Godwin Tsa Abuja

The Supreme Court, yesterday, refused to reverse its judgment that sacked David Lyon and Degi-Eremieoyo as governor and deputy governor-elect of Bayelsa State on the platform of All Progressives Congress (APC).

In a unanimous judgment, a seven-man panel of justices of the apex court, headed by Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, dismissed the two applications that sought the setting aside of the February 13 judgment that went against Lyon and his deputy.

Justice Amina Augie, who delivered the lead judgment, described the fresh applications that were filed by Lyon and his deputy, as well as the APC, as “highly vexatious, frivolous and gross abuse of the judicial process.”

It held that the applications were aimed at “desecrating the sanctity of the court,” stressing that it was an invitation for the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its final judgment in violation of the constitution.

She held that it would amount to violating the finality of court’s judgment if the applications were granted.

She said granting the applications would open a floodgate for the review of decisions of the Supreme Court.

“I feel like shedding tears that senior counsel in this case would ever bring this kind of frivolous applications during my life time. It is clear that the two applications lack merit and constituted an abuse of court process,” Augie said.

She said there was no doubt that the applications were aimed to review a final judgment of the apex court, in violation of Order 8 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Act.

Justice Augie stressed that the use of the mandatory word “Shall” in the said Order 8, was an indication that such application for review of final judgment of the court was bound to fail.

The court is not authorised and lacks the jurisdiction to review its judgment,” she held, adding that the applicants failed to either show there was any clerical error, accidental slip or commission, or that any aspect of the judgment that needed to be varied.

She said the aim of the applicants was to set-aside “operative and substantive parts of the judgment,” despite the provision of section 235 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, that gave the Supreme Court the final say in every appeal.

“Once this court has finally determined an issue, it is functus-officio. It is final forever, only legislation can alter it. It is final for all ages. No force on earth can get this court to shift its position on Bayelsa matter,” Augie said.