NASS to challenge court's judgment on 1999 Constitution.

The Senate said on Monday that it would appeal against a Lagos Federal High Court judgment that the 1999 Constitution (first Alteration) amendment required presidential assent to become law.

The court ruled that the amendment to the 1999 Constitution by the National Assembly required President Goodluck Jonathan’s assent to become operational.

The court, presided over by Justice Okechukwu Okeke, also ruled that the purported amendment to the Constitution remained inchoate until it was presented to the President for his assent and approval.

The court, therefore, declared the 2010 Constitution Amendment Act as null and void.

Olisa Agbakoba sued the National Assembly and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke, challenging the legality of the claim by the lawmakers that President Jonathan's assent was not required before the amendment to the Constitution could become operational.

But Senate Spokesperson, Ayogu Eze, on Monday in Abuja said the National Assembly respected the court’s judgment but would file an appeal.

Eze said as a law-abiding institution and one charged with the function of making laws for the good governance of the country, we shall appeal against the judgment.

We believe that the 1999 Constitution did not envisage that any single individual should sign the alteration after the people have spoken through the exercise of their sovereignty.

We believe we were right in reaching the decision we did. One should have asked why the governors did not sign the amendment at the time it went to the states for approval.

We were also guided by practice and conventions of other older democracies.

He explained that the U.S. passed through the same argument after the Congress passed the Bill of Rights but the Supreme Court in that country ruled that the assent of the president was not required to alter the constitution.

Members of the National Assembly embody the mandate and sovereignty of the people and the people speak through them. Sovereignty in a democracy belongs to the people and not to any office.

We shall, however, abide by the final outcome of the litigation. We shall definitely appeal this decision which we think did not reflect the spirit and intent of the Constitution,’’ he said.