On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the use of the old 200, 500, and 1000 naira notes.
The supreme court maintained that the February 8 hearing, which halted the implementation of the February 10 deadline ban on the use of old naira notes, continued.
Following a complaint from Abdulhakeem Mustapha (SAN), an attorney representing the states of Kaduna, Kogi, and Zamfara, the court provided an explanation.
Last Wednesday, a seven-member Supreme Court panel ruled unanimously to issue an interim injunction preventing the Federal Government from implementing the February 10 deadline set by the Central Bank of Nigeria for the replacement of the old naira notes.
The judgment came as a result of a motion ex parte filed by Kaduna, Kogi, and Zamfara, three northern states, on February 3 and seeking to halt the CBN’s policy implementation.
The Supreme Court postponed a hearing in the case against the use of the old naira until Wednesday, February 22, 2023, on Wednesday (today).
This comes after nine states joined the Kogi, Kaduna, and Zamfara states’ initial lawsuit.
There are now ten plaintiffs in the states of Katsina, Lagos, Cross River, Ogun, Ekiti, Ondo, and Sokoto. Bayelsa and Edo, on the other hand, have applied to join as respondents.
They were ordered to change their procedures so that they could be heard together by the seven-member panel headed by Justice John Okoro.
Mustapha, on the other hand, stated during the proceeding that the apex government and its agencies allegedly directed the rejection of the old notes, violating the February 8 court order.
He claims that the plaintiff submitted a notice of non-compliance with the February 8 court order.
The government has disregarded the order. This refers to executive lawlessness. He stated, “We have filed an affidavit to the effect that… We want the court to renew the order so that parties can be properly guided.”
Justice Okoro asked Mustapha to submit his complaints and submit a proper application in his response. He asserted that as a result, the respondent would be able to respond appropriately.
Okoro claims that because the court’s order from February 8 was made pending the outcome of the plaintiff’s motion for injunctions, there was no need for it to be renewed.
However, because the motion had not yet been heard, he maintained that the order continued to exist.