Supreme Court: Judiciary in Rough, Tough Times By Omoniyi Salaudeen

Supreme Court: Judiciary in Rough, Tough Times By Omoniyi Salaudeen

POLITICS DIGEST – There has been a seething cauldron of anger and emotion within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) since the Supreme Court nullified the victory of its candidate, David Lyon, in the November 16, 2019 governorship election in Bayelsa State, and asked the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw his certificate of return and declare the party with the highest number of lawful votes and geographical spread the winner. In line with the directive, Douye Diri of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was sworn-in as the governor on February 14.

The annulment of Lyon’s election, who had the majority vote cast in the poll, came barely 24 hours to the formal change of baton on the grounds that his running mate, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, presented false information to the electoral umpire.

The judgment of the apex court followed the earlier ouster of his Imo State counterpart, Emeka Ihedioha, and the declaration of Hope Uzodinma as the validly elected governor. And so, in a manner similar to the reaction of the opposition PDP to the loss of Imo State, the APC leadership quickly and spiritedly went back to the Supreme Court to seek a review of the judgment. The party further added a little pep to the scenario, asking for a retrial of the outright nullification of the victory of all its candidates in Zamfara State in the last general elections. The apex court’s decision was based on the fact that APC did not conduct valid primaries in Zamfara and, therefore, declared the candidates of the PDP who came second in the elections winners. In its renewed effort to challenge the subsisting order, the APC filed a fresh application seeking for the review of the judgment.

While the March 2 hearing date was still being awaited by the litigants, the PDP introduced a muddling dimension to the whole issue, accusing the APC of putting pressure on the judges of the Supreme Court to reverse their rulings on Zamfara and Bayelsa elections. Accordingly, it declared its intension to seek a review of the 2019 presidential election won by President Muhammadu Buhari as well as Kano, Osun, Katsina and Kaduna governorship elections.

A statement signed by its spokesperson, Kola Ologbondiyan, on Monday, reads in part: “Nigerians know that the APC has been going through a hemorrhage since the Supreme Court delivered valid judgments on Bayelsa and Zamfara and as a result, they are no longer interested in the logic of these judgments.

“They have since thrown caution to the wind to destabilize our nation and destroy our hard-earned democracy, especially the judiciary. The APC Federal Government is leading all forms of battles against the rule of law and constitutionalism.

“The PDP holds that our sacrifices for the sustenance of democracy, as demonstrated in our patriotic comportment towards the verdicts of the court on the presidential election as well as Osun, Kano, Katsina and Kaduna governorship elections tribunal, subsist.

“However, the PDP finds it ludicrous, ridiculous and insulting to the sensibilities and respect of the Supreme Court Justices for the APC to hurriedly and malevolently head to the Supreme Court to attempt to arm twist the lord justices to effect a forceful reversal of the valid, flawless and faultless judgments on Bayelsa and Zamfara states governorship elections.

“Consequently, the National Working Committee of the PDP, after comprehensive consultations, states that our party has no choice left, given the manner with which the APC has conducted itself, than to ask for a review of the judgment of the presidential election petition tribunal, where the issue of certificate forgery and/or presentation of false information in aid of qualifications was clearly established against the APC and her presidential candidate.”

This is obviously adversarial politics at play here and for which one may want to agree with Vera Brittain who rightly described “politics as an expression of human immaturity.” The most worrisome of all is the integrity of the judiciary which is being put on trial. The spirited moves by these state actors to rubbish the judiciary in their struggle for power, concerned stakeholders say, are clear lack of decorum and an unwarranted indignation. In the first instance, if the APC has a reason to begrudge the judges at the apex court for taking away Bayelsa State from its candidate; could it also hold them accountable for the rancorous primaries in Zamfara State that culminated in the outright disqualification of all of its candidates in the last election? Pundits have also questioned the moral justification by the PDP which failed to exercise restraint in its reaction to the Supreme Court judgment to the extent of seeking foreign intervention on Imo matter only to rush back to the same court for self-reversal.

While all this was being done, they probably forgot that the future stability and survival of the nation’s democracy lies squarely on people’s confidence in the judiciary. The situation has got so bad that hoodlums are now attacking judges in their homes. Bayelsa’s experience, where the home of Justice Mary Odili was attacked by some political thugs readily constitutes a clear and present danger.

Already, the Supreme Court in defence of its position on Bayelsa State has dismissed David Lyon’s petition, saying the court cannot sit on appeal over its own judgment.  Therefore, Justice Amina Augie, giving the lead judgment, Wednesday, asked the counsel to the litigant to pay N30 million fine ostensibly as punitive measure for bringing a frivolous suit before the court.

This may just be a tip of the iceberg. Some concerned lawyers, who spoke to Sunday Sun, blamed their colleagues for what they described as judicial misadventure. Dr Tunji Abayomi, a renowned constitutional lawyer and human rights activist, said: “The manner of rushing back to the Supreme Court for the review of its judgment is unprecedented as well as unwarranted. The Supreme Court is infallible because it is the Supreme Court. And there must be an end to litigation. When you go from the High Court to the Supreme Court, the expectation is that by the time you get to the Supreme Court, you must have got justice according to the law. Two, Supreme Court has no court of appeal above it. And once it takes a decision, it cannot reconsider that case again because it cannot sit on appeal over its own judgment or decision. So, rushing to the Supreme Court, in my mind, is an unnecessary adventure by lawyers. I will even say it is an unnecessary misadventure. The constitution makes it clear that a decision of the Supreme Court binds all authorities.”

He, however, cautioned the judiciary to be more thorough in taking certain decisions so as not to rubbish its own image. “But the judiciary itself has been going through what I will call a journey of low prestige for a while. How do you imagine a situation where a lawyer will stand at the Supreme Court as it happened a few years ago and accused the Chief Justice of corruption? We must also appreciate that rushing back to the Supreme Court is also a challenge to the Supreme Court to do a thorough job in its judgments. Judgment should not be to merely resolve a problem, but to set standard for the future. Under the present circumstance, the future of Nigeria as a nation is bleak,” he lamented.

In the same vein, a former chairman of Ikeja Chapter of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Ebun Adegoruwa (SAN), also raised a similar concern over the attempt by some legal practitioners to denigrate the judiciary. His words: “It is very distasteful and totally condemnable being an attempt to denigrate the sacred institution of the Supreme Court and by extension the judiciary. I count it as an evidence of greed on the part of politicians; an evidence that they are not going there to serve. But politicians have not done so much damage to the judiciary as much as lawyers they have paid to rubbish the institution that produced them. And these are very senior lawyers that we hold in high regard, who have collated facebook analysis and are rushing to court with frivolous applications capable of undermining the integrity of the highest court.

“I was very glad when the Supreme Court came down heavily on them. And I think that should not be the end of the matter. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) should take it up and ensure that appropriate disciplinary measures meted out to those involved in these practices in order to discourage others. If this is the way Graham Douglas (SAN), Chief Obafemi Awolowo (SAN), Chief Rotimi Williams (SAN), Chief Kayode Sofola (SAN), Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) had carried on the legal profession, we would have close the court by now.”

Supo Sonibare, also a notable legal practitioner, while expressing dismay over the unwholesome practice of lawyers seeking frivolous judgment, said: “I think, quite honestly, we should have some level of decorum. The way practice procedure has always been from the time I have been in law practice about 40 years ago, assisting Chief JK Ajayi, Chief Kehinde Sofola, all those iconic SANs, is that even when lawyers are not comfortable with Supreme Court judgments, there is always this acceptance of its decision as the final unless there is a major error on the face of the judgment. I would have thought that the best approach would have been to wait until there is another opportunity to present a similar case and find a way of differentiating the fact of the new matter in a way and manner that will bring about different conclusion in that related, but not the same case. I am not happy with the Imo case. It’s a curious judgment, but then one would not have known what the lawyers presented before the court. I don’t expect lawyers to be encouraging review of judgments of the Supreme Court unless there is a clear error on the face of the judgments.

“We should try to encourage respect to the bench in spite of its imperfection. We should bring some decorum to bear in the way and manner we approach issues before the court.  Confidence is always eroded when you don’t agree with the conclusions of the court of law. There is a presumption that those who exercise judicial functions are conscious of the fact that they owe the sacred duty to be fear in their judicial considerations. There is no society where you have unanimity in their trust for judicial system. But we have to keep on further deepening our democracy by more men and women of integrity occupying positions at the executive, legislature and judiciary because they are critical elements of a stable democratic society.”

With the unanimity of opinions of legal experts, it, therefore, goes without saying that these are rough and tough times for the judiciary. And the trend can only be reversed if political gladiators would exercise caution and restraint in their approach to issues so as not to derail the current civilian dispensation.

Via: The Sun