Follow Us on Google
Litigations arising from the last elections ended a fortnight ago with the Supreme Court defensively re-asserting its finality and indignantly deprecating and imposing exemplary fines on two senior lawyers. This marks what has been one of the most tumultuous seasons in which the privilege of high office often depended on the decisions of judges. The two sensational cases were the governorship disputes in Bayelsa and Imo states.
In Bayelsa, the Supreme Court unequivocally disqualified the deputy governorship candidate, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, who had question marks over the certificates he submitted to the Independent National ElectoralCommission (INEC) and which thus vitiated the joint ticket of the party earlier declared winner in the election. David Lyon had been declared governor on November 16, 2019. He was primed and ready to assume office and was, indeed, rehearsing to take the salute at the state’s parade ground the next day when the apex court’s judgment dropped like a hammer to shatter his hopes.
The Supreme Court was, to say the least, not amused by the Bayelsa appeal review petition which it quickly dismissed as lacking merit and constituted an abuse of the court process. Indeed, the court showed its indignation by describing the review appeal as regrettable and a deliberate desecration of the judiciary. Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Amina Augie declared: “I feel like shedding tears that senior counsel in this case (Chief Afe Babalola (SAN), and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) would ever bring this kind of frivolous application during my life time.” Both lawyers, famous and rich, were ordered to pay the sum of N10 million to each of the three respondents – the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Governor Duoye Diri, his deputy, Senator Lawrence Ewrhujakpor – as fine. Both have appealed to the National Executive Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association to intervene, arguing that they did not deserve both the fine and the harsh deprecations of the apex court.
On January 14, 2020, the day the Supreme Court nullified the election of Imo State Governor Emeka Ihedioha, the nation was shocked because it was utterly unexpected. Besides, the beneficiary, Hope Uzodinma, was not the next in terms of the number of yes-votes scored during the governorship election. Indeed, he came fourth and was considered a long shot. The subsequent protests against the judgment were nation-wide and spontaneous. There was public discussion of what was considered as the gaping hole in the apex court’s judgment. These factors led to an irresistible pressure to once again appeal to the Supreme Court to take a second look at the case.
The Court’s reaction was predictable except for a remarkable dissent.The Court’s seven-man panel split 6-1 with the majority treading the safe and familiar path re-asserting the finality of the Supreme Court judgment and declaring that the court had no jurisdiction to sit in judgment on its earlier decision. Six justices, therefore, dismissed the petition and declaimed powers to review the application. Justice Olukayode Ariwola who read the majority judgment said the application was an invitation for the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its own final judgment. Granting the request would open the floodgate by parties to all kinds of litigation.
But Justice Centus Nweze took the opposite view and argued that the Court’s January 14, 2020 judgment was a “wonder that shall never end” and that the Court should exercise its inherent power to revisit the case in the interest of justice and in order to redeem its image. Unless reversed the judgment would continue to haunt the nation’s electoral jurisprudence. Justice Nweze said: “When the appellant presented his table of exhibit, he mischievously excluded the votes of others and the court declared him winner. I am of the firm view that this court should set aside the initial judgment and restore the judgment of the lower court.”
Justice Nweze’s dissent seems to have acted like a balm on a wound, and many in the court’s audience cheered his conclusions. But while it is impossible to query the finality of the court, Justice Akunne Oputa, Justice of the Supreme Court, did acknowledge that the justices are not angels and are, therefore, capable of error which if pointed out, or a decision is judged to have been made per incuriam, His Lordships should correct. Cases like Kobina Johnson v Irene Lawanson (1971), Oluwafemi v Asha (1999) reportedly benefitted from such reviews. The strength of our legal system is trenched on the doctrine of stare decicis (decided cases). And yet when all is said and done, we believe that Governor Hope Uzodinma has won the battle. He needs to exert an even more effort to win the peace which would be more beneficial to the people and government of Imo State.
