Constitution Amendment: We’ve not been served – NASS…as FG files fresh restrain in Supreme Court

ABUJA – Despite media hype, the National Assembly is yet to be served with court notice on intention of the Federal Government to stop the legislators from going ahead to override President Goodluck Jonathan’s veto of the fourth alteration attempt of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended).
In a chat with journalists, Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu noted that the National Assembly has not been served any court notice on Constitution Amendment.
This is even as Senate President David Mark queried the rationale for the executive arm’s resort to court action over the matter.
“The President has taken a Bill to the court. It is a Bill at the moment, unless it is signed, I really don’t see why they are in court but anybody can go to court, so I can’t stop you”, he stressed.
Meanwhile, President Jonathan has intensified his effort to prevent the National Assembly from overriding his veto on the amendment of the Constitution.
The President, through the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) has applied to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining the lawmakers from acting on the amendment – the Fourth Alteration Act 2015 – pending the determination of an earlier suit he filed, urging the court to declare the amendment unconstitutional.
The President in the substantive suit (also filed by the AGF), argued that the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifth majority of members of the National Assembly and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the Constitution.
Part of the President’s prayers in the main suit is that the Supreme Court nullifies and sets aside sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 purportedly passed by the National Assembly.
In the fresh application for interlocutory injunction, the President urged the apex court to restrain the lawmakers from carrying through their threat to override his veto, even with the pendency of the substantive suit.
Among the grounds on which the applicant hinged the application was that the National Assembly was determined to proceed with passing the constitution by overriding the veto of same despite the fundamental nature of the issues raised against it.
No date has been fixed for hearing in the case.