubu qualifies as “any person in Nigeria” subject to summons by the National Assembly.
3. That Sections 88 and 89 empower the National Assembly to summon Tinubu regarding measures against killings.
4. That his case discloses a valid cause of action.

In response, Simon Enock, representing the President and the Attorney-General, filed a counter affidavit arguing that the suit should be dismissed. The affidavit, sworn by Barnabas Onoja of the Federal Ministry of Justice, claims that Nigeria’s security agencies are effectively addressing threats from bandits and terrorists, countering Ekpenyong’s claims.

Onoja also disputes Ekpenyong’s legal standing, alleging that he is not a Nigerian citizen or legal practitioner. The National Assembly, in its counter affidavit, acknowledged its right to summon individuals but raised procedural issues, such as whether Ekpenyong’s failure to serve a pre-action notice affects the suit’s validity.

Ekpenyong’s reply asserts his citizenship and legal status, arguing that constitutional provisions take precedence over other legislative requirements and that presidential immunity does not cover official duties.