Skip to content

Federal House of Reps Fuel Subsidy Report: Save Nigeria Group Sues President Jonathan

May 14, 2012

The Save Nigeria Group (SNG) today at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, filed a lawsuit against President Goodluck Jonathan and the Attorney General of the Federation over the withdrawal of the sum of over N2.587trillion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act of 2011, allegedly to meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year.

In an affidavit, Ikeja, Yinka Odumakin, a director of SNG, swore that the act constitutes a reckless violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and gross misconduct and abuse of office on the part of President Jonathan.
The suit is asking the court to determine, among others:

•    Whether the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other person acting on his instructions can lawfully withdraw and expend monies from the Consolidation Revenue Fund or any other public funds of the Federation without authorization by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or any Act of the National Assembly;

•    Whether President Jonathan, in withdrawing and/or directing the withdrawal of the unappropriated N2.587.087 trillion allegedly to meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year when the alleged expenditure of the said sum is neither charged upon that Consolidated Revenue Fund nor authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011, Supplementary Appropriation Act 2011 or an act passed in pursuance of Section 81 of the Constitution, is not unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever;

•     Whether the act of President Jonathan, in so by-passing the members of the National Assembly to withdraw the unappropriated sum of N2,587 trillion instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011  has not defeated and/or violently violated the mandatory provisions of Section 81(1), (2) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (As amended) in that it denied the authorized representatives of the Nigerian people in the National Assembly the constitutional opportunity to debate this head of expenditure and approve and/or disapprove same.

In his affidavit in support of the originating summons, Mr. Odumakin put before the court a Copy of the Report of House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee on Petroleum Subsidy Probe dated 18th April, 2012 which shows that the actual total withdrawal from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or other public fund of the federation to pay subsidies on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and Dual Purpose Kerosene (DPK) for the 2011 fiscal year is the sum of N2, 587 trillion.

Among the reliefs being claimed by the plaintiff is a declaration that under the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, nobody is entitled to withdraw and/or expend monies from the Consolidation Revenue Fund or any other public funds of the Federation without authorization by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or any Act of the National Assembly.

The court is also being asked for a declaration, among others, that by withdrawing and/or directing the withdrawal of the unappropriated sum of N2,587 trillion contravenes the mandatory provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever; and that the President thereby usurped the powers of the National Assembly and acted unlawfully, unconstitutionally and illegally.

Furthermore, the court is being asked to declare that the withdrawal of the unappropriated sum of N2,587 trillion instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011 constitutes an act of gross misconduct which is an impeachable offence under the constitution.
The defendants have 30 days to respond to the suit.

[Full text of the documents]

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT IKEJA-LAGOS

SUIT NO…………………….
BETWEEN:

SNG GLOBAL OPTION LTD/GTE                                                                                       PLAINTIFF
(A.K.A. SAVE NIGERIA GROUP)
AND
1.               PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
2.              ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION                                                          DEFENDANTS

ORIGINATING SUMMONS
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO ORDER 3 RULES 6, 7, & 9 OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES 2009 AND SECTIONS 80(1), (2), (3) & (4), 81(1), (2) & (4), 83(1) & (2) AND 143(11) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA,
1999 (AS AMENDED)

LET THE DEFENDANTS of the Presidency, Aso Rock Villa, Three Arms Zone, FCT, Abuja and the Federal Ministry of Justice, Shehu Shagari Way, Central Area, Abuja in the Abuja Judicial Division, within thirty days after service of this summons on each of them, inclusive of the day of such service cause an appearance to be entered for each of them to this summons which is issued upon the application of the plaintiff, SNG GLOBAL OPTION LTD/GTE (A.K.A. SAVE NIGERIA GROUP) of 59 Oduduwa Way, G.R.A., Lagos State who claims to be entitled to declarations that the act of the 1st Defendant in withdrawing the unappropriated sum of N2.587.087 trillion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public fund of the federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011)  to allegedly meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year constitutes a reckless violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended); gross misconduct and abuse of office on the part of the 1st Defendant – President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, GCFR; for the determination of the following questions:

QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION:

1.     Having regard to the provisions of Sections 80(2) (3) & 81(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), whether the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other person acting on his instructions can lawfully withdraw and expend monies from the Consolidation Revenue Fund or any other public funds of the Federation without authorization by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or any Act of the National Assembly.
2.     In view of the mandatory provisions of Section 80(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), whether the act of the 1st Defendant in withdrawing and/or directing the withdrawal of the unappropriated sum N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) Only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011)  to meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year when the alleged expenditure of the said N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira)is neither charged upon that Consolidated Revenue Fund nor authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011, Supplementary Appropriation Act 2011 or an act passed in pursuance of Section 81 of the Constitution; is not unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
3.     In the absence of an Act of the National Assembly prescribing the manner of withdrawal of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion under the Appropriation Act, 2011 and the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) Only withdrawn by the 1st Defendant to make petroleum subsidy payments in the 2011 financial year, whether the 1st Defendant has not usurped the functions of the National Assembly and whether the said 1st Defendant’s act is not unlawful, unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
4.    Whether the act of the 1st Defendant in by-passing the members of the National Assembly to withdraw the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011) to allegedly meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year has not defeated and/or violently violated the mandatory provisions of Section 81(1), (2) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (As amended) in that it denied the authorized representatives of Nigerian people in the National Assembly the constitutional opportunity to debate this head of expenditure and approve and/or disapprove same..
5.     Whether the 1st Defendant is not under a constitutional duty by reason of Section 81(4) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) to place a supplementary estimates of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion under the Appropriation Act, 2011 and the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only allegedly expended for subsidy payments in the 2011 financial year before the National Assembly once he found out that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act, 2011 for petroleum subsidy payments was not sufficient.

The Plaintiff claims the following reliefs:
i.               A DECLARATION that by virtue of Sections 80(2)(3)& 81(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), neither the 1st Defendant acting as the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria nor any of his authorized representatives is entitled to withdraw and/or expend monies from the Consolidation Revenue Fund or any other public funds of the Federation without authorization by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or any Act of the National Assembly.
ii.              A DECLARATION that the act of the 1st Defendant in withdrawing and/or directing the withdrawal of the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011) to meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year when the alleged expenditure of the said unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) is neither charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund nor authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011, Supplementary Appropriation Act 2011 or an act passed in pursuance of Section 81 of the Constitution; contravenes the mandatory provisions of Section 80(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
iii.            A DECLARATION that, In the absence of an Act of the National Assembly prescribing the manner of withdrawal of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion under the Appropriation Act, 2011 and the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only allegedly withdrawn and expended by the 1st Defendant to make petroleum subsidy payments in the 2011 financial year, the 1st Defendant usurped the powers of the National Assembly and acted unlawfully, unconstitutionally and illegally when it expended the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only on petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year instead of the N245Billion appropriated for that purpose.
iv.            A DECLARATION that the by-passing of the members of the National Assembly to withdraw the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011) to allegedly meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year, the 1st Defendant has breached and/or violently violated the mandatory provisions of Section 81(1), (2) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (As amended) and denied the authorized representatives of Nigerian people in the National Assembly the constitutional opportunity to debate this head of expenditure and approve and/or disapprove same.
v.              A DECLARATION that the failure, neglect and or omission of the 1st Defendant to perform his mandatory constitutional duty of placing a supplementary estimates of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion under the Appropriation Act, 2011 and the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only allegedly expended for subsidy payments in the 2011 financial year before the National Assembly once he found out that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act, 2011 for petroleum subsidy payments was not sufficient is unconstitutional as same amounts to a violation of Section 81(4) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended).
vi.            A DECLARATION that the act of the 1st Defendant in withdrawing the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation or any other public fund of the federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011)  to allegedly meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year in contravention of fiscal provisions of the 1999 Constitution (As amended) (particularly sections 80 and 81) constitutes an act of gross misconduct which is an impeachable offence by virtue of the provisions of Section 143(11) of the 1999 Constitution and the decision of Tobi JSC in Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) p. 423.

Dated this                 day of                                     2012

_____________
REGISTRAR

This summons was taken out by Tope Adebayo, Babatunde Ogungbamila, Harrison Ogalagu, and Falodun Arifayan, Counsel to the Plaintiff whose address for service is Tope Adebayo LLP, 3rd Floor, 79 Allen Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos. The Defendants may appear hereto by entering appearance personally or by a legal practitioner either by handing in the appropriate forms duly completed, at the Federal High Court Registry of the Lagos Judicial Division sitting in Ikeja, Lagos.

NOTE:

If the Defendants do not enter appearance within the time and the place above mentioned, such orders will be made and proceedings may be taken as the Judge may think just and expedient.

This Originating Summons is to be served out of Lagos State and in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja

……………………………..
Tope Adebayo,
Babatunde Ogungbamila,
Harrison Ogalagu,
Falodun Arifayan,
Plaintiff’s counsel
TOPE ADEBAYO LLP
3rd Floor, 79
Allen Avenue,
Ikeja,
Lagos.
Tel. 08065824768; 016284627
For Service on
1.               The 1st Defendant
The Presidency, Aso Rock Villa,
Three Arms Zone,
FCT,
Abuja.

2.              The 2nd Defendant
The Federal Ministry of Justice,
Shehu Shagari Way,
Central Area,
FCT,
Abuja.

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT IKEJA-LAGOS

SUIT NO…………………….
BETWEEN:

SNG GLOBAL OPTION LTD/GTE                                                                                       PLAINTIFF
(A.K.A. SAVE NIGERIA GROUP)
AND
1.               PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
2.              ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION                                                            DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMON I, Mr. Oluyinka Odumakin, Male, Christian, Nigerian Citizen, Human Rights Activist of 59, Oduduwa Way, G.R.A., Ikeja, Lagos State do hereby make oath and state as follows:

1.              I am a Director of the Plaintiff in this suit by virtue of which I am familiar with the facts to which I depose in this affidavit.
2.              Except as herein expressly stated, the information to which I depose in this affidavit is within my personal knowledge or came to my knowledge by virtue of the document to which I shall refer in this affidavit.
3.              The Plaintiff is a non-profit, socio-political organization with registered office at 59, Oduduwa Way, G.R.A., Ikeja, Lagos State whose activities are geared towards sensitizing the populace on political participation and mobilizing Nigerians to hold the Governments accountable to the people.
4.             The 1st Defendant is the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
5.              The 2nd Defendant is the Chief Law Officer of the Federal Republic of Nigeria responsible for advising the Government of the Federation including all its agencies on all legal issues.
6.             The Appropriation Act 2011 authorized the withdrawal of a total sum of N245,000,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Forty-Five Billion Naira Only) from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay subsidies on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and Dual Purpose Kerosene (DPK) for the 2011 fiscal year.
7.              The 1st Defendant, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria either directly or through the relevant organs of the Government of the Federation withdrew and/or authorized the withdrawal of the sum of N2, 587, 087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred and Eighty-Seven Billion, Six Hundred and Eighty-Seven Million Naira Only) from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay subsidies on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and Dual Purpose Kerosene (DPK) during the 2011 fiscal year.
8.             Now produced, shown to me and marked Exhibit SNG1 is a Copy of the Report of House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee on Petroleum Subsidy Probe dated 18th April, 2012 which shows that the actual total withdrawal from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or other public fund of the federation to pay subsidies on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and Dual Purpose Kerosene (DPK) for the 2011 fiscal year is the sum of N2, 587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred and Eighty-Seven Billion and Eighty-Seven Million Naira) Only intead of the appropriated sum of N245,000,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Forty Five Billion Naira Only).
9.             The amount stated in Exhibit SNG2 above is about 900% over the appropriated sum of N245,000,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Forty-Five Billion Naira Only) and this difference is not contained in the 2011 Supplementary Appropriation Act.
10.           That it is in the interest of justice, constitutional and democratic development of Nigeria to grant the prayers contained in this originating Summons.
11.            I depose to this affidavit in good faith, conscientiously believing its contents to be true and in accordance with Oaths Act.

………………..
DEPONENT

SWORN TO AT THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT REGISTRY, IKEJA, LAGOS.

THIS ¬¬¬_______ DAY OF ______________ 2012

BEFORE ME

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT IKEJA-LAGOS

SUIT NO…………………….
BETWEEN:

SNG GLOBAL OPTION LTD/GTE                                                                                       PLAINTIFF
(A.K.A. SAVE NIGERIA GROUP)
AND
1.               PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
2.              ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION                                                          DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS

Tope Adebayo LLP
Plaintiff’s Counsel,
79 Allen Avenue
Ikeja
Lagos
E-mail: f.arifayan@topeadebayollp.com
Tel:             +234-8065824768      ; 016284627

1.0.          INTRODUCTION
1.1.       This is an address in support of the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons against the Defendants dated 14th May, 2012. The Originating Summons is supported by an 11-paragraph affidavit deposed by Oluyinka Odumakin, a Director of the plaintiff.
1.2.       Attached to the Originating Summons is one (1) Exhibit marked SNG1, a copy of the Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee of the House of Representatives “To Verify and Determine the Actual Subsidy Requirements and Monitor the Implementation of the Subsidy Regime in Nigeria” dated 18th April, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “Resolution No.HR.1/2012”).
1.3.       In the Originating Summons, the Plaintiff submits for the determination of this Honourable Court five (5) questions as follows:
6.         Having regard to the provisions of Sections 80(2) (3) & 81(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), whether the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other person acting on his instructions can lawfully withdraw and expend monies from the Consolidation Revenue Fund or any other public funds of the Federation without authorization by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or any Act of the National Assembly.
7.          In view of the mandatory provisions of Section 80(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), whether the act of the 1st Defendant in withdrawing and/or directing the withdrawal of the unappropriated sum N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) Only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011)  to meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year when the alleged expenditure of the said N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira)is neither charged upon that Consolidated Revenue Fund nor authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011, Supplementary Appropriation Act 2011 or an act passed in pursuance of Section 81 of the Constitution; is not unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
8.         In the absence of an Act of the National Assembly prescribing the manner of withdrawal of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion under the Appropriation Act, 2011 and the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) Only withdrawn by the 1st Defendant to make petroleum subsidy payments in the 2011 financial year, whether the 1st Defendant has not usurped the functions of the National Assembly and whether the said 1st Defendant’s act is not unlawful, unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
9.         Whether the act of the 1st Defendant in by-passing the members of the National Assembly to withdraw the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011) to allegedly meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year has not defeated and/or violently violated the mandatory provisions of Section 81(1), (2) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (As amended) in that it denied the authorized representatives of Nigerian people in the National Assembly the constitutional opportunity to debate this head of expenditure and approve and/or disapprove same..
10.     Whether the 1st Defendant is not under a constitutional duty by reason of Section 81(4) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) to place a supplementary estimates of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion under the Appropriation Act, 2011 and the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only allegedly expended for subsidy payments in the 2011 financial year before the National Assembly once he found out that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act, 2011 for petroleum subsidy payments was not sufficient.

1.4.          The Plaintiff, in the said Originating Summons, also claims the following reliefs against the Defendants:
vii.                     A DECLARATION that by virtue of Sections 80(2)(3)& 81(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), neither the 1st Defendant acting as the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria nor any of his authorized representatives is entitled to withdraw and/or expend monies from the Consolidation Revenue Fund or any other public funds of the Federation without authorization by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or any Act of the National Assembly.
viii.                  A DECLARATION that the act of the 1st Defendant in withdrawing and/or directing the withdrawal of the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011) to meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year when the alleged expenditure of the said unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) is neither charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund nor authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011, Supplementary Appropriation Act 2011 or an act passed in pursuance of Section 81 of the Constitution; contravenes the mandatory provisions of Section 80(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
ix.                        A DECLARATION that, In the absence of an Act of the National Assembly prescribing the manner of withdrawal of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion under the Appropriation Act, 2011 and the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only allegedly withdrawn and expended by the 1st Defendant to make petroleum subsidy payments in the 2011 financial year, the 1st Defendant usurped the powers of the National Assembly and acted unlawfully, unconstitutionally and illegally when it expended the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only on petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year instead of the N245Billion appropriated for that purpose.
x.                           A DECLARATION that the by-passing of the members of the National Assembly to withdraw the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011) to allegedly meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year, the 1st Defendant has breached and/or violently violated the mandatory provisions of Section 81(1), (2) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (As amended) and denied the authorized representatives of Nigerian people in the National Assembly the constitutional opportunity to debate this head of expenditure and approve and/or disapprove same.
xi.                        A DECLARATION that the failure, neglect and or omission of the 1st Defendant to perform his mandatory constitutional duty of placing a supplementary estimates of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion under the Appropriation Act, 2011 and the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only allegedly expended for subsidy payments in the 2011 financial year before the National Assembly once he found out that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act, 2011 for petroleum subsidy payments was not sufficient is unconstitutional as same amounts to a violation of Section 81(4) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended).
xii.                     A DECLARATION that the act of the 1st Defendant in withdrawing the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation or any other public fund of the federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011)  to allegedly meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year in contravention of fiscal provisions of the 1999 Constitution (As amended) (particularly sections 80 and 81) constitutes an act of gross misconduct which is an impeachable offence by virtue of the provisions of Section 143(11) of the 1999 Constitution and the decision of Tobi JSC in Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) p. 423.

2.0.          FACTS OF THIS CASE

2.1.       The facts of this case are as contained in the Plaintiff’s affidavit. Nevertheless, for ease of appreciation, the summary of the facts of this case are as follows.
2.2.          In the 2011 fiscal year and in accordance with the subsidy regime of the federal government of Nigeria on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and DPK, the National Assembly in the exercise of their constitutional mandate authorized, in the Appropriation Act 2011, the withdrawal of a total sum of N245, 000, 000, 000.00 (Two Hundred and Forty-Five Billion Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay subsidies on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and DPK.
2.3.          The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria either directly or through the relevant organs of the Government of the Federation defied, neglected and jettisoned the authorised expenditure on subsidy on PMS and DPK for the 2011 fiscal year. The President therefore arrogated to himself the power to withdraw and expend the sum of N2, 587, 087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred and Eighty-Seven Billion, Six Hundred and Eighty-Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay subsidies on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and DPK for the 2011 fiscal year. There is no supplementary budget or appropriation by the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that empowered the President or the relevant organs of the federal government to spend in excess of the sum budgeted for subsidy.
2.4.          The House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee on Petroleum Subsidy Probe reveals that in flagrant defiance of the Appropriation Act, 2011 the government of the federation spent a whooping sum of N2, 587, 087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred and Eighty-Seven Billion, Six Hundred and Eighty-Seven Million Naira) only on subsidy.
2.5            Aggrieved by the total neglect of the Appropriation Act, 2011 by the Executive headed by the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria and usurpation of power and control over public fund without the necessary legislative approval, the Plaintiff has therefore approached this Honourable Court for a determination of the questions contained in the Originating Summons for the purpose of the above referred reliefs.

ARGUMENT ON ISSUES

3.0.         The Plaintiff hereby submits the following sole issue for the determination of this Honourable Court:
“In view of the mandatory effects of the combined provisions of sections 80(1), (2), (3) & (4), 81(1), (2) & (4), 83(1) & (2) and 143(11) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), whether the 1st Defendant’s act of expending the sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) on petroleum subsidy in 2011 fiscal year without appropriation by the National Assembly is not illegal, unconstitutional and null and void and whether the Plaintiff is consequently not entitled to all the reliefs contained in its Originating Summons”

ARGUMENT ON 1ST QUESTION
3.1.       By the first question in the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons, this Honourable Court is being urged to determine whether the 1st Defendant, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other person acting on his instructions can lawfully withdraw and expend monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public funds of the federation without authorization by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or any Act of the National Assembly in view of the mandatory provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
3.2.      My Lord, the relevant law governing expenditure of the fund of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is contained in Sections 80(2) & (3) & 81(1) & (2) of the Constitution, as amended. The said sections provide as follows:
80(2)        “No moneys shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation except to meet expenditure that is charged upon the fund by this Constitution or where the issue of those moneys has been authorised by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or an Act passed in pursuance of section 81 of this Constitution”
80(3)              No moneys shall be withdrawn from any public fund of the Federation, other than the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation, unless the issue of those moneys has been authorised by an Act of the National Assembly.
81(1)       The President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any time in each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next following financial year.
81(2)       The heads of expenditure contained in the estimates (other than expenditure charged upon the consolidated revenue fund of the federation by this constitution) shall be included in a bill to be known as an Appropriation Bill, providing for the issue from the consolidated revenue funds of the sums necessary to meet that expenditure and the appropriation of those sums for the purposes specified therein.
3.3.      A careful perusal of the above provisions shows clearly that any withdrawal of fund whether from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from any other public fund of the Federation shall be used either to meet expenditure that is charged upon the fund by the Constitution or shall be authorised by the National Assembly either through an Appropriation Act, a Supplementary Appropriation Act or any other Act of the National Assembly.
3.4.      My Lord, we submit that what is glaring from the foregoing provisions is that there must be legislative approval of the national Assembly before withdrawals can be made from the consolidated revenue fund. Anything short of this specification does great harm and violence to the spirit and letters of the Constitution which is the fons et origo of our democracy.
3.5.      We argue further that the foregoing provisions on power and control over public fund are sacred and strike at the fundamental principles of our corporate existence. Needless to argue that it is the Constitution that donates powers to the different arms of government, creates rights and limitations thereto and specifies the relationship of the powers inter se. No power can therefore be exercised by any arm of government otherwise than as provided in the Constitution. Where any purported power is exercised in utter disregard of the provisions of the Constitution by any arm of government, there is a duty on the court to strike down such purported exercise of power and declare same null and void.
3.6.      The Supreme Court had opportunity to pronounce on the supremacy of the Constitution when in BALONWU VS. GOVERNOR ANAMBRA STATE (2009) 12 S.C.(PT.1) 31 @ 56 MOHAMMED JSC it held inter alia;
“It has been said time without number in many decisions of this court that the Constitution is an organic instrument which confers powers and also creates rights and limitations. It is the supreme law in which certain principles of fundamental nature are established. Thus, once the powers, the rights and limitations under the Constitution are identified as having been created, their existence cannot be disputed in a court of law.”
3.7.      Similarly, the apex court seized the opportunity presented by the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ABIA STATE VS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2002) 6 NWLR (PT. 764) 264 @ 479 PARAGRAPHS D – F when the illustrious KALGO JSC held thus;
“The supremacy of the Constitution has made it abundantly clear and in no uncertain terms that the provisions of the Constitution are superior … and are binding and must be observed and respected by all persons and authorities in Nigeria.”
3.8.      It is important to advert the mind of the court to the fact that in Sections 80(2) & (3) & 81(1) & (2) of the Constitution as reproduced above, the drafters of the Constitution use the word “shall”. The word “shall”, when used in a Constitutional provision, conveys a command and compulsion. Where the word “shall” has been used, the courts have interpreted the word in the context of command and authority bereft of discretion. See Buhari v. INEC (2008) 12 S.C. (PT. 1) 1 @ 88 Paras 25-35.
3.9.      In the case of Bamaiyi v. Attorney-General of the Federation [2001] 12 NWLR (PT.727) 468 @ 497, paras F-G, the Supreme Court stated thus:
“… the word “shall” in the ordinary meaning of the word, connotes a command, and that which must be given a compulsory meaning. It has a peremptory meaning which is generally imperative and mandatory. It has the significance of excluding the idea of discretion to impose a duty. Where a provision provides that a thing shall be done, the natural meaning is that a peremptory mandate is enjoined.”
See also the case of Achineku v. Ishagba (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt 89) @p.411.
3.10.    In the instant case, it is the case of the Claimant that whereas the Appropriation Act 2011 authorized the withdrawal of a total sum of N245,000,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Forty-Five Billion Naira Only) from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay subsidies on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and Dual Purpose Kerosene (DPK) for the 2011 fiscal year; the 1st Defendant, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria either directly or through the relevant organs of the Government of the Federation withdrew and/or authorized the withdrawal of the sum of N2, 587, 087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred and Eighty-Seven Billion, Six Hundred and Eighty-Seven Million Naira Only) from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay subsidies on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and Dual Purpose Kerosene (DPK) for the 2011 fiscal year. We refer to paragraphs 6 & 7 of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. We also refer to pages 5 and 204 of Exhibit SNG1.
3.11.     On the authority of the mandatory provisions of the Sections 80(2) & (3) & 81(1) & (2) of the Constitution as reproduced above and the above-cited cases, we submit that  the 1st Defendant, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other person acting on his instructions cannot lawfully withdraw and expend monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public funds of the federation without authorization by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or any Act of the National Assembly. We urge the court to so hold.

ARGUMENT ON 2ND QUESTION
3.12.     My Lord, the Plaintiff also prays this Honourable Court to determine whether the act of the 1st Defendant in withdrawing and/or directing the withdrawal of the unappropriated sum N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) Only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011) to meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year when the alleged expenditure of the said N2,587,087,000,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) is neither charged upon that Consolidated Revenue Fund nor authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011, Supplementary Appropriation Act 2011 or an act passed in pursuance of Section 81 of the Constitution; is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
3.13.     We refer to Section 80(2) of the Constitution which stipulates, in peremptory language, the conditions under which moneys shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation. For ease of reference, albeit at the risk of repetition, we venture to reproduce the subsection thus:

80(2)   “No moneys shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation except to meet expenditure that is charged upon the fund by this Constitution or where the issue of those moneys has been authorised by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or an Act passed in pursuance of section 81 of this Constitution”.

3.14.        The above provisions show beyond peradventure that monies can only be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation under two conditions, viz:
(1)        Where the money is required to meet expenditure that is charged upon the fund by the Constitution; and
(2)       Where the issue of the money has been authorised by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or an Act passed in pursuance of section 81 of this Constitution.
3.15.     It is a well settled principle of construction of statutes that where an enactment or the Constitution names specific things among many other possible alternatives, the intention is that those not named are not to be included. This principle is encapsulated in the Latin expression expressio unius est exclusio alterius meaning the express mention of one thing in a statutory provision automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have applied by implication to the same issue. See the Supreme Court decision in Ehuwa v. Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission & 3 Ors. (2006)18 NWLR (pt.1012) 544 @ pp. 568-569, paras H-C. See also Udoh v.Orthopaedic Hospital Management Board [1993]7 NWLR (pt. 304) 139 @ 148 paras F-H;Military Governor of Ondo State v. Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (pt.82) 280; Attorney General of Bendel State v. Aiyetan [1989] 4 NWLR (pt. 118) 646 and Ogbuanyinya v. Okudo (1979) 6-9 S.C. 32.

3.16.    In view of the authorities referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, it is our humble submission that the 1st Defendant or any person acting on his behalf cannot withdraw fund from the Consolidated Revenue Account for any other purpose other than as stipulated in Section 80(2) of the 1999 Constitutions. A fortiori, it is our submission that the withdrawal of the sum of N2, 587,087,000,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) Only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011) to meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. We urge the court to so hold.

ARGUMENT ON 3RD QUESTION
3.17.     Another question submitted before this Honourable Court by the Plaintiff in the Originating Summons is that, in the absence of an Act of the National Assembly prescribing the manner of withdrawal of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion under the Appropriation Act, 2011 and the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira Only) allegedly withdrawn by the 1st Defendant to make petroleum subsidy payments in the 2011 financial year, whether the 1st Defendant has not usurped the functions of the National Assembly and whether the said 1st Defendant’s act is not unlawful, unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
3.18.    By a community reading of Sections 80(1), (2), (3) & (4), 81(1), (2) & (4), 83(1) &(2) of the constitution of the Federal republic of nigeria, 1999 Constitution, it is clear that, apart from the expenditure that is charged upon the fund by the Constitution,  it is the prerogative of the National Assembly to authorise all expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public fund of the Federation. The authorisation of the National Assembly in this regard has to be obtained through an Appropriation Act, a Supplementary Appropriation Act or any other Act of the National Assembly.
3.19.    The foregoing being the duty of the National Assembly, i.e. the legislature, we submit that the 1st Defendant who is the Chief Executive of the Federation, or any person acting on his behalf cannot arrogate same. This is in tune with the revered doctrine of separation of powers which is firmly entrenched in the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
3.20.    In Attorney-General of the Federation & 35 Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2003) 4 NWLR (809) 124 @ 177, para G, the Supreme Court, per Belgore, JSC, pronounced thus:
“The principle behind the concept of separation of powers is that none of the three arms of government under the Constitution should encroach into the powers of the other. Each arm – the Executive, Legislative and judicial – is separate equal and co-ordinate department and no arm can constitutionally take over the functions clearly assigned to the other.”
3.21.        In the instant case, the affidavit in support of the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons shows that the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria withdrew and/or approved the withdraw of funds from the Revenue Consolidated Revenue Fund and/or any other public fund of the federation in contravention of the spirit and letters of the Constitution. Consequently, we urge your Lordship to answer this question in favour of the Plaintiff.

ARGUMENT ON 4TH QUESTION

3.22.    In this 4th question, your Lordship is urged to determine whether the act of the 1st Defendant in by-passing the members of the National Assembly to withdraw the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011) to allegedly meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year has not defeated and/or violently violated the mandatory provisions of Section 81(1), (2) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (As amended) in that it denied the authorized representatives of Nigerian people in the National Assembly the constitutional opportunity to debate this head of expenditure and approve and/or disapprove same.
3.23. We rely on our arguments on questions 1 to 3 in urging your lordship to answer this question in favour of the Plaintiff. Specifically, the three arms of government in Nigeria have their functions specified in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and none of the arm of government can override the function of the other except as prescribed by the Constitution. By spending without appropriation, we submit that the 1st Defendant has denied the over 130 million people in Nigeria as represented by their duly elected representatives in the National Assembly the opportunity to determine whether such funds should be spent or not. The damaging effect of this is to make our democracy sound like an autocratic government where only one man decides what happens
3.24.    In the final analysis, we urge your Lordship to determine the 4th question in favour of the Plaintiff.

ARGUMENT ON 5TH QUESTION
3.25     Whether the 1st Defendant is not under a constitutional duty by reason of Section 81(4) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) to place a supplementary estimates of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion under the Appropriation Act, 2011 and the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only allegedly expended for subsidy payments in the 2011 financial year before the National Assembly once he found out that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act, 2011 for petroleum subsidy payments was not sufficient.
3.26     My Lord, we adopt our foregoing arguments in support of Questions 1 – 4 above herein. In addition, we contend that the 1st Defendant is under a compulsory obligation under section 81(4) of the Constitution to present before the National Assembly a supplementary appropriation bill in respect of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion and the actual amount of N2, 587, 087, 000, 000.00 actually withdrawn and spent on subsidy payments in the 2011 fiscal year.
The Constitution has envisioned that there may be situations of shortfall or insufficiency in the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act. The Constitution has therefore created means of salvaging such occurrence. Section 81(4) of the Constitution, in unambiguous terms, provides thus;
“(4) If in respect of any financial year it is found that –
(a) the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act for any purpose is insufficient; or
(b) a need has arisen for expenditure for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by the Act,
a supplementary estimate showing the sums required shall be laid before each House of the National Assembly and the heads of any such expenditure shall be included in a Supplementary Appropriation Bill”
3.27     We argue further that the gravamen of the foregoing provision is that without a supplementary estimate of the sums required to make up for the shortfall or insufficiency in the Appropriation Act being laid before each House of the national Assembly, the 1st Defendant cannot make any withdrawals from either the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other Public Fund of the Federation for any expenditure which is over and above the amount originally appropriated by the Appropriation Act. The Constitutional duty imposed on the 1st Defendant by the Constitution therefore fetters the discretion of the 1st Defendant to spend in excess of the appropriation.
3.28     The 1st Defendant took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended). Where the Constitution has placed a duty on the 1st Defendant, such duty cannot therefore be circumscribed. In the case of A.G Lagos State v. A.G Federation (2004)15 NWLR (Part 904)1 S.C, the apex court held as follows:
‘’ the President, by virtue of the oaths of office which he took on assumption of office, is bound to protect and defend the constitution. In addition, the executive powers of the federation is vested in the President by Section 5(1) (a) of the Constitution and such powers extend to the execution and maintenance of the constitution. Such powers do not by any means permit the President to commit illegality’’
3.29     We urge the Court to hold that there is a compulsory duty on the 1st Defendant to present before the National Assembly a supplementary appropriation bill in respect of the difference between the appropriated sum of N245Billion and the actual amount of N2, 587, 087, 000, 000.00 actually withdrawn and spent on subsidy payments in the 2011 fiscal year.
ARGUMENT ON RELIEF 6
4.0.      In view of our arguments on questions 1 to 5 above, we urge your Lordship to grant all the prayers and/or reliefs sought by the Plaintiff.
4.1.       By our Relief 6, we seek a declaration that the act of the 1st Defendant in withdrawing the unappropriated sum of N2,587,087,000,000.00 (Two Trillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Seven Billion and Eighty Seven Million Naira) only from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation or any other public fund of the federation (instead of the sum of N245 Billion authorized by the Appropriation Act, 2011)  to allegedly meet petroleum subsidy payments for the 2011 financial year in contravention of fiscal provisions of the 1999 Constitution (As amended) (particularly sections 80 and 81) constitutes an act of gross misconduct which is an impeachable offence by virtue of the provisions of Section 143(11) of the 1999 Constitution and the decision of Tobi JSC in Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) p. 423.
4.2.      The BIG QUESTION being addressed by this prayer is whether the fiscal provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria permit the President to authorize the withdrawal of funds EXCEEDING the sum appropriated by the Appropriation Act from the Consolidated Revenue Funds or any public funds of the Federation for any of the heads of expenditure contained in the Appropriation Act. In the case of A.G Lagos State v. A.G Federation (2004)15 NWLR (Part 904)1 S.C, the apex court held as follows:
‘’ the President, by virtue of the oaths of office which he took on assumption of office, is bound to protect and defend the constitution. In addition, the executive power of the federation is vested in the President by Section 5(1) (a) of the Constitution and such powers extend to the execution and maintenance of the constitution. Such powers do not by any means permit the President to commit illegality’’
4.3.      With the above pronouncement of the apex court, we submit that it is beyond cavil that the President of Nigeria is also subject to the laws of the land and is not permitted to commit illegality.
4.4.      Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution requires the National Assembly to remove the President from office where he is found to be guilty of gross misconduct in performance of the functions of his office. Section 143(11) defines gross misconduct to mean a grave violation or breach of the provisions of the constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the National Assembly to gross misconduct.
4.5.      Niki Tobi JSC in the case of INAKOJU V. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) P. 423 S.C held as follows:
‘’The following acts may constitute grave violation or breach of the constitution:
a.         Interference with the constitutional functions of the legislature and the judiciary by an exhibition of overt unconstitutional executive powers;
b.         Abuse of the fiscal provisions of the constitution;
c.          Abuse of the code of conduct for public officers………………
d.         ……………………………………………………………….
e.         ……………………………………………………………….
f.           ………………………………………………………………………
g.         Any other subversive conduct which is directly or indirectly inimical to the implementation of the constitution’’
4.6.      Clearly, Section 80(b)(c)(d) above FORBID withdrawals of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Funds or any other public funds of the federation without an appropriation by the National Assembly. We therefore submit that authorizing withdrawals of funds either from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public fund of the federation by the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces amount to clear breach of the fiscal provision of the constitution which Supreme Court had termed an impeachable offence
4.7.      We therefore urge your Lordship to hold that the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has committed an impeachable offence which the National Assembly can use as a ground to commence impeachment/removal proceedings against him.

5.0.      CONCLUSION

5.1.       We urge the court to grant all our prayers as per our Originating Summons.

Dated this ………. day of …………………… 2012.

……………………………..
Tope Adebayo,
Babatunde Ogungbamila,
Harrison Ogalagu,
Falodun Arifayan,
Plaintiff’s counsel
TOPE ADEBAYO LLP
3rd Floor, 79
Allen Avenue,
Ikeja,
Lagos. Tel. 08065824768; 016284627

For Service on
1. The 1st Defendant
The Presidency, Aso Rock Villa,
Three Arms Zone,
FCT,
Abuja.

2. The 2nd Defendant
The Federal Ministry of Justice,
Shehu Shagari Way,
Central Area,
FCT,
Abuja.

 

Culled from Sahara Reporters of Monday 14th May 2012

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: