Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Mike Ahamba has called for an investigation into the two years adjournment of an appeal in respect of the controversial Gwandu Emirate headship tussle by the Supreme Court.
The apex court had on November 29, 2021, adjourned proceedings in the appeal to November 23, 2023.
The multiple appeals are challenging the five-year-old order of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto division, which reinstated HRH Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo as the 19th Emir of Gwandu.
Other lawyers who spoke on the issue have equally decried the long adjournment and called for the creation of the regional Supreme Court to decongest the backlog of appeals pending before the apex court.
Justices on the panel that ordered the 2 years adjournment were Olukayode Ariwoola (presiding), Amina Augie, John Inyang Okoro, Abdu Aboki and Emmanuel Agim.
However, responding to the long adjournment, Chief Ahamba called on the Bar to convene a discussion on the issue and to investigate the real causes of long adjournments and delay in dispensation of justice, particularly at the Supreme Court, with a view to finding a solution in the interest of Justice.
“Our courts are congested, the Supreme Court too is congested with appeals. Nobody can explain, they say it’s workload, but one has to investigate the causes of long adjournments”.
“We must find out why it is so now. I hope the Bar will one day call for a discussion on the issue. The truth is that the Supreme Court is congested.
On his part, an Abuja- based legal practitioner, Innocent Da’agba blamed the country’s procedural law and court system for the delay in justice dispensation as he advocated for the creation of a regional Supreme Court.
Daagba posited that when you unbundle the Supreme Court by creating Regional Divisions, cases like land disputes, chieftaincy matters etc emanating from certain regions will terminate at the regional Supreme Courts, thereby reducing appeals and workload at the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
“Some of us have been clamouring for the establishment of regional Courts of Appeal and regional Supreme Courts so that certain matters will terminate there”.
“I feel for the Supreme Court, I believe it is the busiest in the world.
“By our constitutional making, every conceivable appeal goes to the Supreme Court, and this causes long adjournments, which in turn delay justice delivery.
“To ensure quick dispensation of justice, we must create regional Supreme Courts and give them the power to terminate certain proceedings there.
Daagba noted that long adjournment of cases by the Supreme Court may have been due to heavy workload, but he insisted that “Nigeria’s law is too procedurally inclined than substantive law”.
He posited that due to the country’s procedural structure, every little interlocutory application, most times, find its way on appeal at the Supreme Court.
“We need to rework our court system. For instance, a land case in Benue, Ekiti or Ebonyi states, why can’t it terminate at the Regional Appeal or Supreme Court. Why bringing it to the Supreme Court of Nigeria to encumber the apex court” Daagba queried.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ishaka Dikko admitted that justice delivery in the country is characterized by incessant delays due to the psyche of Nigerians, the structure of the Constitution as well as the way and manner lawyers practice law in Nigeria.
“Quick dispensation of justice to my mind will remain a mirage in Nigeria until our constitutional structure is changed, and the psyche of Nigerians changed, and lawyers too, change the way and manner they practice law in Nigeria”.
Though Dikko noted that the Supreme Court is overworked due to heavy workload, however, he said: “the procedural structure of law that allows appeal to be filed on every trivial issue is not helping matters”.
It would be recalled that the protracted Gwandu Emirate headship tussle commenced in 2005, and in what was described as “unusual” in legal circles, the Supreme Court had to adjourn its hearing on November 29, 2021, in deference to a fresh appeal filed by one of the appellants at a court below.
The November 29, sitting was for the court to hear a motion for substitution of the names of deceased kingmakers in the three appeals marked SC2/2013 (Attorney-General of Kebbi State and others against Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo);
SC314/2016(Alhaji Muhammadu Iliyasu Bashar against Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo & anor); and SC266/2017(Governor of Kebbi State and others against Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo. The briefs for the appeals were filed in 2019 and consolidated.
HRH Jokolo was deposed in 2005 and he promptly went to court to challenge his dethronement.
In 2014, a Kebbi State High Court 6, sitting in Birnin Kebbi, ordered his immediate reinstatement, having been satisfied he was illegally deposed.
In his ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Abbas Ahman said the deposition was contrary to law and that due process was not followed.
Not satisfied with the judgement, Kebbi State Government and Jokolo’s successor, filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Kebbi State High Court.
In a unanimous judgement passed in April 2016, the three judges of the appellate court led by Justice Tunde Awotoye held that the 2005 deposition of the Emir by the then Governor of the state, Senator Adamu Aliero contravened sections 6 and 7 of the Chief Appointment and Deposition Law of the State because the Governor neither made an inquiry into the allegation against the Emir nor consulted the Kebbi State’s Council of Chiefs before arriving at his decision.
The Kebbi State Government and Jokolo’s successor approached the Supreme Court for a final decision. Specifically, the appeals before the Supreme Court are aimed at reviewing the verdicts of the two lower courts to affirm or deny that Kebbi State Government contravened sections 6 and 7 of the Chief Appointment and Deposition Law of the state because the governor neither made an inquiry into the allegation against the Emir nor consulted the state’s council of chiefs before arriving at his decision.
