Follow Us on Google
By Christopher Oji
Stakeholders in the judiciary have expressed concerns over dispensation of justice, especially the misinterpretation of law and technicalities by judges in Nigeria.
In their interviews with Daily Sun, stakeholders, while reacting to the verdict of the Federal High Court, Jalingo, Taraba State, which upturned the Supreme Court’s judgment in a suit filed by Senator Abubakar Sani Danladi in 2021, among others, expressed fears that judges might do more harm than good with controversial and conflicting verdicts.
Many of the commentators were at a loss as to whether the trial court erred in law when it set aside its earlier order in suit FHC/JAL/CS/1/2019, barring Danladi from participating in an election over alleged age falsification, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and if there are constitutional violations in the latest judgment of the trial court and the implications to the justice system and rule of law in Nigeria.
Sharing his thoughts on the issue, rights activist and lawyer, Monday Ubani, said it was sacrilegious for the lower court to vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court, unless on grounds that the trial judge was not aware of the existence of the apex court’s decision on the matter.
“It is purely sacrilegious for a lower court to vacate the order of a superior court.
“You do not do that in the legal profession because there is what we call judicial precedent.
“It is the superior court that establishes a ruling and it is binding on all lower courts.
“I see no basis of a lower court setting aside the Supreme Court’s judgment. It is sacrilegious.
“Some of the suggestions we are making as lawyers is that, if an issue is well established by the superior court on the same fact, the judiciary must put in place a process through which they diligently look at cases that come before them on appeal. If it doesn’t qualify for appeal, the court shouldn’t accept it,” said Ubani.
A senior lawyer who pleaded not to be named described the trial court’s latest judgment as “blue murder.”
He wondered why the judge granted his prayers despite knowing that the Supreme Court had made pronouncements on the issue.
“Already, aggrieved stakeholders have sent a petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC) over the issue but action is yet to be taken. Sani Abubakar Danladi has been waving the last judgment he obtained from the Federal High Court sitting in Jalingo as his defense to the Supreme Court judgment.
“When this case came up at the Federal High Court, Abuja, the court gave judgment saying that the earlier judgment of the Federal High Court had been set aside by the latter judgment of the same court and there was no judgment disqualifying Danladi from contesting the election.
“Funnily enough, the court, in its judgment, kept mum over the Supreme Court judgment. The court refuses to answer the question whether the setting aside of the judgment of the Supreme Court by the Federal High Court judge is not a serious violation of the Constitution, as provided under Section 287(1),” he said.
Reacting to the judgment by the Court of Appeal, a senior counsel in the case, Edwin Agbu, said it was shocking because all practicing lawyers knew that if the Supreme Court judgment dismissed a suit for being filed outside the provided time, the matter was final.
Agbu said: “It is PDP’s contention that he stands disqualified and cannot participate in the 2023 election. Now the Court of Appeal says he can, because the Supreme Court judgment was not on the merit of Danladi’s case. But, please, do not ask me the ramifications of this Court of Appeal judgment for the judiciary, democracy and orderliness in the society because they are scary to me.
“I do not want to delve into that for some reasons. All I can tell you is that we have received immediate instructions from our clients to proceed to the Supreme Court.
“We argued before the courts that the setting aside of a FHC judgment by another FHC was a nullity. This is because an appeal is simply a continuation of the case it seeks to appeal so that, when a case is appealed up to Supreme Court and judgment is given, the judgment of the lower courts are subsumed and covered by the Supreme Court judgment.
“In that scenario, the lower court’s judgment was no longer available on its own to be set aside so that, when you now purport to do so, you are truly setting aside the very Supreme Court judgment that has been delivered in that case.”
Already, the Court of Appeal in Abuja, on Monday, upheld the verdict of the trial court, ruling that it had jurisdiction to set aside the judgment of superior courts, if it was not delivered on its merit and if such judgment was based on statute of limitations.
Danladi was sacked by the court three days to the 2019 general election and stopped from parading himself as the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in a case filed by Usman Udi, Joshua Paaku, George Geoffrey and Tanko Muslim Munkaila against Danladi, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Dissatisfied with the judgment and realising it was an obstacle to his political future under Section 29(6) of the Electoral Act, 2022, Danladi, who appealed his disqualification up to the Supreme Court and lost, decided to file a fresh application before the high court in Jalingo to nullify the 2019 judgment, and had his way.
The fresh application, which was described as an affront to the rule of law by some legal minds, was challenged by the PDP on grounds that Danladi’s disqualification had been affirmed by the Supreme Court and so the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to entertain a matter already decided by the apex court.
However, the trial judge, Justice Simon Amobeda, held that the court had jurisdiction to quash its earlier verdict based on supporting documents provided by Danladi, which qualified him to participate in any election whatsoever.
Amobeda cited cases such as Supreme Court vs. Dingyadi, INEC vs. Okoro Ugwuanyi, and Kogi State vs. INEC in delivering a ruling in the matter.
Armed with this victory, the APC has fielded Danladi as its candidate for Taraba North Senatorial District in the forthcoming election, and the PDP has challenged its legitimacy pursuant to sections 285(14)C and 66 of the Constitution.
Observers worry that this development could undermine the rule of law, since there may be no end to litigation. They fear that, if allowed to continue, justice could become the exclusive preserve of the rich and powerful, at the expense of the poor masses that cannot bear the cost of endless litigation.
To them, the senator allegedly went forum shopping for a judge to rescue his political life because, under Section 29 of the Electoral Act, 2022, anyone barred by the court on grounds of a criminal offence could not stand for any election in the future.
They argued that it was a dangerous precedent for Nigerians as a whole, lamenting that, if allowed to stand, litigation would become an endless affair.
According to them, the latest judgment violated all laws on choices available to a litigant who wished to appeal or file a fresh case in seeking to set aside a judgment.
