That it is contained in a law (not the Constitution) does not make it valid. The 1999 CFRN is supreme and its provisions have binding effect on all bodies and persons. Where any law is inconsistent with the CFRN, such law shall be null and void to the extent of the inconsistency.
The Supreme Court has made clear the essence & purpose of ex parte applications and the circumstances under which interim orders can be granted. Indeed in the old line of cases (from the golden era) led by Kotoye v CBN, the Court explained the transient nature of interim orders: 
In 1995, this is what the Supreme Court said per Wali JSC in Seven-Up Bottling Company Limited v. Abiola. I also did not see any ambiguity until now.
In time past, spirited efforts were made to get the courts to declare interim orders as unconstitutional by reason of their one-sided nature. The rationale behind the courts finding them to be constitutional was their TEMPORARY NATURE which means citizen rights are not infringed.
Lastly, in Brittania-U v Seplat the Supreme Court brought any ambiguities to an end by stating for the umpteenth time:
With each passing day I drift further away from actualising a long held passion of teaching law. How can I teach what I do not know? As I said, all of these is new learning for me, but I do not wish to learn. Not because I don't like to learn but because there's nothing to learn.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
