Lawyers head for Appeal Court over Executive Order 6 judgment

Two Abuja-based legal practitioners on Monday filed a notice of appeal challenging the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja which held on October 11 that the President’s Executive Order No 6 did not violate the right of citizens to own property.

The appellants, Barristers Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere and Kenneth Udeze, said in the notice that Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu erred in law when she affirmed the legality of the order.

Justice Ojukwu had in her landmark judgement on the suit marked FCH/ABJ/CS/470/2018, held that the Executive Order 6 enacted by President Muhammadu Buhari was in line with the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The court further held that it was within the constitutional powers of the President, as granted by the Constitution, to issue Executive Orders for the execution of policies by the executive arm of government, provided such orders respect the principles of separation of powers.

Dissatisfied by the verdict of Justice Ojukwu on the matter, the two lawyers through their lawyer- Obed Agu, are seeking an order of the appellate court setting aside the judgment of the lower court and in its stead allowing the reliefs sought by the appellants vide the originating summons filed on 13th July, 2018.

The lawyers also filed a motion on notice for an order directing and imposing injunction pending appeal restraining the respondents and their agents from enforcing, executing or any other manner whatsoever giving effect to the Presidential Executive Order No. 6 of 2018 pending the determination of the appeal.

In the notice of appeal, the applicants said the trial judge erred in law and thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice to the appellants when he found that the Executive Order No. 6 of 2018 did not violate rights of citizens to own property.

The appellants also argued that the learned trial judge erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the appellants when he unilaterally varied and/or modified the express terms of the Executive Order 6 and the constitutional provisions by issuing judicial caution that the powers of the 2nd respondent (Attomey-General of the Federation)

under the Executive Order 6 must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which opinion did not arise from the express provision of the Executive Order 6 nor raised before it by any of the parties thereto.

More so, the applicants want the Court of Appeal to hold that Justice Ojukwu erred in law and thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice to the appellants when she shut her eyes against the materials placed before her and deliberately failed and/or refused to make speciflc findings of fact on the issue submitted it by the appellants.

In addition, the applicants submitted that the judgement delivered by Justice Ojukwu was against the weight of evidence.

The lawyers said, “Let all Nigerians know that the judgment of Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu that we instituted against President Muhammadu Buharri, never gave the president the power to arbitrarily ban citizens from traveling.”

According to Ugochinyere, “The banning of citizens from traveling abroad and the attempt to give effect to Executive Order No. 6 without first seeking the order of the court is a misinterpretation of the judgment of the Federal High Court on executive order 6.

“His actions usurps the functions of the court and the legislative powers of the National Assembly that has already promulgated the EFCC, ICPC and Money Laundering Act, all of which allow for interim forfeiture and attachment for citizen’s money and property but with an order of a court of law.

“The Judge at the Federal High Court said that although Executive Order No. 6 was not itself wrong, but the Attorney General must obtain an order of the Court and that the enforcement of the order must never infringe on the rule of law or derogate the doctrine of separation of powers or the fundamental rights of Nigerians”.

“Let it be know that we the plaintiff in the suit challenging the legality of Executive Order No. 6 is not challenging the powers of the President to make Executive Orders, this the Constitution has empowered him to.

“But such orders must conform with laid down procedures, due process, respect for citizens rights and rule of law and must not violate any provisions of the Constitution,” he added.