The Nation Newspaper

Tag: conflicting

  • Confusion as two courts deliver conflicting judgments on Zamfara APC primaries

    TWO courts yesterday delivered conflicting judgments on the primaries conducted by the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Zamfara State ahead of this year’s elections.

    While a Federal High Court (FHC)  in Abuja held that the party failed to conduct a valid primary, a Zamfara State High Court  declared that  valid primaries took place between October 3 and 7, 2018.

    The FHC Abuja, said that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) acted within its powers by refusing to accept list of candidates for the next general elections from the Zamfara State APC.

    Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu said it was not the fault of INEC that the APC failed to conduct a valid primary within the period scheduled by the electoral body.

    Justice Ojukwu said INEC’s action was intended to curb impunity among political parties and politicians and  ensure compliance with the  rule of law.

    The judgment was in respect of  a suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1279/2018, filed in the name of APC by some individuals, who said they emerged from a consensus arrangement adopted by the party in Zamfara State.

    Justice Ojukwu, dismissed the case for lacking merit, noting  that evidence presented before the court by parties did not show that the APC conducted its primaries within INEC’s published schedule of activities, which required parties to conduct their primaries and submit list of candidates within August 18 and October 7, 2018

    The judge said the decision of the APC in Zamfara to select its candidates through a consensus option, breached the provision of the Electoral Act and the party’s constitution.

    Justice Ojukwu said, by the fact before the court, it could not be held that INEC acted ultra vires by rejecting Zamfara APC’s candidates’ list.

    She said: “The intendment of the law is that due process must be followed. The 1st defendant’s (INEC’s) action was to ensure that the party complies with rule of law.”

    The judge said it was obvious that, as at the close of nomination for the 2019 elections, according to INEC guidelines, the party (APC) had no candidates, having failed to conduct legitimate primary.

    Earlier, Justice Ojukwu had dismissed the preliminary objection brought against the suit,and said that there was no similarity between the case before her court and the one pending before the High Court of Justice, Zamfara State, marked: ZMS/GS/52/2018 filed on December 6, 2018 by Alhaji Babangida Abdullahi, Chairman, APC, Gusau Local Government and others against the APC and others.

    In Gusau, Justice Muhammad Bello Shinkafi of the Zamfara State High Court held that the APC actually has candidates having conducted valid primaries between October 3 and 7, 2018.

    He therefore ordered  INEC to accept the candidates produced by the primaries as APC candidates in Zamfara for all positions in the forthcoming general elections.

    Shinkafi said: “Now on the strength of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the evidence elicited from both  DWS 1 and 2 during cross examination as well as the documentary evidence tendered and admitted in evidence, I am satisfied  that the plaintiffs have proved their case against the defendants.

    “Consequently therefore, the above issue for determination is hereby answered in the affirmative and all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs are hereby granted.

    The reliefs are:

    o An order declaring as lawful and valid the primary election conducted by the APC(here plaintiffs party) under the supervision of the 3rd Defendant and security agents on the 3rd and 7th October 2018 for the purpose  of producing  candidates to vie for various elective office, which produce the plaintiffs under the platform of the 1st Defendant.

    o A declaration that any decision or steps taken to reverse the result of the primary election duly conducted on the 3rd and 7th October, 2018 and monitored by the 3rd Defendant is or will amount to a nullity, void and of no effect.

    o “A declaration that the 1st Defendant is bound to recognize, accept and forward to the 3rd Defendant the list of candidates that emerged winners in the governorship, national and state Legislative Houses primary elections of the 1st  Defendant in Zamfara State held on  the 3rd and 7th October 2018.

    INEC was awaiting the certified true copies of the two judgments before taking a decision at press time .

  • Ex-Appeal Court president to NJC: probe conflicting judgments

    A former President of the Court of Appeal, retired Justice Umaru Abdullahi , said yesterday there is need for the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate reoccurring conflicting court judgments in the country.

    Abdullahi, who spoke with reporters in Abuja yesterday, said conflicting judgments and activities of corrupt politicians had undermined Nigeria’s judicial system.

    He decried politicians’ attitude of going to another court to get a new judgment instead of appealing the earlier one if they were not satisfied with it.

    “The NJC must intervene to address these contradictions; investigate if there is any corrupt undertone in these judgments; arrest the indiscipline and recklessness by some judges.

    “Politicians should learn to appeal unfavourable court decisions rather than making unlawful utterances and fomenting crisis.

    “Politicians are desperate to win their cases; rather than appeal a particular unfavourable judgment, they approach a similar court with another version of the case in an attempt to mislead the judge resulting in conflicting judgments,’’ he said.

    He made references to the recent judgments on Abia governorship tussle and that of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s leadership crisis.

    Abdullahi advised aggrieved parties to petition the NJC if they were not satisfied or felt the need for clarification in the face of conflicting judgments.

    He said that NJC acted based on petitions before it.

  • Conflicting judgments

    •One truth, one justice

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed has decried cases of conflicting judgments by different panels of the Court of Appeal. In his address at the recent annual conference of the court in Abuja, the CJN noted that such conflicting judgments, even when the facts of the cases are similar; undermine the integrity of the judicial process, and the confidence of the litigant in the judiciary. To stem the development, the CJN advised the court, to “have an internal law report for justices to access either electronically or in prints in order to reduce the avenue for conflict in jurisprudence”.

    We agree with the learned CJN, when he reminded members of the bench that “as the guardians of the law, we (they) must not only be just but also convey certainty in our (their) justness”. As he also observed, “it bears reminding that the overriding objective of every legal system in the world is to do justice. However, this cannot be achieved where there is confusion as to the state of the law as pronounced by the court”. We believe that it is the certainty of the law that confers legitimacy on it, and as such compels general observance by the people.

    For, when the law is uncertain and interpreted differently, it gives the impression that the society is at the whims and caprices of the jurists; and that could lead to anarchy. We urge the President of the Court of Appeal not to take the advice of the CJN lightly, considering the grave implications of such conflicting judgments on the psyche of the ordinary person in the street. The CJN also reiterated the recommendation of retired learned Justice Niki Tobi, made in 2008, that, “immediately a decision is given in one division, it should be sent to the other divisions without delay”. This simple policy, if efficiently managed, could help restore certainty to the jurisprudence of the court.

    Considering that the institutions of our fledging democratic state are still tenuous, the courts at all levels must appreciate the importance of the judiciary as a guardian to maintain the required balance for the sustenance of democracy. Democratic culture is imbued with conflicts, and the constitution eloquently placed the judiciary in the prime position to resolve such. In discharging that onerous responsibility, judges must eschew all impurities that could make the contenders for the democratic space to resort to self-help.

    As the CJN also rightly observed, in his address, judges “must not ignore the negative perception that is occasioned by conflicting judgments delivered at various divisions of the Court of Appeal. Such judicial contradictions only result in untold hardship to litigants in their quest for justice. They further cast your lordships in an unfavourable light and leave the judiciary at the mercy of innuendo, crass publication and editorials”. There is no doubt that when the courts give different interpretations to similar facts, the ordinary man in the street is bound to make sneering remarks as to the motives.

    Now that the CJN has spoken the mind of the ordinary person in this matter, it is important that steps are taken to reassure the populace. We urge the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, to immediately put in motion whatever process she deems fit to restore the confidence of the litigants and ordinary people in the decisions and judgments of that important arm of the judicial hierarchy. There is no reason at all why the decisions of the Court of Appeal, should be a matter for speculation.

  • Conflicting judicial verdicts

    When Chief Justice Mahmud Mohammed recently cried out on conflicting judicial pronouncements from the Court of Appeal, he was apparently moved by the need to restore some sanity in judicial judgments and shore up public confidence in that institution.

    In an address at the Annual Conference of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, he told the justices that “the overriding objective of every legal system in the world is to do justice. However this cannot be achieved where there is confusion as to the state of the law as pronounced by the courts”. In apparent reference to these irreconcilable rulings, he told the justices they were not allowed to continue to shift the goalpost while the game was on.

    The admonitions of Justice Mohammed are timely given events in the nation’s judiciary since the conclusion of the last general elections. Following its outcome, candidates who had issues approached the various state election petitions tribunals to seek redress. But the way some of these petitions have been handled have left much to be desired. Not unexpectedly, allegations of miscarriage of justice, bias and other influences have been copiously canvassed against the judiciary.

    The impression one gets from these sometimes conflicting verdicts is either that the laws are imprecise; some of the officers charged with their interpretation are not competent or some other unwholesome considerations were at play. Or, how do we explain the wide disparity in the legal and constitutional grounds that have been cited to justify some of these decisions?  What of the issue of conflicts Justice Mohammed publicly complained about? Where do we fit in legal precedent when identical cases are curiously resolved very differently? Or did the justices not drink from the same fountain of legal knowledge? These moot questions are at the heart of the waning public confidence in the capacity of the judiciary to do justice to cases brought before them.

    Perhaps, issues raised here will be driven home most poignantly by the Abia and Taraba states’ governorship election petitions. In the case of Abia, the candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance APGA, Alex Otti had challenged the election of Governor Okezie Ikpeazu of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP.

    The crux of the petition is non-compliance with the electoral act through the cancellation of the results of Obingwa, Osisioma and Isiala Ngwa north local governments by the returning officer. The Abia State Election Petitions Tribunal had ruled that the PDP validly won the election as Otti failed to prove his case “beyond doubt”. The tribunal failed to grant his request to uphold the cancellation of the results in the three local governments as the state returning officer was not allowed under the law to cancel the said results, hence his subsequent reversal of same had no effect.

    But the Appeal Court in Owerri, declared Otti as the winner of the election having scored 164,444 valid votes against Ikpeazu’s 114, 444 votes after cancelling the elections in the three local governments. It further ruled that there was no need for a re-run because the results present Otti as the genuine winner even as it asked the INEC to swear him in as the governor of Abia State.

    The Appeal Court may be within its rights to differ with the tribunal in its ruling in respect of the results from three local governments. But the real issue is what it makes of that decision. In this regard, even as it decided to cancel the results of those local governments, there are issues regarding its conclusions that there is no need for a re-run. This is more so when it is reported that the total voting strength of the three local governments stands at above 300,000 people.

    The purport is that this huge number of the electorate would be disenfranchised in the choice of the governor of their state. But then, the universally accepted ratio of voters’ turnout vis-à-vis the total number of registered voters is put at about one third. What this implies is that about 100,000 valid votes were not put into reckoning in determining the winner of that election. And when the margin of votes with which the Appeal Court ruled in favour of Otti is taken into account, the flaw in that decision becomes more glaring.

    It is a slap on representative democracy for the Court of Appeal to have ignored the sovereignty of the electorate by awarding victory to the APGA candidate without putting the voting rights of such a huge number of registered voters into reckoning. The right thing to do is to order a re-run in the three local governments which are said to be part of the constituency of the PDP candidate. This is not only in tandem with the Electoral Act but will erase any suspicion of deliberate attempt to rob Ikpeazu of victory through the instrumentality of the judiciary.

    There are also issues in the decision of the court asking the INEC to issue Certificate of Return and swear in Otti as the governor of the state. The riot that erupted in the state following the ruling has direct bearing with the perception that the Appeal Court was bent on having the APGA candidate sworn in even before the case runs its full course. It must have been seen as a deliberate ploy to award the governorship election to Otti at all costs when the right to appeal is still open to Ikpeazu.  The hurry to get Otti sworn in is at the root of the criticisms that have trailed the Appeal Court ruling.

    If the Appeal Court’s handling of the Abia case shows some bias and inconsistency, that of Taraba state exposes how shoddily the election petitions tribunal handled the case before it. The grounds on which the Appeal Court upturned the verdict of the tribunal have put the competences of the tribunal judges in doubt. Legal and constitutional issues which ordinarily should have been at the disposal of the tribunal were flagrantly ignored in arriving at the decision to disqualify Darius Ishaku as the duly elected governor of the state. The ruling of the Appeal Court that the disqualification of the PDP candidate, Darius Ishaku is a pre-election matter which the tribunal has no jurisdiction, speaks volumes.

    The judges ruled that the constitution clearly states that unless a candidate has been indicted by a court of law or is known to have criminal record or certain degree of health conditions, such a candidate cannot be determined by a tribunal as not being qualified as a candidate.

    Why these grounds were not availed or totally ignored by the tribunal is part of the reasons for public disenchantment with some of the verdicts emanating from our judiciary. Above all, they raise questions as to the competences of some of our judges. Ordinarily, one would have expected those who occupy such elated offices to be people of high competence and integrity in the call of their duty. They are also supposed to be well groomed in the intricacies of legal arguments, extant laws of this country and logic such that they are not easily faulted by their colleagues.

    The credibility of the judiciary is tainted each time judges who are supposed to be very competent in the interpretation of our laws are easily faulted by their colleagues. It is true that an appellate court can overrule a lower court. But in such situations, it is not envisaged that the grounds would be rudimentary points of law that ordinarily should be at disposal of even the man on the street.

    It remains curious how the ruling of the Appeal Court in the case of Abia State that clearly disenfranchised over 300,000 voters can satisfy the true test of free, fair and credible election. The right thing is for a re-run to be conducted to allow the people of the three local governments exercise their franchise in the choice of their governor. Nothing should be done either to abridge or circumvent this inalienable right. Anything to the contrary will amount to procuring the peoples mandate through the back door. That is where the Supreme Court should come in to avert judgments which Justice Mohammed said “cast your lordships in an unfavorable light and leave the judiciary at the mercy of innuendos, crass publications and editorials”

  • Hole in the heart: Dream Team VI’s captain gets conflicting medical reports

    Hole in the heart: Dream Team VI’s captain gets conflicting medical reports

    THE future of the under- -23 dream team VI captain, Erhun Obanor now hangs in the balance over his health status.

    A scan Eco Cardiogram test conducted by the NFF medical team showed he has a hole in the Heart  which led to his exclusion from the squad that won the U-23 AFCON in Senegal recently.

    But another test conducted by the University of Benin Teaching Hospital showed a contradictory result.

    Deeply worried, Obanor who was recently dropped from the Senegal Olympic qualifier based on the team doctor’s result, said his future now hangs in the balance.

    Obanor, who spoke to some sports journalists at the Samuel Ogbemudia stadium.,Benin on his current health status, said the second test was to have been performed while they were in camp in Gambia but couldn’t due to dwindling financial aid

    He said: “When we were in camp in Nigeria,a test was conducted and the result showed that there is something that looks like a hole in my heart. But another one was supposed to be carried out in Gambia.

    “I was told that there was no money so when I came to Benin, my parents advised that we visit UBTH and after they did the test, the results showed that there was no hole in  my heart.

    “That is the situation we are now.  I am just waiting for further action from the team doctor or my chief coach, “he said.