The Supreme Court on Saturday got the backing of a group, Patriots for the Advancement of Peace and Social Development, over its decision to decline the request to review its judgment on the Bayelsa State gubernatorial election, saying that rather reconsider election rulings, it should pay attention to such requests on death penalties because they involve life and death.
The Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) has, therefore, urged the apex court to throw away similar requests to review its judgments on Zamfara and Imo states elections with heavy punitive costs to the petitioners and their counsels.
In a statement issued in Abuja by its Executive Director Sani Abdulahi Shinkafi, the group charged the Justices of the apex court to remain steadfast and undaunted in the dispensation of justice no matter whose ox is gored.
The statement recalled that the court had affirmed that the All Progressives Congress (APC) did not nominate candidates for the House of Assembly, National Assembly and Governorship elections in Zamfara State in the 2019 general elections.
It observed that in the case of Imo, the court restored votes from 388 polling units results that were “unlawfully excluded and suppressed by INEC in a bid to declare PDP and its candidate winner of the election.”
According to the group, “for enriching Nigeria’s jurisprudence and deepening our democracy regarding the acute necessity of conducting primary elections; the Supreme Court deserves enormous commendation, not condemnation, over the Zamfara decision of May 24, 2019.”
It regretted that the court had been ridiculed and abused by politicians “simply because a politician lost his seat. A tenured seat of merely 4 years.”
Addressing the justices of the apex court, the statement added: “The orchestrated attempt by politicians to review Your Lordships’ decision in Zamfara, Imo and Bayelsa is a knee-jerk reaction propelled by desperation and tomfoolery. It is quite sad and unfortunate that this is the 2nd attempt to review the Zamfara decision.
ALSO READ: Group empowers mother of maltreated 12-year-old girl in Kogi
“We understand that on July 22, 2019, Your Lordships struck out the Application for Review filed by APC and its candidates in Zamfara. Why will the 3rd Application for Review be filed again over the Zamfara decision?
“Why will Your Lordships permit litigants to have a 2nd and 3rd bite at the proverbial cheery? Has the age-long principle that there must be an end to litigation no longer in force? The Latin maxim is famous: Interest Reipublicae ut sit finis litium – There must, in the public interest, be an end to litigation.
“We urge Your Lordships to remain resolute as a policy Court in seeing that there is indeed an end to litigation.
“If all litigants who lost out before Your Lordships are to be permitted to re-litigate their appeals, under the euphemism of Application for review, then convicts whose death penalties and terms of imprisonments have been affirmed by Your Lordship should take the front seat. The verdicts against them are matters of life and death.”
The statement posited that “their applications for review should take priority over that of politicians, whose terms of office is merely 4 years.”
While commending the apex court for the decision of Bayelsa state judgment review request, the group stated: “We do hope that the applicants in the Imo and Zamfara application for review will be guided by the approve pronouncement and promptly withdraw their applications.”
It further said: “Should the Applicants not withdraw the Imo and Zamfara Applications for Review, we humbly encourage Your Lordships to increase the punitive costs awarded against Counsel.
“Such award of punitive costs should be accompanied with the stipulation of a deadline within which it must be paid. Proof of payment should also be filed in the Supreme Court. We say so because we understand that these punitive costs are seldom paid.”
and then