Electoral Act: Malami Insists on Implementing Court Judgement Despite Outcry, Moves to Appeal


THE Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, said on Wednesday that the process of implementing the judgement of the Federal High Court, Umuahia, Abia State, on the Electoral Act is still in progress.

Mr Malami stated this while speaking with State House correspondents after the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting in Abuja.

Malami’s insistence is despite the national outcry against the surreptitious nature of the litigation especially as the National Assembly was not joined in the litigation and has expressed the intention to appeal the judgement.

Justice Evelyn Anyadike of the Federal High Court, Umuahia, had last Friday declared that Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022 passed by the National Assembly was inconsistent with Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g) and 182(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution.

The section reads: “No political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election.”

A member of the Action Alliance (AA), Mr Nduka Edede, had approached the court for the nullification of the section on the ground that it conflicts with the 1999 Constitution.

Mr Edede picked the Attorney-General of Federation and Minister of Justice, as the only defendant, leaving out other important bodies such as the National Assembly and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with high stakes in the making and operation of electoral laws.

Mrs Anyadike agreed with the plaintiff that the provision violated the constitutional rights of Nigerian citizens.

Shortly after the judgement, Mr Malami, in a statement by his spokesperson, Umar Gwandu, appeared to have foreclosed any appeal against the judgement by declaring that the government will enforce the verdict by gazetting the Electoral Act with the “offensive provision” deleted from it.

On Wednesday, the Senate and House of Representatives said though they were not joined in the suit, they would appeal it. The House of Representatives did not only ask Mr Malami not to execute the directive of the court to allow it to appeal it, the lower chamber also vowed to petition the National Judicial Council (NJC) over the circumstances surrounding the procedure of the suit in court.

Some lawyers and members of the civil society organisations (CSOs) had also criticised Mrs Anyadike and Mr Malami over the decision toppling one of the most significant innovations in the new law.

But speaking on Wednesday, Mr Malami said the process of implementing the judgement is still on. “My clear response arising therefrom is the fact that truly there exists a court judgement.

“By the judgement, the court directed the Office of the Attorney General to take the necessary steps to delete the provision, which in essence implies that the provision should not form part of our laws.

“Whether it has been deleted, or has not been deleted, is indeed a function of agencies of government and associated relevant parastatals.

“But the true position of it in that respect, is the fact that government printers, and indeed Law Reform Commission, among others, that are responsible for the codification and gazetting of our laws, are working naturally, hand-in-hand with the Office of the Attorney General for the purpose of ensuring that what goes into our laws are indeed in line with the provision of the law.

“So, what I am saying in essence, it is indeed a work in progress against the background of the fact that the Law Reform Commission is involved statutorily, which is a parastatal under the Office of the Attorney General, is a party to the process of codification.

“The government printers, which are saddled with the responsibility of gazetting our laws on the request of the Office of the Attorney General, are equally involved. And above all, as you rightly stated, the possibility of an appeal is equally there.

“So, what I am saying in effect is deletion of Section 84 Subsection 12 is a work in progress and is being considered as such.” (NAN)


Let's Keep you updated


We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.


  1. The headline doesn’t convey the meaning of the response that the A-G gave. I’m not impressed at all that a national news agency reporting a national news that has the capacity of initiating a constitutional crisis is giving a wrong interpretation to such sensitive information. If Malami said that the process of deleting the relevant section is on, taking cognisance of a likely appeal doesn’t translate to him insisting that he will proceed to delete it. And by the way, no legislative body can tell the A-G which court verdict to obey or not … I hereby make an appeal that we should try to handle sensitive national issues with a lot of caution.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here