Appropriate Court To Challenge Monetary Policy Implementation In Nigeria: Why The Supreme Court Should Not Be Involved

By Manir, Faisal

INTRODUCTION

The implementation of monetary policy is a critical aspect of any country’s economic development, and the legal framework surrounding it is equally important. In this context, it is essential to understand the appropriate court to approach when challenging the implementation of a monetary policy. This article argues that the Supreme Court should not involve itself in monetary policy. Rather, the Federal High Court is the appropriate forum to address such matters. The article cites relevant sections of the Constitution of Nigeria to support this claim and highlights the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court over matters related to legal tender, coinage, and the Central Bank of Nigeria.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

Section 232(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court of Nigeria in any dispute between the Federation and a state, as well as in any matter between states, in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. This means that the Supreme Court is the only court that can hear and determine such disputes. Additionally, the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act 2002 expands the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by conferring on it the power to hear and determine disputes between the National Assembly and the President, the National Assembly and any State House of Assembly, and the National Assembly and any state government. This is so long as the dispute involves any question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. It’s important to note that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is different from its appellate jurisdiction. In its original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court acts as a trial court and hears evidence, while in its appellate jurisdiction, it reviews decisions of lower courts.

CONCISE ARGUMENT

It is my legal opinion that approaching the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the implementation of the 2022 Naira Redesign Policy of the Central Bank of Nigeria would be futile as it does not have original jurisdiction over the subject matter. The appropriate court to bring this case would be the Federal High Court, which has original jurisdiction over bodies corporate such as the Central Bank of Nigeria. This is made clear by Section 251(1)(d) and (r) of the Constitution of Nigeria (as amended). There is no reason to attempt to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court when the Constitution states that it does not have such jurisdiction and there is no Act of the National Assembly that confers it with such jurisdiction. The states that sued the federal government were not challenging the policy itself, but rather its implementation. Unfortunately, the implementation of the Naira Redesign policy is the sole responsibility of the independent body, the Central Bank of Nigeria. Therefore, the Central Bank of Nigeria cannot be directly sued in the Supreme Court as stipulated by the Constitution.

The Central Bank of Nigeria is an independent body that can sue and be sued in its own name, as provided in Section 1(2) & (3) of the CBN Act 2007. As the Constitution states, any party seeking to challenge the Central Bank of Nigeria regarding the extension of time for the implementation of the redesign policy, the gradual implementation of the policy, or the suspension of the policy should approach the Federal High Court, not the Supreme Court. This is the clear import of Section 251(1)(d) and (r) of the Constitution (as amended).

It is important to note that the Naira Redesign Policy is a policy of the Central Bank of Nigeria, not the Federal Government. Therefore, the Central Bank should be sued in its name, not the Federal Government. Judicial review, as elaborately taught by Dr. Suleiman Nchi of Nasarawa State University Keffi, is the optimal way prescribed by the Constitution to challenge the Naira Redesign

THE SALIENT THIN LINE

The Central Bank of Nigeria by section 20(3) of the CBN Act 2007 allows the Central Bank of Nigeria to call in any note and determine its legal tender status after providing reasonable notice and receiving a directive from the President. The law requires the Central Bank of Nigeria to get the directive of the President and in this case, the President has directed the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Central Bank has already started implementing the directive or has implemented the directive by making the policy. The question as to whether a reasonable time is given or not it a matter of fact.

The thin line here is (1) the presidential directive; and (2) the implementation. It is noteworthy that giving a directive is the duty of the president while implementation of the directive is the duty of the Central Bank of Nigeria. The States aggrieved with “the directive” of the President ought to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and sue the Federal Government immediately after the president gave the directive to the Central Bank of Nigeria and before the Central Bank of Nigeria formulate and implement the policy.

On the other hand, a party aggrieved with “the implementation” of the presidential directive cannot go to the Supreme Court but the Federal High Court because the Central Bank has already implemented the directive by printing the new notes and retrieval of 80% of the old notes.

In the matter between the Attorney General of Kaduna State & 2 others and Attorney General of the Federation before the Supreme Court with suit number SC/CV/162/2023, the governors of Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara States have stated clearly that they are not challenging the policy or presidential directive, but they are challenging the process of implementing the policy and the time frame. Therefore, since their concern is the implementation of the policy, the Central Bank should be sued in its name at the appropriate venue which is the Federal High Court. If they want to make a U-turn to challenge the presidential directive, it will be too late to revert to status quo ante.

CONCLUSION

It is clear from the relevant sections of the Constitution of Nigeria that the Supreme Court should not involve itself in monetary policy matters such as the implementation of the Naira Redesign Policy. The appropriate forum to challenge the implementation of monetary policy is the Federal High Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to legal tender, coinage, and the Central Bank of Nigeria. Additionally, the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies, as stated in Section 251(1)(r) of the Constitution. Therefore, any party seeking to challenge the implementation of the Naira Redesign Policy, or any other monetary policy should approach the Federal High Court, as this is the only way prescribed by the Constitution to challenge such policies and their subsequent implementation. It is essential to follow the legal framework to ensure that monetary policies are implemented effectively and that any disputes are resolved appropriately.

POSER

Was the Naira Redesign policy introduced on October 26, 2022, and did some aggrieved government officials sue the Federal Government on February 6, 2023? If so, would the limitation provision of the Public Officers Act apply here, which states that actions of this nature must be instituted within three months?

—Manir, Faisal Esq.,—Manirfaisal93@nigerianbar.ng