Fatai Abiodun
The Supreme Court being the finality of adjudication has delivered judgments on the appeals that bordered on the last gubernatorial election. Some praised the Court for the judgment that was in tandem with the wish of the people and some opined that the judgment was devoid of technicality.
One sure thing is that the rule of law has prevailed and the supremacy of the court in adjudication has manifested in the wishes of the greater populace.
However, the judgment of the Supreme Court on the Plateau Gubernatorial came with a shock. The Tribunal and the Court of Appeal had sacked the Governor and many lawmakers elected on the PDP platform on the same faulty primary election.
In a unanimous decision, the three-member panel ruled that Mr Muftwang was not sponsored by his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the court held that the appeal brought by Nentawe Goshwe of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was valid as the issue of qualification was both a pre and post-election matter under Section 177(c) of the Nigerian Constitution and Sections 80 and 82 of the Electoral Act, 2022 backed by various plethora of cases delivered by the Supreme Court.
The court ruled that the failure of the PDP to comply with the order of the Plateau State High Court in Jos directing it to conduct valid ward, local governments and state congresses before nominating its candidates for the various elective posts was a breach of the law.
Departing from the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court held that the sponsorship of a candidate for election is an internal affair of a political party, and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
To my dismay, the Speaker of the Plateau State House of Assembly has refused to swear in the APC lawmakers declared winners by the Court of Appeal expressing that their judgment has been set aside by the Supreme Court, while some of their cronies are calling for the review of the judgment. Error!
The refusal of the Speaker to deny the winners of the Plateau State House of Assembly is another way to activate litigation on the matter that has been concluded, an action that is clearly against the Constitution he has sworn to obey.
On whether the Court of Appeal can overrule itself, per Ogunwumiju JCA (as he then was) now JSC in Onyekweli v INEC stated that misdirection or error of law judgment cannot be corrected, any order or the judgment made within the jurisdiction is not a nullity or invalid even if it is erroneous in law and in fact or perverse.
The Court in Belgore v Ahmed held that procedure does not confer jurisdiction, process does not, consent or agreement cannot, nor can a court assume jurisdiction under any guise even if it is in the interest of justice.
The Nigerian Bar Association must rise to its duty for the promotion and protection of human rights, the rule of law and good governance in Nigeria by calling the Speaker to order.
The Constitution has provided that the decisions of the Court of Appeal in respect of appeals (State and National Assemblies) arising from election petitions shall be final.
Where the election being questioned is an election to the National Assembly, the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal and no appeal from the Court of Appeal on a House of Representative election can be entertained by the Supreme Court.
This is the reason Justice Karibi-Whyte JSC (as he then was, of blessed memory) clearly adumbrated in Utih V Onoyivwe that where the Constitution has declared that the courts cannot exercise jurisdiction, any provision, in any law to the contrary will be inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution and void.
Order 8 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules enables the Supreme Court to review its judgment or ruling. This rare jurisdiction is limited to situations where there are clerical mistakes, errors that arose from accidental slips or omissions in the judgment, or where the judgment is obtained by fraud or where it becomes clear that the Supreme Court was misled into delivering the judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it.
The Provisions contained in the Constitution cannot be altered by emotion, protest or agreement but solely by the power conferred on the National Assembly by the Constitution itself.
Relying on the above judicial explanations, it is lucid and clear that the agitation by the PDP House of Assembly candidates in Plateau State alleging miscarriage of justice cannot hold water, and the agitation for review of the judgment of the Court of Appeal can only amount to aerobic exercise with no judicial values.
Fatai Abiodun writes from Abuja
