You Can Only Critique a Judgement that You have Read
Thank you for contacting me to shed light on my “Opinion” on the Supreme Court Judgement on the IMO Gubernatorial election Appeal. Unfortunately, the piece you were referring to that was credited to me was not fully authored by me, and circulation was not authorised. I was surprised, when people started sending the opinion to me for elucidation. I quickly disclaimed that on my face book page.
Those Criticising the Supreme Court Judgement Are Wrong
My view is that, all the criticisms and attack on the personality of the Supreme Court Justices, are absolutely wrong and uncalled for.
We must maintain the dignity and majesty of Judges, especially as Lawyers. We must vindicate the authority, and reverence the office.
As a Lawyer, you are advised while carrying on cross-examination, not to ask any question that you do not know the answer. It is equally important that, you cannot critique a judgement that you have not read, and do not know the facts.
We must isolate the Court, from political influence. Yes, I was a member of the Abia Gubernatorial appeals. Should I have an opinion? Yes. But, can say that after reading the judgement which to date I am yet to read.
It is therefore, preposterous, that an opinion that was not authorised by me, is circulating on the Imo Appeals. I do not know the facts, have not seen the reasoning, and therefore, cannot comment on it. So, I advice you to ignore whatever opinions have been credited to me, and widely circulated. It was doctored and perhaps, ascribed to me, to give it relevance.
In Abia case on appeal, we were asking for a rerun, while I understand that in Hope Uzodinma’s appeal, he asked for a declaration, which he got. No two cases, are the same. The facts may seem similar, but it may have distinguishing circumstances. A court can only act on the facts, before it. It cannot go outside the case presented before it.
Computation of Results Another issue that some people are making issues out of, is the computation of results. It is not correct to say that the Supreme Court or appellate courts cannot compute/collate results, as some people have argued. Where evidence is evaluated by the appellate courts and it is found that some votes were wrongly excluded or wrongly credited to the Respondent, the Appellants courts have a duty to expunge those offending votes or add those results which were wrongly excluded. If the
“INSTEAD OF TEAMING UP WITH POLITICIANS TO DISCREDIT THE COURTS, NIGERIAN LAWYERS OUGHT TO BE WORRIED THAT, OUR COUNTRY RECORDS THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF ELECTION PETITIONS IN THE WORLD”
adding or subtraction will lead to a declaration of another person as duty elected, they have the powers to do so.
Criticism v Critique I am of the firm view that, it is absolutely wrong to criticise the Supreme Court Justices or any Judge at all, over any judgement. It erodes the dignity of the judiciary, and may amount to contempt of court.
A critique of judgement is allowed, and most times, leads to reversal of the position whenever the courts have an opportunity in the future to be faced with similar situation.
Our society must appreciate, the fine distinction between criticism and critique. Criticism is defined by oxford dictionary as the expression of disapproval of someone or something, on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes.
On the other hand, Critique is a detailed analysis of something, especially a literal, philosophical or political theory. It is also said to be a method of disciplined, systematic study of a written or oral discourse.
Therefore, in order to critique a work or judgement, you must have the facts and the reasoning, before you can come to an informed decision of the judgement. With respect to the Supreme Court, judgement, people are only criticising and not critiquing, and are therefore, wrong.
Finally, let me conclude by saying that, the Supreme Court should not be unfairly vilified - the work load is too much. Too many briefs and records to read. A situation where briefs are filed and exchanged within a stipulated time frame, is wrong. Records running into several thousands of pages, in more than 10 volumes. There is no way a slip cannot happen, when 10-13 cases are listed for hearing in a day. What time do they have to read those briefs, and relate them to exhibits? The workload is inhuman, and we’re talking about jurists, individually all above 60 years of age.
Recommendation I have been a member of an election tribunal as a tribunal member, and I have several years’ experience in election litigation. My recommendation is that, while the time limit remains the same, Gubernatorial election petitions should stop at the Court of Appeal level, with a panel to be headed by a Supreme Court Justice.
There are more jurists at the Court of Appeal level, to handle the cases. The Constitution and Electoral Act, should be amended to accommodate a Special Election Petition Final Appeals Panel. This could be hybrid of five man panels, made up of four court of Appeal Justices and one Supreme Court Justice as Chairman, to act as a final appeal in the Gubernatorial election petition.
Otherwise, the number of Justices in the Supreme Court, should, as a matter of urgency, be increased by an amendment of the Constitution, to ensure that, at any given time, there are complete three panels with not less than three alternates.
Ken Ahia, SAN, Counsel in the Governorship appeal at the Supreme Court
“THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT BE UNFAIRLY VILIFIED - THE WORK LOAD IS TOO MUCH. TOO MANY BRIEFS AND RECORDS TO READ. A SITUATION WHERE BRIEFS ARE FILED AND EXCHANGED WITHIN A STIPULATED TIME FRAME, IS WRONG. RECORDS RUNNING INTO SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF PAGES, IN MORE THAN 10 VOLUMES. THERE IS NO WAY A SLIP CANNOT HAPPEN, WHEN 10-13 CASES ARE LISTED FOR HEARING IN A DAY”