Naira ruling by the Supreme Court: Malami - I can't advise on monetary policy

Abubakar Malami, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, has stated that he is unable to advise the Federal government on monetary policies since such advice falls outside of his remit.

Malami made this statement in response to inquiries on the timing of the Federal Government's execution of the Supreme Court's ruling that the old N200, N500, and N1,000 notes will continue to be valid until December 31, 2023.

His media assistant, Dr. Umar Gwandu, encouraged the media to inform the people that his tasks did not involve advising the Federal government on matters of monetary policy when contacted by The Nation.

It is important that the educational role of the mass media be exercised in this direction. The media is an important tool for education and enlightenment. Let us use the media to inform the general public that the functions of the office of Attorney General do not include monetary policy regulation.

Gwandu declined to remark when his attention was brought to a recent instance in which the AGF was unequivocal regarding the FG's response to the interim order imposed by the Supreme Court on February 8th. Shortly after the Supreme Court imposed the interim injunction, Malami indicated during an appearance on a private television channel that the FG was bound by the ruling.

I think what we are talking about is not whether the ruling is binding or not binding; we are talking about what we intend to do. There is no doubt about the fact that the ruling of the Supreme Court, regardless of the prevailing circumstances, is binding and then within the context of the rule of law. You can equally take steps that are available to you within the context of the spirit and circumstances of the rule of law. And what we are doing in essence is in compliance with the rule of law both in terms of obedience to the ruling and in terms of challenging the ruling by way of putting across our own side of the story, putting across our case, challenging jurisdiction.

So the issue of obedience to the ruling of the Supreme Court is out of it. We are wholeheartedly in agreement that naturally, we are bound by it and will comply accordingly. But within the context of compliance, we shall challenge the ruling by way of filing an application seeking for it to be set aside. It is all about the rule of law.