Abubakar Malami (SAN), the Attorney General of the Federation and Justice Minister, who is the federal government’s chief legal counsel, said that his brief did not include monetary policy advice.
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) remained silent on the verdict for the second consecutive day yesterday, refusing to advise Nigerians on the next course of action.
As a result, Nigerians have yet to accept or spend the old notes.
Ondo State Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu encouraged the Federal Government to promptly implement the spirit and letter of the Supreme Court’s cash swap policy decision.
Malami could not be reached for comments yesterday.
His media aide, Dr. Umar Gwandu, was also silent on the minister’s disposition to the Supreme Court judgment.
Rather, he urged the media to educate the public that his roles did not include advising on monetary policy issues.
Gwandu said: “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.”
When his attention was drawn to a recent example where the AGF was categorical on the FG’s disposition to the February 8th interim injunction issued by the Supreme Court, Gwandu declined comment.
Malami had, during an appearance on a private television station shortly after the Supreme Court issued the interim injunction, said the order was binding on the FG.
He said: “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.”