PROMINENT citizens have warned that the emerging trend whereby parties prevail on the Supreme Court to review its judgments on election cases portends anarchy and danger for the nation’s judiciary.
Those who spoke on the matter included a former president of the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), Ms Ayo Obe, along with other legal practitioners and scholars.
Main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) announced its decision to seek a review by the apex court in the land of its judgment that dismissed the petition of candidate of the PDP to upturn the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari in the 2019 general election.
The party is also seeking a review of the verdict of the Supreme Court that sacked Emeka Ihedioha as the governor of Imo State, with the All Progressives Congress (APC) standard-bearer, Hope Uzodinma as the substantive governor.
On the other hand, the APC is seeking a review of the judgment of the Supreme Court that nullified the election of David Lyon of the APC on the eve of his inauguration as the governor of Bayelsa State and paved the way for the PDP candidate as the governor.
Speaking to the Nigerian Tribune on Tuesday, ex-CLO president Ayo Obe said the resort to seek review of the Supreme Court judgment was unhealthy since it is the highest court of the land.
She said the emerging trend was as a result of a narrative being orchestrated by some elements that the apex court erred in its judgment without substantiating such claims, but based on frivolous political posturing.
ALSO READ: Court remands ex-convict for allegedly stealing cell phone
However, she said the media and the Nigerian Bar Association have a role to play to save the situation.
“The trend (resort to review by parties) is because there has been a sustained campaign by some elements to say that the Supreme Court got it wrong. That’s all I will say about it and the rest, I think the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has been a bit slow in reminding lawyers that you do not discuss pending cases. You can discuss the cases after the judgment, but when a matter is pending before the court, you don’t discuss it and start giving your opinion and saying what the argument should be and what it should not be. I feel the NBA has been silent on the matter; so, lawyers have been standing off,” she stated.
On the overall implication of the situation for the judiciary, Obe said: “I think some people are bad losers and their bad losing means they want to maintain a narrative of mistakes and so on. If there is a mistake, I dare say that the Supreme Court would be able to identify it and not.
“But I think you in the media will help us if you were to report what happened in the court beyond the sensational like the chief justice rose and went in to change this or the court postponed the judgment. We want to know the questioning of the counsel because sometimes that can tell us whether somebody is just doing something or whether there is real substance in the case. Sometimes, the way the questions are asked and answered can also make people understand that the court is not just behaving in arbitrary flashing; we will see it.”
Also speaking, Professor Akinboyede Lijoka, of the Department of Political Science, Ahmadu Bello University, (ABU), Zaria said the “Supreme Court justices are humans, and therefore not immune from mistakes. But for the court to now become an appellate court and at the same time, the final arbiter is dangerous for a fledgeling democracy like ours.
“If an error is made, the mistake should only guide future judgment, not for the court to reverse its earlier judgment. The following are some of its implications: one, frivolous cases will be brought to the apex court; two, justices will be overstressed; three, money will be spent unnecessarily on legal teams and logistics by contending parties; four, apprehension, as contending parties will be looking forward to hearing a favourable news from the apex court, and five, it is diversionary, as good governance may suffer.”
An Ilorin, Kwara State-based lawyer, Omodele Moses, said that the application for review by parties portends danger for democracy, because “It’s like we are inviting anarchy into the polity.”
Another Ilorin-based lawyer, Omotayo David Isola, however, differed saying the parties had the right to apply for the review of the judgment by the Supreme Court.
“As a constitutional lawyer, the political parties have the right to do that.
ALSO READ: How police officer shot, killed Makoko resident, witness tells court
“Again, the law is an ass; whatever the Supreme Court says may not be final. What the law says is final. In the Supreme Court judgment between Awolowo and Shagari in 1979, it was based on technicalities. In Bayelsa case too, it was based on technicalities, because even in the ordinary canon of law, it’s the finger that is guilty that the king cuts. You now rope the governor along with the deputy governor.
“In all respect to their learned justices, I beg to disagree but that’s subject of an academic exercise, but I would have disagreed with the learned justices if I had sat on that panel. I can disqualify the deputy governor based on alleged forged papers. It’s a miscarriage of justice to have disqualified the governor who’s popularly elected alongside the deputy governor.
“The Supreme Court judgment in recent times has been very recondite. You praise them today, you condemn them tomorrow. The mere fact that they are sitting on the bench does not make them oracle of the law. They only interpret the law subject to prejudice and conscience. Whatever the case, it’s subjected to further review.”
Similarly, ex-commissioner for Youths and Sports, Enugu State, Mr Ray Nnaji, said the application by the parties for the review did not portend danger to the judiciary and democracy, but would rather enrich the judicial system.
According to the legal practitioner, “Prior to the Supreme Court judgments on Bayelsa and Imo State governorship elections, many people were not aware that the Supreme Court could reverse itself. Political parties have the constitutional rights to seek a review of a Supreme Court judgment on an election petition they felt is not fair and just. But there should be cautious so as not to abuse it.
“What is happening is good for democracy and the judicial system as the judges themselves are now aware that many people know their rights and are ready to seek redress in the same apex court. However, I do not subscribe to the destruction of the property of judicial officers or being maligned like what happened in Abuja and Bayelsa State.”
Meanwhile, in a lengthy post on Tuesday, Lagos lawyer, Mr Femi Falana went arguing the jurisprudential propriety of the judgement of the Supreme Court which swapped the poll victory of David Lyon of the All Progressives Congress in Bayelsa State, with a judicially-enthroned governor, Duoye Diri of the Peoples Democratic Party.
Twelve days after the controversial judgement, a series of events and developments had culminated in the apex court being invited by the APC and its governorship candidate, to take a second look at the judgement.
ALSO READ: EFCC urges NBA to sanction lawyer for suing commission at magistrate court
Falana, in his review, held that the review application of the ruling party was a no-hoper, though the hopelessness of the adventure, to him, doesn’t validate the error of judgement committed by the apex court, in reaching its conclusion.
Tracing the genesis of the crisis, the senior advocate, writing under the banner of “why the law required pre-election cases to be decided before elections,” said, “In a unanimous judgment delivered on February 13, 2020, the Supreme Court of Nigeria sacked the Bayelsa State governor-elect, David Lyon and his deputy, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremieoyo who had run on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
“The election was nullified on the grounds that Degi-Eremieoyo presented false information to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in his nomination form for the governorship election held on November 16, 2019. Consequently, the Court directed INEC to declare the results of the election following the cancellation of the votes scored by the APC in the election. Barely 24 hours later, INEC declared the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party, Senator Duoye Diri as the new governor-elect.
“No doubt, the pre-election matter filed by the PDP against the APC and its governorship candidates in the Bayelsa Stare has been rested by the judgment, but it has since continued to generate reactions from a cross-section of the society. With respect, majority of people who have reviewed the judgment have not paid attention to the line of dichotomy which has been drawn between pre-election and election petitions by section 285 of the constitution as amended by Alteration Act No 8 of 2017.
Contrary to the belief of some lawyers, the said amendment has altered the electoral jurisprudence of the country. This review is essentially anchored on the implications of the effect of the amendment on pre-election matters.”
Pitching under the sub-heading “penalty for fielding unqualified candidates by political parties,” the senior advocate of Nigeria argued thus: “By virtue of section 31 of the Electoral Act, disputes arising from the information contained in the nomination form of a candidate contesting any election shall be resolved before the election is conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission.
“In other words, it is a pre-election matter which cannot continue to be heard once the election has been held. Indeed, the penalty for fielding unqualified candidates by political parties has to be meted out to those who are found to have violated the provisions of the Electoral Act before the election. I am referring to Section 31(5-8) thereof which states:
“5. Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court; High Court of a State or FCT against such persons seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.
ALSO READ:Lent: Catholic priest urges Christians to stand up, speak with one voice to stop killings
- If the Court determines that any of the information contained in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false, the Court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the elections.
- A candidate for an election shall, at the time of submitting the prescribed form, furnish the Commission with an identifiable address in the state where he intends to contest the election at which address all documents and court processes from either the Commission or any other person shall be served on him.
- A political party which present to the Commission the name of a candidate who does not meet the qualifications stipulated in this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of N500,000.00.”
Insisting that the appeal leading to Lyon’s sacking was pre-election which should not have the outcome from the apex court, the respected attorney further submitted that, “Since an unqualified candidate is expected to be disqualified from contesting the election, the pre-election matter praying for his or her disqualification has to be decided before the election. A candidate cannot be disqualified from participating in an election that has been held and concluded.
“Having regards to the fact that the nomination of governorship candidate and deputy governorship candidate is a joint ticket, Section 182 (1) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be qualified for election to the office of governor of a state if he or she fails to meet the conditions stipulated in the section, including the presentation of a forged certificate to the INEC. The same prerequisites are applicable to a deputy governorship candidate pursuant to Section 187 (2) of the Constitution.
“As far as Section 285 of the Constitution is concerned, a pre-election matter can no longer be turned into a post-election matter and determined after the election. Ex abudanti cautela, section 285 (14) of the Constitution as amended in 2017 defines a pre-election matter as a suit filed by an aggrieved aspirant or political party “…in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates for an election” or “…in respect of preparation for an election.” It is crystal clear from the novel provision of the Constitution that a pre-election case filed “in respect of preparations for an election” cannot metamorphose into a post-election case.”
A former minister of Education and Nigerian envoy, Professor Tunde Adeniran said the action of the parties amounted to adding to the burden of the judiciary.
“It is overstretching the judiciary. But then, the judiciary should be there at all times to address issues brought to it by the public. The unfortunate thing is that we suffer inadequacy in terms of numbers of those who are supposed to be there.”
He said the current move by the parties for the review of the judgment of the apex court indicated that those behind it “are working in the direction of undermining the integrity of the judiciary,” adding that, “sometimes, I see it as some people wanting to make a mockery of the judicial system.”
Also, reacting Chief Mohammed Fawehinmi stated: “My view is simple. The Supreme Court should not taint the unique image its predecessors have maintained over the decades since 1960. Even during the dangerous military era, the Supreme Court maintained its dignified and priceless posture. The Supreme Court should not allow itself to be dragged into the ‘politricks’ of the two leading political parties namely the APC and the PDP.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will today commence hearing of the application brought before it by the APC seeking for a review of its February 13, 2020 judgment which overturned its victory in the last governorship election in Bayelsa State.
Already, parties in the matter had been served with the notice for the scheduled hearing.
The disputed apex court’s judgment was delivered barely 24 hours to the inauguration of the party’s governorship candidate, David Lyon, and his running mate, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, scheduled to hold on February 14, 2020.
The five-man panel of justices of the apex court led by Justice Mary Peter-Odili disqualified Degi-Eremienyo’s candidacy and ruled that the disqualification had rendered the joint ticket held by him and the governorship candidate a nullity.
and then