Okiya Omtatah has asked the Court of Appeal to dismiss an application seeking to suspend conservatory orders that halted the implementation of the Health Cooperation Framework.
In written submissions opposing the application, Omtatah argues that the applicants have failed to satisfy the strict legal test under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010. He maintains that the intended appeal is neither arguable nor would it be rendered nugatory if the stay orders are declined.
Omtatah contends that the High Court ruling being challenged was purely interlocutory and preservative in nature, stressing that the judge made no final findings on the constitutionality of the Framework. He says the court merely preserved the status quo after finding that the petition raised serious constitutional questions that risked being rendered academic if implementation proceeded before full hearing and determination.
He further submits that the conservatory orders are not punitive but protective, aimed at safeguarding the substratum of the petition. According to Omtatah, the case raises weighty concerns on public participation, parliamentary oversight, data protection, public finance management, and devolution.
Addressing claims that the suspension undermines public interest and creates urgency, Omtatah dismisses the assertions as exaggerated and speculative. He argues that no credible evidence has been placed before the court to show that the freeze would cripple healthcare services, noting that the applicants’ own affidavits confirm the Framework is a new arrangement and not a continuation of existing programmes, which remain funded under current mechanisms.
Omtatah also challenges the arguability of the intended appeal, stating that claims of procedural unfairness are contradicted by the court record. He insists that executive action in foreign relations is subject to constitutional scrutiny and argues that despite being labelled “non-binding,” the Framework imposes mandatory obligations and financial commitments, effectively qualifying it as a treaty requiring parliamentary ratification.
On whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory, Omtatah submits that the applicants have not demonstrated any irreparable prejudice, pointing out that the Framework can still be implemented if the appeal ultimately succeeds. He warns, however, that allowing implementation to proceed now would occasion irreversible constitutional violations, particularly in relation to data protection, public finance, and devolution.
He has urged the Court of Appeal to find that public interest overwhelmingly lies in upholding constitutional compliance, transparency, and the rule of law, rather than expediency.
