Major General Muhammadu Buhari (ret.) was severely criticized by the Supreme Court on Friday for disobeying its earlier order to allow the old N1,000, N500, and N200 notes to circulate alongside 
The decision was made by a seven-member Supreme Court panel under the direction of Justice John Okoro. Emmanuel Agim, Amina Augie, Mohammed Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, and Tijanni Abubakar are additional justices who participated in the case. The Supreme Court found that Buhari violated the constitution when he issued orders for the redesign of the naira in the judgment written by Justice Agim.
Justice Agim stated that Buhari's broadcast on February 16, 2023, stating that only the N200 note should remain legal tender, made the nation's democracy appear to be little more than a pretense. This was in reference to the Supreme Court's earlier order regarding the new notes. "Let me consider the President's disobedience of the 8-2-2023 interim order that the new and old versions of naira notes continue to circulate as legal tender until the determination of the pending application for interlocutory injunction," Justice Agim said in his ruling. It is undeniable that the first defendant disobeyed the specified order.
"This disobedience is demonstrated by the President's 16-2-2023 national broadcast, which is reproduced here on pages 27 through 31. He gave the order to circulate only the old N200 naira notes in defiance of it. Interestingly, there is nothing to indicate that even that directive has been implemented. I concur with the ninth plaintiff that the first defendant does not have a right to a hearing before this court given that it has professed to respect the court's authority and the law, which is the source of the authority of the President and the government of Nigeria.
"If the President of the nation or any authority or person refuses to comply with court orders, the rule of law that underpins our democratic governance is rendered illusory. In a constitutional democracy like ours, the President's disobedience to court orders is a sign that the constitution has failed and that democratic governance has been replaced by autocracy or dictatorship. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and dismissed the preliminary objections made by the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, as well as those of the states of Bayelsa and Edo.
Cross River, Sokoto, Lagos, Ogun, Katsina, Ondo, and Ekiti states joined Kaduna, Kogi, and Zamfara on February 15 in suing the federal government over the naira redesign policy. Later, the states of Abia, Kano, Jigawa, Niger, Nasarawa, and Niger joined the lawsuit. Separate lawsuits from the states of Rivers and Abia were combined with the main one.
In order to fight the lawsuit, Edo and Bayelsa joined the federal government's side. The defendants had previously contested the court's jurisdiction and argued that the Central Bank of Nigeria, not the President or the federation, should have been the proper party in the lawsuit. Before ordering the CBN to issue new naira notes, Justice Agim ruled that the President should have consulted the National Council of States, the Federal Executive Council, and the National Economic Council.
The supreme court argued that when Buhari issued the order banning the old naira notes as of February 10, 2023, he exceeded his authority and rendered the decision illegal. It was determined that Buhari's unconstitutional use of his executive authority during the redesign of the naira violated the citizens' fundamental rights in a number of ways, adding that such a use of the President's authority was contrary to democracy and the constitution.
The President's wrongful use of executive authority resulted in unprecedented economic hardship for the people, according to the Supreme Court, among other things. The court previously looked at the defendants' contention that it lacked jurisdiction to make a decision in the case.
The court rejected the claim that the CBN should have been sued, stating that the decision of the President to redesign the naira, release the new notes into circulation, and remove the old notes without consulting Nigerians through the Council of States and the National Economic Council was being contested, not the CBN's action. The court held that the conflict between the Federal Government and states must involve law or facts, citing Section 23(2)1 of the Constitution.
The apex court further ruled that Buhari had admitted in his broadcast that the policy was flawed and faced numerous difficulties.
The court determined that the CBN did not need to be made a party to the lawsuit because neither the banks nor the CBN were targets of the claim, and the CBN lacked the authority to implement the policy without the President's approval. "I hold that this court has jurisdiction to decide all the suits," Justice Agim said.
In light of the foregoing, I hold that before the President issued the directive for the redesign of the new naira and the withdrawal of old notes, no reasonable notice was given to the public in accordance with Section 20 of the CBN Act, 2007. As a result, both the directive and its implementation are invalid.