Courts are meant to resolve disputes among litigants by interpreting the law. However, incidents abound where, rather than help resolve disputes, courts, either wittingly or otherwise, compound them, leaving each party claiming victory. Eric Ikhilae presents some of such recent incidents.
The court, ordinarily serves as the main institution through which the Judiciary carries out its core constitutional responsibility of law interpretation. And, in the process of interpreting laws, the court resolves disputes brought before it by litigants, who could either be natural persons or otherwise.
Ordinarily, courts are meant to resolve conflicts among litigants and help put issues in proper perspective by effectively interpreting the law, eliciting its clear, lucid and unambiguous meanings, and thereby, giving life to the draftsman’s true intention.
Of recent however, there appears to be a departure from this original practice. Court decisions tend to leave litigants confounded and issues muddled up. Rather than resolve disputes, some court decisions appear to engender dispute.
Such appears to be the case in the seeming unending dispute over the Anambra Central Senatorial district seat.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), like every other party, had, preparatory to the last general elections, held a primary on December 7, 2014 to choose its flagbearer for the Anambra Central Senatorial seat.
At the conclusion of the exercise, the PDP pronounced Mrs. Uche Ekwunife, then a decampee from the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), as winner. An aggrieved aspirant, Obiora Okonkwo went before the Federal High Court, Abuja to challenge the outcome of the primary.
In the suit he filed on December 23, 2014, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1092/2004, Okonkwo claimed to have scored the highest vote at the PDP’s primary election and sought to be declared the party’s actual candidate.
He listed as defendants, the PDP, Adamu Muazu (sued for himself and on behalf of the PDP’s National Executive Committee and the party’s National Working Committee) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
While Okonkwo was in court, Mrs. Ekwunife contested the March 28, 2015 National Assembly election as PDP’s candidate and was declared winner of the Anambra Central Senatorial election by INEC.
By the result announced by INEC, Mrs. Ekwunife polled 101,548 votes to defeat APGA’s Victor Umeh, who had 77, 129 votes and the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Chris Ngige, who came third with 20, 850 votes
She was issued certificate of return and subsequently assumed the Anambra Central Senatorial seat at the Senate.
Hardly had Mrs. Ekwunife settled on the Senate seat when APGA’s candidate for the election, Victor Umeh served her court papers, indicating that he was challenging the election outcome before the election tribunal.
In its judgment on October 8, 2015, the election tribunal, led by Justice Nayai Aganaba, affirmed Mrs. Ekwunife’s election, but proceeded to alter the final votes earlier allotted by INEC to the PDP and APGA candidates. The tribunal reduced Ekwunife’s final score to 93,300 votes and raised Umeh’s score to 85,898 votes.
Unsatisfied, Umeh headed before the appeal tribunal in an appeal marked: CA/E/EPT/28/2015. After hearing parties, the appeal tribunal, at the Court of Appeal, Enugu rendered its decision on December 7, 2015, voiding Mrs. Ekwunife’s election on the grounds that she did not emerge as candidate of the PDP from a properly conducted primary election. It ordered a rerun and barred Mrs. Ekwunife and the PDP from participating in the rerun election.
After a closer look at the appeal tribunal’s judgment, Mrs. Ekwunife, armed with several authorities, particularly some Supreme Court’s decisions relating to improper nomination and sponsorship, who could challenge the outcome of a party’s primary, and which court has jurisdiction over pre-election disputes, went back to the Court of Appeal, Enugu.
She filed an application and urged the court to reverse itself. Although she drew the court’s attention to its decisions in similar cases involving Senators Andy Ubah and Stella Oduah, the court refused to be swayed and in a ruling on March 3, 2016, held on to its earlier decision, ordering INEC to conduct a rerun election for Anambra Central.
Dissatisfied, Mrs. Ekwunife headed for the Supreme Court in an appeal marked: Supreme Court SC/204/2016. In its unanimous judgment on February 10, 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed Mrs. Ekwunife’s appeal on the grounds that it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to hear such appeal.
Justice Amina Augie, in the lead judgment, said: “Looking closely at the wordings of Section 246 (3), it is clear that the decision of the Court of Appeal is final. This court is completely bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
“Once the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment on a National Assembly Election Petition appeal, the judgment becomes final. For the umpteenth time, the Constitution does not approve of the apex court to entertain this appeal no matter how cleverly it has been framed.”
Meanwhile, while Mrs. Ekwunife was struggling to have her sack reversed, INEC, working with the December 7, 2015 judgment of the appeal tribunal, Enugu, fixed the rerun election for March 5, 2016. The rerun election never held. A lower court intervened and purported to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu.
Contrary to the order by the appeal tribunal, Enugu, barring the PDP from participating in the rerun election, Justice Anwuli Chikere of the Federal High Court, Abuja gave a judgment on February 29, 2016 in a suit by the PDP and ordered INEC to include the party and its candidate in the rerun election scheduled for March 5, 2016.
INEC rejected Justice Chikere’s decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal Abuja. Umeh equally appealed the decision. And on November 20 this year, the Court of Appeal, Abuja gave its decisions in both appeals marked: CA/A/160/2016 and CA/A/165/2016, and restated the December 7, 2015 decision of the appeal tribunal in Enugu, ordering a rerun, with the exclusion of the PDP and its candidate.
The PDP has since appealed November 20, 2017 judgment and asked the Supreme Court to among others, void the judgment and order its inclusion in any rerun election to be conducted in Anambra Central.
However, while Mrs. Ekwunife was fighting her sack up to the Supreme Court, and INEC and Umeh were challenging Justice Chikere’s decision at the Court of Appeal, the suit filed by Okonkwo since December 23, 2014 was stuck at the Federal High Court, Abuja, without it being decided one way on the other.
Mrs. Ekwunife late applied and was joined as the 4th defendant in the suit by Okonkwo, following which parties filed all necessary processes and adopted them, after which the trial judge, Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed adjourned for judgment.
Before the date set for judgment, the judge directed parties to adduce oral evidence to enable him determine which of the primary election results sheets, as presented by Okonkwo and Ekwunife, was the authentic one, and which the court could rely to determine the case.
Court documents revealed that parties complied with the judge’s directive and another date was fixed for judgment. But before that date, Mrs. Ekwunife filed an application to set aside the order of adjournment for judgement and sought for an adjournment to enable her call additional witnesses.
Although Okonkwo opposed the application, Justice Mohammed, in a ruling, granted the Ekwunife application. But, for unexplained reason, the judge later withdrew from the case.
Okonkwo later appealed against Justice Mohammed’s ruling, allowing Mrs. Ekwunife to call additional witnesses. The Appeal Court dismissed the appeal and returned the matter to the FHC to continuation of trial and allow Ekwunife to call additional witnesses.
When parties returned to the Federal High Court after the Appeal Court’s decision, the case was reassigned to another judge – Justice Okon Abang.
At the resumption of proceedings before Justice Abang, Ekwunife failed to call the witnesses she had applied for, but instead, came with a fresh application urging the court to allow her do away with the planned additional witnesses.
Okonkwo objected to the application and, in a ruling, Justice Abang dismissed it and ordered Mrs. Ekwunife to call her witnesses on the next adjourned date.
Again, for an unexplained reason, when parties got to court on the set date, Justice Abang recused himself from the case and returned the case file to the Chief Judge for re-assignment to another judge.
After some delays, the case got reassigned to Justice Babatunde Quadri, before who Mrs. Ekwunife failed to call her additional witnesses as ordered by Justice Abang in his last ruling in the case.
Instead, she filed a notice of preliminary objection, urging the court to, among others, dismiss the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff (Okonkwo) had no cause of action and that all aspirants in the primary election were not made parties to the suit.
After entertaining arguments from parties on the objection filed by Mrs. Ekwunife, Justice Quadri fixed August 3, 2017 for judgement. But, before judgment could be delivered, Okonkwo brought a motion, challenging Mrs. Ekwunife’s locus standi to be joined as a party in the suit.
Okonkwo argued that since the Court of Appeal had held that Mrs. Ekwunife was not validly nominated to contest in the election and as such sacked her from the senate, she could no longer be heard in relation to any dispute about the primary.
He urged the court to first decide his later motion before its reserved ruling on Mrs. Ekwunife’s objection.
In a ruling, Justice Quadri upheld Mrs. Ekwunife’s counter argument to the effect that Okonkwo’s request about dealing with his motion first amounted to arresting the court’s judgment.
The judge proceeded to give his ruling on Mrs. Ekwunife’s objection and refused it. But, rather than proceed with the case, Justice Quadri withdrew. Okonkwo also appealed the judge’s last ruling.
But, before the Court of Appeal could decide his appeal, Okonkwo withdrew it and, instead went back before the Federal High Court with a motion on notice filed on June 20, 2017 asking the court to among others, enter judgment in his favour.
In the motion, Okonkwo stated that parties, “on May 18, 2017, agreed that the court hear the suit as originating summons by readopting their processes together with the motion on notice filed by the 4th defendant, challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
“That by this agreement, all the parties do no longer wish to call oral evidence as per the judgment of the Court of Appeal in appeal No: CA/A/173/2016 by Obiora Okonkwo.
“That on the same May 18, 2017 the 1st and 2nd respondents (PDP and Adamu Muazu) withdrew all their defence and processes they filed in the suit and submitted to judgment in favour of the plaintiff/applicant vide their affidavit of facts filed.
“There must be an end to litigation and the end for the litigation for the validly nominated candidate of the PDP, who won the PDP primary election and National Assembly election will end by entering judgment in favour of the plaintiff/applicant upon the admission of his claims by the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents and by implication, the 4th defendant/respondent, who has no locus standi to activate the jurisdiction of this court, and she is also relying on the same documents withdrawn by the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents.
“The 3rd defendant/respondent (INEC) is a neutral party, which has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the claims of the plaintiff/applicant.”
The judge to which the case was reassigned to, Justice John Tsoho decided Okonkwo’s fresh motion on December 13, 217 and granted some of his reliefs.
Justice Tsoho held that Okonkwo was validly nominated by the PDP in its primary election of December 7, 2014 for Anambra Central Senatorial district held at the Ekweme Square, Awka.
The judge ordered the Senate President to forthwith, inaugurate Okonkwo to take over the Anambra Central Senatorial District seat in the Senate. He also ordered that the certificates of return earlier issued to Ekwenife (if there is still anyone left) be withdrawn and a fresh one be issued to Okonkwo by INEC.
Every interested party to the Anambra Central Senatorial seat appeared to have been thrown into a quandary of sort since the December 13 judgment.
While asking INEC to issue him a certificate of return, as ordered by Justice Tsoho, INEC is unsure whether to proceed with its January 13, 2018 planned rerun election, which it scheduled shortly after the November 20, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeal Abuja.
INEC has since applied to the Federal High Court, asking Justice Tsoho to review his decision. While the court is yet to fix a date for the hearing of INEC’s fresh application, Umeh is of the view that Justice Tsoho is on his own and should not be taken serious. He said he was working towards the January 13 rerun election.
Okonkwo’s understanding of the whole scenario is contained in a letter of December 14, 2017 written by his lawyer, Sebatine Hon (SAN) to INEC Chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakubu.
Part of the letter reads: “we are counsel to Dr. Obiora Okonkwo, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate that won the party’s nomination to contest the March 2015 election for Anambra Central Senatorial District but was unlawfully and wrongfully denied the ticket, which ticket was handed to Chief (Mrs.) Uche Ekwunife.
“He is hereinafter referred to as ‘our client,’ and we hereby write on his instructions. Aggrieved by that clearly unlawful decision of the PDP, our client took out an originating summons in December 2014, challenging the actions of the PDP.
“Joined as defendants in the suit were PDP, then chairman of PDP, Alhaji Adamu Muazu, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Chief (Mrs.) Uche Ekwunife.
“In the course of the trial, however, counsel to the PDP and the PDP chairman; counsel to INEC and Counsel to Chief (Mrs.) Uche Ekwunife, all submitted to judgment, as per the claims in the amended originating summons and the motion for judgment filed and served on them by the plaintiff (our client).
“It is instructive to note that the motion on notice sought for consequential orders, including an order that INEC should forthwith issue our client with a certificate of return and that he should be immediately sworn in as Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“In the course of the hearing on Wednesday, 13th December, 2017, all defence counsel again conceded and submitted to judgment; hence the Hon. Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja entered judgment for our client as per claims in the amended originating summons as prayed in relief 3 of the motion on notice.”
The letter referred to the two judgments of the Court of Appeal and said they merely voided Mrs. Ekwunife’s candidacy, but did not void the election held on March 28, 2015.
It added: “The Court of Appeal, in that decision also held that the APGA candidate, Chief (Sir) Victor Umeh, could also not be declared winner of the said election, since he did not poll the highest number of votes.
“Therefore, that the Court of Appeal did not nullify the March 28, 2015 election into Anambra Central Senatorial District, but merely held that Hon. Uche Ekwunife could not prove her due nomination by the PDP.
“Now that the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1092/2014 has held that our client was duly nominated candidate of the PDP in that election; and in view of the settle case law that it is a political party as opposed to a candidate that wins an election, our client should, as ordered by Justice Tsoho J., be issued a certificate of return forthwith, to enable the senate leadership inaugurate him as Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Umeh however provided a contrary argument. He noted that Justice Tsoho’s judgment was given about three weeks after the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja had instructed INEC to within 90 days conduct the Anambra Central rerun with the exclusion of PDP as directed by its Enugu Division which quashed Uche Ekwunife’s election on December 7, 2015.
Umeh was optimistic that INEC, as a responsible agency, would not obey the high court ruling against a subsisting Appeal Court decision.
He added: “The Federal High Court judgment did not make any reference to the Court of Appeal judgment that nullified the election. It did not make any reference to the Court of Appeal judgment delivered on November 20 that ordered INEC to conduct the rerun election within 90 days.
“It did not say INEC should ignore those Court of Appeal decisions. What it simply said was that it delivered a judgment on who was the candidate of PDP between Ekwunife and Okonkwo.
“That was the judgment and he (Justice Tsoho) proceeded to make fallacious orders that Obiora Okonkwo should be sworn in. Sworn in on the basis of which election? An election that has been nullified?
“If the election had not been nullified, and he comes to the conclusion that Okonkwo was the rightful candidate of PDP, yes, he can order that Okonkwo should be sworn in.
“But in the present case, the election in question has been destroyed by the Court of Appeal judgment delivered on December 7, 2015, which nullified the election. And that is why the seat has been vacant till date.
“So, Okonkwo is not going there to replace anybody because there is nobody there. The election has been voided by the Court of Appeal, which is the final court vested with the authority to adjudicate over National Assembly matters. And that was what the Supreme Court judges told Ekwunife on February 10, 2017. They told her that they don’t have any authority to tamper with the judgment of the Court of Appeal; that the judgment is final. So, the election remains nullified forever.
A High Court cannot pretend that it is treating a pre-election matter and fail to recognise the fact that nobody can be winner of a nullified election. There is nothing for Okonkwo to claim because the election does not exist anymore. It has been invalidated,” Umeh said.
Is there still a live election?
Umeh’s argument that the election that Okonkwo seeks to inherit has long been voided is supported by two recent developments.
First is the finding of the Court of Appeal in its judgment of November 20. The second is the observation by Justice Olasumbo Goodluck of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in a judgment given few days before Justice Tsoho’s decision.
In the November 20 judgment, Justice Tinuade Akomolafe-Wilson, who read the lead judgment, said: “Where a court nullifies an election and orders a fresh election, a political party which participated in the annulled election, at whose instance the election was nullified, cannot field a new candidate to contest in the fresh election.
“This is because the fresh election does not entail an entirely new process; rather it takes the place of the annulled election, because the period of nomination of candidates has lapsed.”
Justice Akomolafe-Willson noted that it was not the case of the 1st respondent (PDP), at the trial court, that it be allowed to substitute a candidate for Ekwenife, who had defected from the PDP, but for the “erroneous notion that the court-ordered rerun election, scheduled by INEC for March 5, 2016, entailed an entirely new process whereby it is entitled to conduct fresh primaries and nominate a new candidate.”
She said it was unfortunate that the trial judge fell into a grave error by predicating her judgment on the ground that Ekwenife defected from the PDP. She added: “On the whole, having resolved the main issue in this appeal in favour of the appellant, this appeal is meritorious and it is allowed.
“The decision of the trial Federal High Court delivered on 29 February, 2016, is hereby set aside. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) (2nd respondent) is ordered to conduct a fresh election in Anambra Senatorial District within 90 days from today with the participation of the appellants (Chief Victor Umeh and APGA).”
On December 5, this year, Justice Goodluck gave a judgment in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1110/2015 filed by Barrister Chukwunweike (Chike) Maduekwe, who claimed to have been an aspirant in the 2014 PDP primary for Anambra Central Senatorial district.
His main claim in the suit was for the refund of the N4.5m he paid to the PDP for the expression of interest and nomination form. He said the party failed to hold a primary and so, he was entitled to a refund.
In her judgment on December 5, Justice Goodluck agreed with Maduekwe that PDP did not hold a primary and consequently, ordered the party to refund N4.5m to the plaintiff.
The judge said: “It is hereby declared that the 1st defendant [PDP] is not entitled to retain the N4.5m paid by the plaintiff as the PDP Senate Expression of Interest EO1 and nomination form when the 1st defendant refused, failed and or neglected to conduct the primary election to elect its flagbearer for Anambra Central Senatorial District.”
A similar confusing scenario also presented itself in the case over Kogi East Senatorial district. After spending over three years in court, with several court decisions, the situation is not yet clear who the actual winner is. Each party is claiming victory.
Like the Anambra Central case, this one also arose from a primary of the PDP held on December 7, 2014 at Idah Township Stadium, Kogi State. Retired Air Marshal Isaac Alfa claimed to have won the primary, but that the party substituted his name with that of Attai Aidoko.
On December 19, 2014, Alfa filed a suit before the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge what he saw as unlawful substitution of his name. The Federal High Court, in a judgment on April 18, 2016, held in his favour, to the effect that he was the authentic candidate of the PDP for the Kogi East Senatorial seat.
Based on the Federal High Court judgment, Alfa proceeded to contest the National Assembly as the PDP candidate and won, while Aidoko appealed the judgment at the Court of Appeal, Abuja with a notice of appeal dated April 20, 2016.
On December 14, 2016, after Alfa had assumed office as the Senator representing Kogi East, the Court of Appeal gave its judgment in the appeal by Aidoko, marked: CA/A/260/2016. The appellate court set aside the April 18, 2016 judgment of the Federal High Court on the grounds that the trial court wrongly assumed jurisdiction and that the suit was wrongly commenced.
The Court of Appeal said among others, that pleading ought to have been filed at the court bellow and that the suit was not the type to be commenced by originating summons. It did not direct that the case be remitted to the lower court for re-trial, but instead, ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue fresh certificate of return to Aidoko.
Alfa appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision at the Supreme Court, in appeal marked: SC/1088/2016.
The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the appeal by Alfa on June 16, 2017 and ordered among others, that the case be heard afresh by the Federal High Court.
The apex court agreed with the aspect of the Court of Apeal that facts in the case was contentious, requiring that parties file pleadings and call oral evidence. Based on the Supreme Court judgment, Alfa refiled his case before the Federal High Court via a statement of claim on August 23, 2017.
While hearing was about to commence afresh before the Federal High Court, Aidoko filed an application, requesting that three questions, which he raised on his own, be referred to the Court of Appeal for determination.
Although Alfa objected to the application and the trial judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba found the application to be unnecessary, he allowed it and referred the questions to the Appeal Court as requested by Aidoko. And on December 18, this year, the Court of Appeal gave its decision on the questions referred to it by Aidoko, marked: CA/A/818/R/2017.
Justice Abdu Aboki, in the lead ruling of the court’s unanimous decision, found that the three questions by Aidoko did not satisfy the conditions which must exist before the Appeal Court could give its answer under Section 295(2) of the Constitution.
Justice Aboki said: “I have carefully gone through the three questions referred to this court for interpretation, the first question, in my view relates to the effect of the finding of this court which has not been set aside by the superior court (Supreme Court), whether it is binding on the parties and the courts.
“The second question relates to rule of practice of the courts, relating to the doctrine of stare decisis and the third question relates to whether the Federal High Court has any jurisdiction to entertain and grant the reliefs sought before it.
“It is trite law that reference, on a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution, to this court is not simply done as a matter of course, for mere asking sake. The question must be as to the interpretation of the Constitution or application of the Constitution.
“In the instant case, it cannot be said that all the three questions relate to the interpretation of the Constitution. In the instant case, the reference questions, having been found not to have arisen from the proceedings of the Federal High Court, the further question as to whether it involves a substantial question of law does not arise.
“The earlier judgment of this court, which went on appeal to the Supreme Court was no longer valid in view of the fact that all courts bellow are bound to follow the decision and order(s) of the Supreme Court.
“In the instant case, the failure of the applicant (Aidoko) to establish all the three vital necessary pre-conditions for a proper determination of reference questions is fatal to the application. This application lacks merit, it fails and it is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Aboki said.
Justices Peter Olabisi Ige and Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, who were on the panel agreed with Justice Aboki.
Justice Ige particularly noted that Aidoko’s application to the Court of Appeal was an attempt to frustrate the execution of the Supreme Court order that the case be re-heard by the Federal High Court.
He said: “In an apparent bid to stall and delay the hearing of the suit herein, as mandated by the Supreme Court, the applicant herein, brazenly brought a most reckless and bizarre application before the lower court, asking the lower court to refer, what the applicant, in his imagination, perceived to be constitutional questions to this court.
“To my mind, the applicant has exhibited great disdain and contempt for the Supreme Court’s decision aforesaid. All he is out to do is to circumvent and render the judgment ineffective and frustrate the hearing de novo (afresh) ordered by the Supreme Court.
“The lower court has ably stated the decision of the Supreme Court. This court as well as the parties are duty bound to obey and ensure the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision aforesaid. This court will not be a party to the intransigence of the applicant to truncate the decision of the Supreme Court.,” Justice Ige said.
Since the December 18 ruling by the Court of Appeal, both sides to the dispute have been claiming victory. While Alfa’s supporters interpreted the ruling to mean that the Kogi East Senatorial seat has now become vacant, Aidoko’s supporters think otherwise.
In his reaction to the ruling, Aidoko argued that his seat has not been declared vacant by the Court of Appeal. He added that at no point did the issue of candidacy or vacant seat come up in the ruling by the Court of Appeal.
Why the confusion? What way out?
A senior member of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in Abuja, Abdulkarim Yunusa the confusion arises because cases are not determined on time. He argued that if cases were promptly heard and dispensed with by the courts, the confusing scenarios would not be witnessed.
As a way out, he said; “For me, the way to go is for the courts to always ensure that cases do not get unnecessarily held down in court. When a judge recuses himself from a case, he should give reasons.
“You don’t just withdraw from a case by merely citing personal reasons. What constitutes personal reasons? Judges should be firm and committed to their responsibilities. That to me, will save litigants from ala this confusion, the psychological trauma and waste of scarce resources,” Yunusa said.
A senior law lecturer, Professor Josiah Chukwuma blamed that inability of the judges to connect with their environment for the confusion that mostly greet courts’ pronouncements. He noted that most judges have detached themselves from the society and interpret the law in abstraction.
He cited the 2012 decision by Justice Abubakar Talba of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in the criminal trial of John Yakubu, who pleaded guilty, in a plea bargain arrangement, to be involved in the theft of billions of naira in pensioners’ funds.
Prof Chukwuma noted that the public outrage generated by the judge’s decision to give Yakubu an option of N750,000 fine, which later earned the judge a year’s suspension by the National Judicial Council (NJC), was because he did not consider the effect of his decision on the society.
He said, where judges are mindful that they operate in societies inhabited by rational minds, they will learn to allow the interest of their societies and the possible impact of their decisions on such societies, reflect in their interpretation of the law.
Prof Chukwuma said: “It is high time judges are reminded that they are able to sit comfortably in their chambers and dish out decisions because the society is at peace. Where the society is in turmoil, no one is immune to its negative impact.”
