As Supreme Court Reverses Sack of Three Governors...
With the setting aside of governorship judgments of the Court of Appeal in three states of the federation by the Supreme court, the need for the amendment of the law terminating parliamentary election at the appellate court has become imminent. Besides, it’s high time judges and justices who were not meticulous in their dispensation of justice are severely punished for judicial rascality and travesty of justice, writes
The nation’s judiciary has been battling image crisis for some times now with many doubting its ability to serve as “hope for the common man”. Many, including lawyers and some retired justices believes that the bench of Nigeria’s judiciary is not only corrupt but manned by incompetent judicial officers who got their appointment and elevation through nepotism and favouritism rather than merit.
Recall that Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad at a special court session on his exit from the bench of the apex court had bemoaned the high level of corruption in the Nigerian judiciary and had advocated for urgent reforms to remedy the situation.
According to him, corruption runs high from the point of appointment of judicial officers and up to the quality of judgments judges and justices at all levels deliver. Dattijo said that it has been in the public space that court officials and judges today are easily bribed by litigants, “to obviate delays or obtain favourable judgments”.
Muhammad on a sad note had lamented that, “the judiciary I am exiting from is far from the one I voluntarily joined and desired to serve and be identified with. The institution has become something else”.
Speaking further, the Retired Justice of the Supreme Court alleged that appointments have been polluted by political, selfish, and sectional interests. “It is asserted that the process of appointment to judicial positions are deliberately conducted to give undue advantage to the children, spouses and mistresses of serving and retired judges and managers of judicial offices.
“At the Court of Appeal, it is asserted, presiding justices are now being appointed out of turn. And there is the further issue of the unpredictable nature of recent decisions of the courts as well.
“A number of respected senior members of the Bar inter alia, citing the Ahmad Lawan, the former President of the Senate and Imo governorship appeals, claim that decisions of even the apex court have become unpredictable. It is difficult to understand how and where, by these decisions, the judicial pendulum swings. It was not so before, they contended.
“In some quarters the view is strongly held that filth and intrigues characterize the institution these days! Judges are said to be comfortable in companies they never would have kept in the past. It is being insinuated that some judicial officers even campaign for the politicians. It cannot be more damnifying!”
The above situation is best appreciated from the judgments of the Court of Appeal nullified and set aside last Friday by the apex court for being a flagrant abuse of court, travesty of justice and and a threat to democracy.
Presiding Justice of a five-member panel of the Supreme Court, Justice John Okoro, while lamenting the pain brought by the wrongly judgments of the appellate court and tribunal urged justices, particularly those of the Appeal Court to be “meticulous in doing their job” to avoid the kind of “mess” that the Kano governorship matter was.
Recall that in three separate judgments the appellate court justices had voided the election of Governors Abba Yusuf, Caleb Mutfwang and Dauda Lawal of Kano, Plateau and Zamfara states respectively on grounds of alleged unlawful nomination and sponsorship and deduction of alleged illegal votes.
The problem here was not just that the justices of the appellate court erred in their understanding of the law and subsequent decisions but that they
deviated from their own settled judgments as well as that of the Supreme Court to the effect that issues of party primary, nomination and sponsorship of candidates are not something the tribunal, appeal court and even the apex court can look into.
Like a former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Abuja Branch, Mr Moses Ebute, SAN observed, “Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal defiantly refused to follow the decision of the Supreme Court and thereby visited grave injustice on other PDP candidates involved in national and state legislative houses election in Plateau State.
“More worrisome, surprising and embarrassing is the fact that the same Court of Appeal had held and pronounced in the Presidential Election Petitions that whoever is not a member of a political party or is not an aspirant in the primary election of a political party, cannot challenge the nomination of a candidate of another party.
“How and why it didn’t follow its own decision leaves much to be desired”, he queried, just as he stated that, “in a plethora of judicial authorities, the Supreme Court had held that a refusal to follow its decision as the apex court of the land on similar issues by a lower court tantamount to judicial rascality. I say no more.
The lawyers were not alone in the condemnation of the justices of the appellate court.
The Supreme Court also lambasted the Appeal court justices over the quality of their judgments in the election petitions brought before them. Justices of the apex court including John Okoro, Emmanuel Agim and Helen Ogunwumiju, regretted that despite several decisions of the Supreme Court that tribunals and courts lacked the jurisdiction to dabble into the internal matters of political parties, some justices could still go ahead and sack a winner of an election on grounds of political parties’ primaries, nomination and sponsorship.
Delivering judgment in the appeal of Yusuf, a five-member panel of the apex court led by Justice John Okoro, in reversing the sack of the New Nigerian People’s Party (NNPP’s) Kano state gubernatorial candidate held that the Court of Appeal was wrong in affirming the judgment of the tribunal which held that Yusuf did not win majority of lawful votes cast at the March, 2023 election in Kano State.
The apex court in determining the case raised two issues; whether the lower court was right in deducting the 165000 votes and whether the lower court was right in entertaining the issue of membership of political parties.
According to Justice Okoro, the tribunal was wrong in deducting 165,616 votes accrued to Yusuf at the election on grounds that the ballot papers were not signed and stamped by officials of INEC.
In addition, the court held that Section 71 of the Electoral Act relied upon by the lower court to deduct the alleged disputed votes does not apply in the instant case.
“The provision does not refer to any regulation or action at the polling units”, he said, adding that the provision was to the exclusion of ballot papers.
Having so held, the apex court went ahead to restore the deducted 165,616 votes to reinstate the victory of Yusuf at the governorship election.
“The decision of the trial court cannot stand, all the ballot papers are hereby restored”, adding that the evidence did not show that the appellant interfered with the ballot papers not signed.
On the second issue, the apex court also faulted the Court of Appeal for holding that Yusuf was not a member of the NNPP as at the time he contested the election, adding that the issue of nomination and sponsorship is a pre-election matter and outside the jurisdiction of the court.
Besides, Okoro observed that contrary to the appellate court, the tribunal never held that Yusuf was not qualified to contest the poll but that his name was not in the NNPP’s membership register submitted to INEC.
The apex court subsequently set aside the judgment of the two lower courts for being perverse and restored the electoral victory of Yusuf.
Similarly, the apex court also set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which voided the election of Governor Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau state, on the same grounds that the appellate court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the issue of nomination and sponsorship.
The Supreme Court also lambasted the Appeal court justices over the quality of their judgments in the election petitions brought before them. Justices of the apex court including John Okoro, Emmanuel Agim and Helen Ogunwumiju, regretted that despite several decisions of the Supreme Court that tribunals and courts lacked the jurisdiction to dabble into the internal matters of political parties, some justices could still go ahead and sack a winner of an election on grounds of political parties’ primaries, nomination and sponsorship.