The appellants, Ladi Adebutu and the Peoples Democratic Party prayed the apex court to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission to conduct fresh elections in the 99 polling units where elections were allegedly cancelled.

The Appeal Court, Lagos Division, had in a split decision on November 24, 2023, affirmed Abiodun’s re-election.

The majority judgment delivered by Justice Joseph Ikyegh dismissed the appeal filed by the PDP and its governorship candidate.

Reading the lead judgement, Justice Tijani Abubakar dismissed the appeal.

Additionally, the government seeks the lifting of the court’s previous order, issued on March 3, which mandated the coexistence of old and new naira notes until December 31.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) had earlier declared that old N200, N500, and N1,000 banknotes would retain their legal tender status until December 31, 2023.

The government argues that the extension is imperative due to challenges in printing the required volume of new notes, making it difficult to phase out the old currency by the initial deadline.

The application, submitted by the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, outlines the following reliefs sought from the Supreme Court:

A review of the court’s consequential order from the judgment on March 3, 2023, allowing the old 200, 500, and 1,000 naira notes to remain legal tender until December 31, 2023.

The Federal Government emphasizes the potential risks of not extending the circulation period, warning of the likelihood of a national, economic, and financial crisis reminiscent of the challenges faced earlier in the year during the implementation of the naira redesign policy under the former Central Bank Governor, Godwin Emefiele.

Expressing the need for further consultations with stakeholders, the government implores the Supreme Court to permit the continued use of both old and new notes until an informed decision is reached.

It highlights the emerging concern of hoarding, suggesting that the economy may face renewed threats if the December 31 deadline is maintained.

The government claims ongoing engagement with the 10 plaintiff states, representing members of the National Council of State and the National Economic Council, in an effort to address the situation.

The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for November 30 to deliberate on the government’s appeal.

The Supreme Court Registrar, Zainab Garba, in a notice issued to the parties on Thursday, disclosed that the hearing proceedings in Atiku’s appeal would take place before the Supreme Court sitting in Abuja on October 23.

It read, ‘’Take notice that the above appeal/motion will be listed for hearing before the Supreme Court of Nigeria sitting at Abuja on Monday, October 23, 2023.

“And further take notice that in accordance with Order 2 Rule 1(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985, as amended, this notice is deemed sufficiently served on you if it is left at your address of service or sent by registered post and since the date of service by post is material, section 26 of the Interpretation Act, 1964, shall apply.”

The Supreme Court Director of Information, Dr Festus Akande, also confirmed that Atiku’s election appeal had been slated for hearing on Monday.

The notification came as the House of Representatives expressed worries over the workload on the apex court.

The apex court currently has 11 justices, short of the required 21 stipulated by section 230(2) of the 1999 Constitution.

The green chamber resolved to call on the Federal Government to appoint new judges for the Supreme Court to ensure effective justice delivery in the country.

The resolution of the House followed a motion of urgent public importance moved by Patrick Umoh, the lawmaker representing Ikot Ekpene Federal Constituency, Akwa Ibom State.

In the motion tagged, ‘Urgent need for the Federal Government to appoint new justices to the Supreme Court to ensure expeditious and effective justice delivery in the country,’ Umoh noted that “The Supreme Court of Nigeria is the apex court in the country with the jurisdiction to hear and determine causes and matters across the length and breadth of Nigeria.”

In its resolution, the House urged “The Federal Government to appoint nine new justices to the Supreme Court in order to expedite the hearing and determination of matters for effective and efficient justice delivery in Nigeria.”

It also mandated its Committee on Federal Judiciary to ensure compliance with the resolution.

Umoh had before the House resolution observed that the current number of justices of the apex court had dropped to an all-time low of 11 Justices, making it 10 justices short of its full complement of 21 justices, as stipulated by the Constitution.

The resolution read, “This is post-election season where the court has to hear and determine electoral matters from different parts of the country within a short period of time as mandated by the Constitution.

The apex court also nullified the Federal Government’s naira redesign policy, declaring it as an affront to the 1999 Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled that President Muhammadu Buhari violated the Federation’s Constitution by giving the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, instructions to redesign the Naira.

According to Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, who delivered the court’s lead opinion, the President violated the law by flagrantly omitting to consult with the National Council of States, the Federal Executive Council, and the National Economic Council before ordering the Central Bank of Nigeria to introduce new Naira notes without authorization.

He held that the unconstitutional use of powers by President Buhari on Naira Re-designing breached the fundamental rights of the Nigerian citizens in various ways.

The Apex Court said such use of powers by President Buhari is not permitted under democracy and in a plural society like the Nigerian nation.

Among others, the Supreme Court held that unlawful use of executive powers by the President inflicted unprecedented economic hardship on the citizens by denying them ownership of their monies and access to the money.

With the apex court’s decision, Nigerians, especially consumer and business groups as well as professional and trade unions looking up to the apex court for a favorable judgment (today) that they expect will ameliorate their suffering, will have to wait.

The Supreme Court had on February 8 restrained the Federal Government from implementing the February 10 deadline for swapping the old naira notes with new ones, but the Central Bank of Nigeria refused to shift the deadline.

The injunction was sequel to a suit filed by Zamfara, Kogi and Kaduna state governments against the Attorney-General of the Federation on February 3.

Other states including Lagos, Ondo, Ekiti, Kano, Sokoto, Ogun and Cross River have also joined the suit as co-plaintiffs.

While taking arguments on Wednesday, counsel for the Federal Government, Kanu Agabi, said the Supreme Court held that all reliefs are rooted in section 20 of the CBN Act.

He argued that the apex court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit as the action cannot commence with an Originating Summons.

He also contended that the plaintiffs did not deem it fit to the CBN to court as a respondent despite making reference to the apex bank 32 times in their originating summons and despite the fact that seven of the reliefs sought relate to the CBN.

He asserted that Nigerians were already turning down the old notes way the President’s directive.

Agabi also asserted that by asking Nigerians to deposit their old naira at the CBN designated centres, the president was abiding by the court order and that Buhari is empowered under the constitution to veto any legislation

A seven-member panel led by Justice John Okoro halted the federal government plan in a ruling in an exparte application brought by three northern states of Kaduna, Kogi, and Zamfara.

The February 10 deadline for the currency swap announced by the Central Bank of Nigeria pitted Governors Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna, Yahaya Bello (Kogi), and Bello Matawalle (Zamfara) against 14 political parties which threatened to boycott the February 25 election, should the CBN extend the time limit.

This is as a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory restrained President Buhari, CBN, its Governor Godwin Emefiele, and 27 commercial banks from suspending, stopping, extending, or interfering with the currency swap terminal date.

The order was handed down on Monday by Justice E. Enenche following an application by four political parties.

That said, the three governors, who dragged the CBN and the Federal Government to the Supreme Court, were seeking a halt to the full implementation of the naira redesign policy initiated by the apex bank.

But, moving the application on Wednesday, counsel to the applicants, Mr. A. I. Mustapha, SAN, urged the court to grant the application in the interest of justice and Nigerians.

He argued that the policy had led to an “excruciating situation that is almost leading to anarchy in the land”.

After carefully considering the motion exparte in the application, Justice Okoro granted the prayer.

Ruling on the motion, Justice Okoro held that “An order of Interim Injunction restraining the federal government through the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) or the commercial banks from suspending or determining or ending on February 10, 2023, the time frame with which the now older version of the 200, 500 and 1,000 denominations of the naira may no longer be legal tender pending the hearing and determination of their motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction”.

He, however, adjourned to February 15, 2023, for a hearing of the main suit.

The apex court also debunked claims that five Justices of the Court have demanded resignation from office by the CJN over the same issue.

In a statement by the Director of Information and Press of the Court, Dr Festus Akande, the apex Court warned those peddling the rumours to desist in their own interests.

The reaction of the Supreme Court is in response to a publication by an online medium, which reported that Justice Ariwoola has been grilled by DSS over his alleged political remarks in Port Harcourt at a public function.

The statement read in part, “We have read with dismay and shock a publication with the above caption by an online media outfit, “People’s Gazette,” alleging that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, was grilled by the DSS for the remarks he made in ‘Port Harcourt at a state banquet’ and that ‘five Justices of Supreme Court are calling for his resignation.’

“Just like our earlier press statement debunking this barefaced falsehood and mischievous antics aimed at scoring very cheap and unpopular political gains in this era of aggressive and mudslinging politicking, we wish to state in very clear and unmistaken terms, that this is yet another round of the avalanche of lies that have been disingenuously packaged by individuals with an unenviable pedigree to malign the character and personality of not just the CJN but several other Judicial Officers that they considered to be too unpliable and principled to be approached for any form of underhand dealings, especially as election cases (petitions) will soon be streaming to the tribunals (courts) for adjudication.”

According to the statement, it had become very obvious that those with sinister motives have perfected plans to unleash all manner of coordinated attacks on Judicial Officers, starting from the CJN with a view to arm-twisting and blackmailing and ridiculing them to silence, ultimately for their ulterior motives.

The statement further added that the publication is laced with tissues of lies, non-existent sources of information and unsubstantiated claims and it clearly showed the unwholesome intentions of the authors.

It also clarified that no single Justice of the Supreme has asked the CJN to resign, and no Justice of the Supreme Court has or is writing any letter of protest whatsoever.

“Neither the CJN nor the Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court or other Courts for that matter, are politicians, so, none of them should be dragged into politics in any form whatsoever.

“Our advice to this set of rabble-rousers whose stock in trade is character assassination via dissemination of false information to create tension and disaffection is to have a rethink and engage in meaningful productive activities that will move the nation forward. A word is enough for the wise,” the statement said.

The Attorney-General of Ekiti State, Mr Olawale Fapohunda had asked the court to determine whether the directive issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation to the Heads of Courts at Federal and State levels, as it relates to the conduct of virtual proceedings in court is not a violation of the federalism provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

Attorney General of Lagos State, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN) on his own part, argued that the case by his state was to prevent a situation where after virtual sittings are conducted, they would be declared unconstitutional as it was the case in Orji Kalu case.

However, Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour who led the seven-man panel which presided over the case on Tuesday, July 14, ruled that virtual court sittings are not unconstitutional.

He said “Just let us wait for the National Assembly whether what they will come up with go against the practice direction issued by Chief Judges of the states and the National Judicial Council (NJC) on virtual sitting. As at now, virtual siting is not unconstitutional. Honourable Attorney General (referring to Onigbajo), go and tell your Chief Judge to ask the judges to continue to sit virtually if it’s convenient for them.”

Bela Kosoian was riding an escalator at the Montmorency Montreal Metro station in Laval, Quebec, in 2009 when an officer stopped her because she wasn’t holding on to a handrail, as she was looking through her purse. A sign that stated “caution” and “hold handrail” was located near the escalator.

The officer told her to hold on to the handrail during her ride down the escalator, and the officer stopped her once she got to the bottom. He asked her to follow him and she refused, “because she didn’t think she had done anything wrong,” and also refused to give her identification, according to the case brief posted online.

Kosoian was subsequently detained and when she was released, she was given one $100 ticket for disobeying the sign and a $320 fine for obstructing an inspection worker.

She was acquitted of the infractions in 2012, and she sued Montreal’s transit authority, the city, and one of the officers for $45,000, CBC News reported. In 2015, the lawsuit was rejected in Quebec court, and again in 2017 by the Quebec Court of Appeal, which said Kosoian was the “author of her own misfortune.”

But the Supreme Court “unanimously disagreed,” and said the sign in the Metro station that said to hold on to the handrail “was a warning” and not a law. They found the officer “was wrong to stop and search her for breaking a law that didn’t exist.”

“A reasonable police officer should have known that people didn’t have to hold handrails. Or at least they should have had some doubt,” the court ruling stated, adding, “Even if Ms Kosoian didn’t act in the best way, she had no legal obligation to hold the handrail.”

The decision continued: “This case was about civil liability for doing something wrong. In a free and democratic society, police officers can’t interfere with people’s freedoms except where the law says so. They have to know the law and act within it.”

The court ruled Kosoian be paid $20,000 in damages in Canadian dollars or roughly $15,000 in USD.

Kosoian said she was pleased that the judge “recognized the rule of law,” telling the CBC she felt it was important to take her case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“I knew that I didn’t do anything wrong. It was the principle of it,” she said. “I knew, I knew, I knew.”