A move to reintroduce the 1963 Republican Constitution in Nigeria and repeal the 1999 Constitution has suffered a huge setback as the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Friday, dismissed the application.
Delivering judgement on the matter, Justice Inyang Ekwo, dismissed the suit for being incompetent.
Ekwo noted that the 1963 Republican Constitution is not an existing law and no action could be found to it as the applicants had done.
The applicants are Regent King of Diobu Kingdom in Delta state, Oziwe Albert, Wombo Bulus, Karim Sekanobi, James Kokomi, Danjuma Modu and Centre for Probity and Democratic Studies as 1st to 6th defendants
The applicants had sued the President of the Senate and National Assembly of Nigeria; Clerk of the National Assembly and Chairman Senate Committee on Constitution Amendment
They described the 1999 Constitution as an “expired military transitional constitution”.
They maintained that the 1963 Republican Constitution is the peoples’ constitution.
The applicants prayed the court to stop the continued use and amendments of the constitution produced during the military transfer of power to civilian democratic rule in 1999.
They, therefore, sought for an order compelling the NASS to re-adopt, the full operation with necessary amendment the partially military suspended and lifted foundational peoples’ made 1963 Republican Constitution for peaceful co-existence of all ethnic nationalities.
They also urged the court to award sum of N1 trillion in damages against the respondents for their illegal and reckless abandonment and abuse of their legislative duty in the use of expired military decreed transitional constitution as cover to oppress and seizure of the applicants protected rights to properties, wealth and natural resources for their personal gains.
They argued that contrary to their submission, the 1999 Constitution remains active and effective until it is repealed by the National Assembly.
In the preliminary objection filed, the respondents said the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
They said the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action or any cause of action at all against them.
