Three weeks after it sent a petition to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) querying the political ambition of Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Mr. Godwin Emefiele, the Human & Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resource Center) has approached a Federal High Court to seek an interpretation of Section 9 of the CBN Act 2007, to determine the fate of the Central Bank Governor.
Emefiele has since dropped his presidential aspiration, but there have been calls for his sack, because he allegedly compromised his office.
According to a statement by its Chairman, Olanrewaju Suraju, the HEDA is said to have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja Judicial Division, to order the Plaintiffs to enter appearance or cause appearance to be entered for them by a legal practitioner in the suit it filed against them within thirty (30) days including the day the order was issued.
The Defendants in the suit are: Godwin Emefiele (as first Defendant); Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as second Defendant and Mr. AGF/ Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN) as third Defendant.
With section 9 of the CBN Act, HEDA in the suit seeks interpretation on:
1. Whether the 1st Defendant is allowed to engage in other business or partisan politics considering the provision of Section 9 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007.
2. Whether the 1st Defendant’s prolonged silence on the steps being taken on his behalf by his political friends and allies towards the 2023 general election does not conflict with his duties and responsibilities as the Governor of the 2nd Defendant?
3. Whether the 1st Defendant by virtue of being the Governor of the 2nd Defendant is not statutory barred from participating in politics?
4. Whether the act of the 1st Defendant being a registered member of a political party; the All Progressive Congress (APC) and nursing a political ambition does not put the 1st Defendant in a conflicting situation with his role as the Governor of the 2nd Defendant?
5. Whether the act of the 1st Defendant being a registered member of a political party; the All Progressive Congress (APC) and nursing a political ambition does not give the 3rd Defendant a valid reason to remove the 1st Defendant as Governor of the 2nd Defendant?
6. Whether the act of the 1st Defendant being a registered member of a political party; the All Progressive Congress (APC) and nursing a political ambition does not put the 2nd Defendant in a conflicting situation with its role as the custodian of electoral materials for the election.
7. Whether the act of the 1st Defendant being a registered member of a political party; the All Progressive Congress (APC) and nursing a political ambition docs not put the electoral process in difficult position with his role as the Chairman of the Board of Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company responsible for printing some of the electoral material by virtue of being the Governor of the 2nd Defendant?
HEDA said if the above questions are answered in its favour, then its prayers goes thus:
A declaration that the 1st Defendant’s engagement in partisan politics is in contravention of Section 9 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007.
2. A declaration that the 1st Defendant while being the Governor of the 2nd Defendant cannot engage in any other business, engagement or be a member of a political party.
3. An Order removing the 1st Defendant as the Governor of the 2nd Defendant for contravening the provision of Section 9 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007 in accordance with Section 1 1(2)(c) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007.
4. An Order Of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from parading himself as the Governor of the 2nd Defendant.
5. An Order of Perpetual Injunction against the 1st Defendant from being appointed to any public office in the federation for ridiculing the high level of trust placed on him as the Governor of the 2nd Defendant.
6. And such further Order(s) as the honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
HEDA has maintained that if the Defendant does not respond within the time given, such order would be made and proceedings may be taken as the judge may think just expedient.