The Nation Newspaper

Tag: election petitions

  • Niki Tobi on presidential election petitions: judiciary will not succumb to blackmail

    Niki Tobi on presidential election petitions: judiciary will not succumb to blackmail

    Following the #Eyesonthejudiciary campaign, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Otunba Kunle Kalejaye, recalled the words of the late Justice Niki Tobi in Buhari vs. INEC & Ors (2008) LPELR-814 SC), @ pages 175-178. The quotes were reposted by Ojutiwon Adebayo and Bayo Onanuga.

    The Court of Appeal cannot collect evidence from the market overt; for example from the Balogun market, Lagos; Dugbe market, Ibadan; main market, Jos; Central market, Kaduna; Central market (former Gwari market), Minna; Wuse market, Abuja.

    “On the contrary, the Court of Appeal has to wait for evidence, as the court did, in the court building duly constituted as a court qua adjudicatory body.

    “Courts of law being legal and sacred institutions do not go on a frolic or on a journey to collect inculpatory or exculpatory evidence. On the contrary, they deal only with evidence before them which is procedurally built on arid legalism.

    Read Also: PEPC to deliver judgment same day on Atiku, Obi, APM election petitions

    “For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying by this judgment that all was well with the conduct of the Presidential Election conducted in 2007. What I am saying is that there was no evidence before the Court of Appeal to dislodge Section 146(1) of the Electoral Act.

    “It is sad that so much has been said in the newspapers of this country on the case. The new technology of internet reporting has added to the comments, some of them doubting our integrity to do justice according to law.

    “I regard them as blackmail and I will not succumb to blackmail.

    “I swore on that eventful day as a High Court Judge to do justice to all manner of persons without fear or favour.

    “I have never departed from that oath and I will not, God helping. It is too late in the day to do so.

    “Nigeria is a country where suspicion of wrongdoing is the pastime of the citizens.

    “Nigerians should realise that some public officers should be trusted to do the right thing. Why not the judges?

    “Nigeria is one vast and huge country made up of so many diversities in terms of tribes, cultures, sociology, anthropology and above all, quite a number of political parties (some large, some small).

    “These diversities, coupled with the usual aggressiveness of Nigerians arising particularly from the do-or-die behaviour in politics; there must be irregularities.

    “Courts of law must, therefore, take the irregularities for granted unless they are of such compelling proportion or magnitude as to ‘affect substantially the result of the election.’

    “This may appear to the ordinary Nigerian mind as a stupid statement but that is the law as provided in Section 146(1) of the Electoral Act and there is nothing anybody can do about it, as long as the legislature keeps it in the Electoral Act.

    “The subsection is like the rock of Gibraltar, solidly standing behind and for a respondent to an election petition.

    “I am not saying that a Presidential Election can never succeed in the light of Section 146(1). No. It can if the petitioner discharges the burden the subsection places on him.

    “The way politics in this country is played frightens me every dawning day. It is a fight-to-finish affair. Nobody accepts defeat at the polls.

    “The judges must be the final bus stop. And when they come to the judges and the judges in their professional minds give judgment, they call them all sorts of names.

    “To the party who wins the case, the Judiciary is the best place and real common hope of the common man. To the party who loses, the Judiciary is bad.

    “Even when a party loses a case because of a serious blunder of counsel, it is the judge who is blamed. Why?

    “While I know as a matter of fact that in every case, the judge makes an additional enemy, if I use the word unguardedly, I must say that the judge does not regard the person as his enemy.

    “The judge who has given judgment in the light of the law should not be castigated in the way it is done in this country. That is primitive conduct and I condemn it.

    “It is a conduct that does not help the promotion of the administration of justice. It is rather a conduct that is likely to affect adversely the administration of justice in this country.

    “I feel very strongly that Nigerian judges should be allowed to perform their judicial functions to the best of their ability.

    “I should also say that no amount of bad name-calling will deter Nigerian judges from performing their constitutional functions of deciding cases between two or more competing parties.

    “Somebody must be trusted to do the correct thing. Why not the Nigerian judge?”

  • Election petitions tribunal receives 31 petitions in Benue

    The Governorship, National and State Assembly Elections Petitions Tribunal has received 31 petitions challenging the outcomes of some elections in Benue, its Secretary, Mrs. Deborah Musa, said on Friday in Makurdi.

    According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), Musa  said that four petitions were for the senatorial elections, nine for the House of Representatives, while 18 were from candidates aggrieved with outcomes of House of Assembly elections

    She explained that the tribunal would commence sitting as soon as the filing processes were completed and the respondents replied same.

    Read also: Thugs break into Benue APC governorship candidate Jime’s campaign office

    Giving further details, Musa disclosed that Sen. George Akume, All Progressive Congress (APC), Senatorial candidate for Benue North-West, was challenging his defeat by Rep. Orker Jev of the People’s Democratic Party.

    She said that the tribunal had also received a petition from the APC senatorial candidate for Benue North-East, Mrs. Mimi Adzaper Orubibi, challenging her defeat by Dr Gabriel Suswam of the PDP.

    Musa disclosed that the tribunal also received a petition from Chief Steven Lawani, who contested for the Benue South Senatorial District on the platform of the APC, and lost to Abba Moro of the PDP.

  • Tribunal dismisses election petitions against Obiano

    The Anambra State Governorship Election Tribunal has dismissed two of the three petitions against the victory of Governor Willie Obiano in the November 18, 2017 election in the state.

    The tribunal affirmed Obiano’s victory in two separate unanimous judgments delivered by its chairman, Justice H.A. Olusiyi.

    Dr Chukwudi Obianaso and Ms Praise Okechukwu, candidates of African Democratic Congress (ADC) and Mega Progressive People Party (MPPP) respectively in the same election had prayed the tribunal to invalidate the victory.

    Obianaso in his petition said the election should be nullified because it was marred with corrupt practices allegedly perpetrated by Obiano and his agents in connivance with INEC.

    “INEC should conduct a fresh election and Obiano be disqualified to contest in the fresh election,” he said.

    In her petition, the MPPP candidate said Obiano was not duly elected or returned by the majority of lawful votes cast and that the exercise did not comply substantially with the Electoral Act.

    “Obiano did not score the majority of valid votes cast in at least two-third of the 21 council areas in Anambra in the election; thus his return by the third respondent is unconstitutional, irregular, null and void and of no effect whatsoever,” she said.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) quoted the tribunal as saying Okechukwu failed to substantiate her claims of electoral malpractice with credible evidence.

    It said those allegedly involved in vote-buying and polling units where the alleged corrupt practices took place were not mentioned, and that only one witness was not enough to testify on the claims.

    “The petitioners have woefully failed to prove by any credible evidence that the first respondent was not duly elected or returned as governor of Anambra by the majority of lawful votes cast.

    “The petitioners have abysmally failed to prove with any modicum of satisfaction that the election in question was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with provisions of Electoral Act 2010 as amended.

    “On the whole, the petition failed as it patently lacks substance and merit, it is accordingly dismissed in its entirety, consequently we affirm as valid the election and return of the first respondent as governor of Anambra,” it ruled.

    On his part, Obianaso hinged his case on the claim that Obiano bought some vehicles for unmanned persons, including ward, local government chairmen of the party and council care-taker chairmen.

    He also alleged that funds were also disbursed to them all geared toward the election and spent in excess of N200 million allowed by the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended.

    The tribunal said the petitioner listed about 15 documents which he intended to rely upon but could not successfully tender two in evidence, including P1 and P2.

    These, according to the tribunal, were CTC of newspaper publications that have no “probative value”.

    “He did not call a single witness to corroborate or substantiate his allegations and did not tell the tribunal where the unlawful campaign took place nor deem it fit to call any election monitor to testify for him.

    “Allegations of spending money beyond permissible limit, massive sharing of money to voters and unlawful spending on Election Day was ‘grossly unsubstantiated and pitiably tenuous’.

    “With all issues considered, and in the light of all foregoing, we come to the irresistible and compelling conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove by credible and satisfactory evidence that the election of the first respondent as governor of Anambra was marred by corrupt practices.

    “The sole issue for determination is resolved in the negative against the petitioner; the petition is dismissed in its entirety as it is bereft of any scintilla of merit.

    “We hereby affirm that the first respondent was duly elected on Nov. 18, 2017,” the tribunal ruled.

    The tribunal had earlier struck out the petition of African Peoples Party (APP) against the governor following the preliminary objection raised by the respondents for lack of merit.

    Obiano, candidate of APGA, won the election with a total of 234, 071 from the total of 488,771 votes cast.

     

  • A farewell to election petitions

    A farewell to election petitions

    The decision of the Supreme Court on the Rivers State governorship tussle will for a long time confound many. In this summary of a review of the judgment, PROF ITSE SAGAY concludes that it amounts to bidding farewell to election petitions.

    In this summary, I make comment on the important issues raised by the Supreme Court in that case.

    1. On Card Reader

    The Supreme Court, in rejecting the use of the Card Reader adopted its earlier views on the matter in Okereke v. Umahi S.C. 1004/2015, that the use of the Card Reader would ‘dethrone’ and ‘depose’ the Voters’ Register “whose judicial roots are firmly embedded or entrenched in the self same Electoral Act from which it (Voters’ Register) directly derives its sustenance and currency” – per Nweze, JSC.

    The question may be asked, how does the Card Reader ‘depose’, or ‘dethrone’ the voter’s Register.  After verification by the Card Reader, the voter’s name still has to be identified in the voters’ Register and ticked before he can vote.  It must be noted that both the Tribunal and Court of Appeal emphasized that, the Card Reader was intended to and did strengthen the application and efficacy of the Electoral Act, by ensuring a credible election for the benefit of Nigerians.  The Election Tribunal stated expressly that “the usage of the Card Reader was complimentary to the usage of the voters’ register.  In other words, the two work hand in hand towards ensuring credible elections.  The voters’ Registers properly come to play where a prospective voter has been screened by the Card Reader.  The sum total of the role of the Card Reader is that it is complimentary to the usage of the Voters’ Register.”

    So where in all this did Nweze, JSC, discover the ‘deposition’, and ‘dethronement’, of the Voters’ Register by the Card Reader?  Absolutely nowhere.  What Nweze, JSC, had simply done was to give the Card Reader a bad name in order to subject it to judicial execution. Has the Card Reader eliminated the voters’ Register? No! Has it brought integrity and transparency to the voters’ Register and the whole electoral process? Yes!

    All the Card Reader does is to act as a gate man for the voters’ Register.  There was no dethronement and deposition here.  There was only a step forward towards free, fair and credible elections – a procedure for sanitizing our elections and for eliminating fraud, dishonesty and rigging from our electoral process.  Should any Supreme Court anywhere in the world resist and reject such a beneficial development in the electoral process? No!

    The law as stated in Section 49 has not in any way been altered by the Card Reader.  After being accredited through the Card Reader the voter still has to have his name checked in the Voters’ Register, and to have it ticked before voting.

    Without the process of identification and recording by the Card Reader, the old system of free ticking of all names in the Voters’ Register followed by thumb imprinting in thousands to match the number ticked will continue and our elections will simply be fraud writ large.

    So all this talk of superseding and dethroning, has no bearing whatsoever on Section 49 of the Electoral Act 2010.  There is no provision of the Electoral Act banning or prohibiting the use of Card Readers.  It is wrong of any one to assert that the use of Card Readers is electronic voting.  It shows that such a person cannot distinguish between accreditation and voting.

    Section 15 of the Electoral Act clearly empowers the INEC to issue Regulations, guidelines and manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act and its Administration thereof.  Introduction of Card Readers is doing exactly that.  By law, the guidelines thus issued are as potent as the permitting law, i.e., the Electoral Act itself.

    Ultimately, on the Card Reader issue, the only valid questions a Court of Justice ought to raise are as follows:

    (i)       Was the voters’ Register instituted in the Electoral Act to promote and ensure free, fair and credible elections?

    (ii)     If this is so (and it necessarily must have been so) did the introduction of the Card Reader enhance the capacity of the Voters’ Register to produce clean, fair and credible elections?

    (iii)    As all the Courts, even the Supreme Court,have admitted, the Card Reader has sanitized and brought transparency and integrity to the election accreditation process.  The sum total of the usage of the Card Reader therefore is that it is complimentary to the work of the Voters’ register.  “The two work hand in hand to ensure a credible election” – (The Tribunal)

    It follows that if all the Card Reader does is to enhance, improve and promote the capacity of the Voters’ Register to ensure or guarantee, free, fair, credible and transparent elections, the Card Reader could NOT in any sense have ‘deposed’, ‘dethroned’ the Voters’ Register as Nweze, JSC, wrongly asserted in Okereke v. Umahi. Helping and enhancing the Voters’ Register’s capacity and efficiency cannot be classified as ‘dethroning’ or ‘deposing’ it.  It is still there as the ultimate source after the clean up of the process by the Card Reader.  The Voters’ Register could only be regarded as having been dethroned and deposed if its purpose in the Electoral Act was to promote fraud, rigging and massive irregularities.  In other words, it is only when its role and purpose is in conflict with that of the Card Reader, that it can be said to have been dethroned and deposed by the Card Reader,  because the two would then be working at cross-purposes with each other.  But in the circumstances of this case, they were working together towards a common positive objective.

    It is really incredible that the Supreme Court threw in the towel to the existing and debilitating culture of election fraud, violence and rigging, when the Law and Justice were pointing in the opposite direction.

    Apart from all the above, the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2015 specifically empowers the INEC to introduce innovations like Card Readers to promote the credibility and sanctity of an election.  By Section 52 of the Act, “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” This gives INEC separate and extra powers to introduce processes into the election process in order to enhance its accuracy, transparency and credibility.

     

    1. Substantial

    Non-compliance

    The Supreme Court also asserts wrongly that in order for an election to be nullified, the Petitioner has to establish that not only (i)  was there a substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act, but additionally  (ii) the Petitioner must show that the substantial non-compliance affected the result of the election.  This is wrong.

    By Section 139(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010,

    “An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with this Act if it appears to the Electoral Tribunal or Court that the election

    (i) was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and (ii) that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election:

    It is clear that the provision on substantial compliance in section 146 of the Electoral Act, 2006, is conjunctive in nature.  For an election not to be invalidated, (i) it must comply substantially with the provisions of the Act and (ii) non-compliance, (whether substantial or insubstantial) must not affect substantially, the result of the elections.

    In other words, any election has to clear two hurdles in order to be valid; (i) it must comply substantially with the provisions of the Act; (ii) where there was any non-compliance, no matter how insignificant, it must not have substantial effect on the result.

    Therefore a petitioner will succeed if he can establish either of the following:

    (a)      Substantial non-compliance with the Act, only

    or

    (b)      substantial effect on the result by any degree of non-compliance, no matter how trivial.

    I repeat, the petitioner need only establish one of these two situations in order for the election to be invalid, namely

    1. Substantial non compliance with the electoral Act including the schedules and regulations.

    or

    1. Substantial effect on the election result of any infraction of the Electoral Act, schedules, regulations etc no matter how trivial the infraction.

    Therefore, Kekere-Ekun, JSC, was absolutely wrong when she stated at page 67 of her judgment that in addition to establishing substantial non-compliance, the Petitioners were also obliged to also establish that the non-compliance also affected the result of the election. This is an error that some Justices of the Supreme Court have been repeating again and again inspite of corrections that have been offered several times.

    The authority on this issue is Morgan v. Simpson [1974] 3 All ER 722.  This is what Lord Denning said in Morgan v. Simpson:

    “(1) If the election was conducted so badly that it was not substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, the election is vitiated, irrespective of whether the result was affected, or not. That is shown by the Hackney case1, where two out of 19 polling stations were closed all day, and 5,000 out of 41,000 voters were unable to vote.

    Thus once there is substantial non-compliance, the election is invalid CaditQuaestio!  There is NEVER any further enquiry whether or not the non-compliance affected the result of the election.  It is only when the non-compliance is not substantial, that its impact on the election is considered.

     

    1. Polling Unit to Polling Unit

    Thirdly, the Supreme Court wrongly asserts that to establish non-compliance, the Petitioner has to provide evidence from polling unit to polling unit throughout the State.

    Again this is incorrect.

    In Hackney Case, Gill v. Reed and Holmes (1874) 2 O’M & H 77, 31 Lt 69, a leading English case, it was shown that only two out of 19 polling stations (units) were closed on election day and 5,000 out of 19,000 were unable to vote.  The election was invalidated for substantial non-compliance with the relevant election law.

    Can an election that was marked by killing, extensive blood shed, intimidation, mayhem and chaos require a meticulous examination of polling unit after polling unit, to establish non-compliance?  No.  The elections were canceled by outright violence involving, killings, election materials seizure and intimidation of voters as was overwhelming established at the tribunal.  Where there was effectively no election, it is futile going from polling unit to polling unit, looking for what never existed in the first place.

    In Buhari v. Obasanjo [2005] 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 241 at pp. 520 – 522) Nsofor, JCA, nullified the whole presidential election based on events In 7 States out of 36 States.

    Clearly a petitioner does not need to establish substantial non-compliance in all aspects of the election or in all places in which election was held.  It is not the individual (polling unit by polling unit) that matters.  It is the impact of the totality of allegations, the trend they establish and the totality of the perception they create.

     

    1. Presumption of Validity

    The Supreme Court also stated that there is a presumption of validity in favourof  INEC declared results and the Onus is on the petitioner to prove that the declared outcome is wrong.  This is not always the case.  Where the Petitioner’s case is that there was no election, the onus is on the Respondent who asserts the positive, i.e., that there was an election.

    The Court of Appeal, Benin Judicial Division put it brilliantly in this passage from the judgment of Dongban-Mensen, JCS, inOgboru v. Uduaghan [2011] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1232) 538.

    “In Imana v. Robinson (supra), Aniagolu JSC delivering the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, approvingly adopted the exposition in Phipson on Evidence (supra) as the Nigerian law on the subject:

    “The burden of proof, in this sense, rests upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue.  It is an ancient rule founded on consideration of good sense, and it should not be departed from without strong reasons’.   It is fixed at the beginning of the trial by the state of the pleadings, and it is settled as a question of law, remaining unchanged throughout the trial exactly where the pleadings place it, and never shifting in any circumstances whatever.  If, when all the evidence, by whosoever introduced, it is in, the party who has this burden has not discharged it, the decision must be against him.

    We have no reason whatsoever for departing from this eloquent exposition of the law.  In our view, that is a correct restatement of the consistent posture of the Supreme Court on this question, see, Elemo&Ors v. Omolade&Ors (1968) NMLR 359; Atane v. Amu (1974) 10 SC 237; Fashanu v. Adekoya (1974) 6 SC 83; Kate Enterprises Ltd. V. Daewoo Nig. Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 116, etc. There is no gainsaying in the fact that we are bound by these illuminating decisions of the apex court.  Hence, we are under obligation to ignore any other decision, including decisions of this Court, which, to employ the apt expression of the Supreme Court, fail “to distinguish [between] the two distinct and frequently confused meanings which have always been attached to the words ‘burden of proof’”, see, Elemo & Ors v. Omolade & Ors (supra) at 361.  Unarguably, any contrary decision of any other court on these two distinct meanings of the expression “burden of proof” could be, justifiably, classified as a decision reached per incuriam.

    It is from this perspective, therefore, that we are endorsing the submissions of the counsel for the appellants.  We, entirely agree with him that having regard to the above negative averments which the appellants made in their pleadings that no elections known to law were conducted on April 14, 2007, the respondents, who positively asserted that elections were duly conducted, had the burden of proof on the pleadings to plead the constitutive activities that define an election, namely, accreditations, Ajadi v. Ajibola (2004) 1 LRECN 255, 355 – 356 ETC.  In this regard, they had the burden to plead Form EC25, a form which shows that result sheets were issued; Form EC40C, a form which shows that the said result sheets were distributed before the results in EC8A were recorded; Amgbare v. Slyva (supra) 60-63; voters’ register, Nweke v. Ejims (1999) 2 LRECN 84, 99;  Nwakanma v. Abaribe (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 505) 1767, 1880; Form EC8A which is the primary evidence of votes cast in the election; the foundation or base on which the pyramid of the election process is built”

    Clearly since the case of Peterside and the APC was that due to the violence, carnage and war conditions on 11th and 12th April 2015, there were no governorship elections known to law, the onus fell on Wike and the PDP to establish  that there were valid elections on those dates.  Not only did the Supreme Court overlook  the law in this regard, but Kekere-Ekun, JSC, went so far as to say that even if Wike and the PDP had confessed that there had been no election, it would have made no difference.  This is simply unbelievable.

     

    1. Proof Beyond

    Reasonable Doubt

    The insistence that in a civil case, which is what an election petition is, the petitioner must prove his case beyond reasonable doubt if the commission of a crime is involved, is wrong.  If the killer, or maimer or character engaged in violence during an election is actually on trial, then proof of his offence, which may send him to prison,must be beyond reasonable doubt.

    1. Some Matters of Significance

    It is of great significance that the elections into 23 Seats out of 31 in the Rivers State House of Assembly were nullified by both the Legislative Houses Election Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.  Those nullified “elections” were conducted in the same polling units, by the same INEC Officials on the same day (11th April 2015) and at the same time as the Governorship election.

    They were all voided for reasons of violence, mayhem, killings, chaos, ballot snatching, intimidation, gross violations of the Electoral Law, Massive irregularities, etc.  They ‘Voters’, polling units, Election Officials and all other factors and personnel were exactly the same as those that applied to the governorship election.   Yet going by the implications of the Supreme Court decision, the election was perfect with regard to balloting in the governor’s case, but massively irregular when it came to the House of Assembly balloting – same polling unit, same voters, same INEC Officials, same date, same time!

    Only the Supreme Court was able to salvage a valid governorship election from the ruins surrounding all the other elections at the same polling units, at the same time, at the same date, by the same people involved in the House of Assembly elections.

    It is also significant that all the elections to the Senate (3 Seats) and all of the House of Representative (6 seats) from Rivers State, this time held on 28 March, 2015 were nullified for the same reasons as the House of Assembly elections were nullified by the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.

    And so we have the following situation: elections to 23 House of Assembly seats were nullified by Legislative Houses Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.  All elections to the Senate and House of Representatives were nullified by the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.  The governorship election was nullified by the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.

    In the midst of all this, the Supreme Court snatched the governorship election from the devastation and massive irregularities upheld on all other elections held at the same time, on the same day, at the same venues, by the same officials.  How could the governorship election smell like fresh roses, whilst all other elections conducted together with it, smell like sewage and refuse? This is a puzzle that will never be resolved.

    In addition to the above, when re-run elections were to be held to fill the Senate, House of Representatives and House of Assembly seats in Rivers State on 19 March, 2016, the Federal Government flooded the State with Soldiers, well-armed Policemen and DSS operatives.  The Police alone constituted 6000 men.  This was intended to discourage and deter the private armies of Rivers State from frustrating the holding of the elections.

    What happened?  Days before the election and in total disregard of the Federal Armed Forces brought in to enforce peace and establish stability, the Rivers State private army emerged again, commenced killing, not only innocent civilians, but even army and police officers brought in to enforce peace.  They not only neutralized the Federal armed forces, but caused so much violence, mayhem and disorder and instability that the elections were cancelled in a large number of Constituencies and the INEC has refused to go back to Rivers State to conduct fresh elections until peace and stability can be guaranteed.

    If Wike and the Rivers State PDP could plunge the State into so much violence in the presence of such a large Federal Armed Force, it does not take much to imagine the State of affairs in the State for the APC on 11th April 2015, when the Rivers Private Armies had the backing of the Federal Forces at that time.  The combined Forces of Rivers PDP and the Federal Government were in total control, and the PDP simply wrote out any result it wanted and the heavily compromised and partisan Rivers State INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner rubber stamped any result she was given by the PDP.

     

    What an election? What a war victory?

    The Wike v. Peterside Supreme Court decision constituted the most devastating judicial blow on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Free, Fair and Credible Elections this country has ever seen.  Not only have incredibly high and insurmountable barriers against election petitions been erected by that decision, it also gives an indomitable rock like status to anyone, who by blood, mayhem, violence, massive irregularities, fights his way on to the governorship seat; indeed, any electoral office.  He is assured of unshakeable, solid tenure for 4 years.  The full implication of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wike v. Peterside is: “when you prepare for Elections, prepare for War”.  This judgment constitutes, “A Farewell to Election Petitions”.

    Reflecting on another oddity, all Supreme Court decisions on governorship elections, were unanimous: 7/7.  This is very unusual in an institution made up of top jurists and intellectuals.

    In 1979, in the Awolowo v.Shagari case, the vote was 5/2.  Eso, JSC, dissented openly.  Obaseki agreed that Shagari had not won 122/3 States, but had performed substantially in accordance with the relevant law.  In 2007, in Atiku v. Yar’Adua and Buhari v. Yar’Adua, the Supreme Court split, 4/3 with Mariam Mukhtar, Oguntade and Onoghen, JJSC, dissenting.

    What really happened this time?

    (Footnotes)

    1         Hackney Case, Gill v. Reed & Holmes

    (1874) 2 O

    ’ M & H 77, 31 LT, 69.

     

  • FCT gets election petitions tribunal

    The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Area Council Election Petition Tribunal has been inaugurated.

    At the inauguration, the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court, Justice Ishaq Bello, urged members of the tribunal to do justice without fear or favour.

    He said the country cannot make any appreciable progress without total commitment to the ground rules and adherence to due process.

    Justice Bello said, “You should be careful and thorough in the review of petitions, responses, pleadings, evidence and argument of counsel that will appear before you.

    “The nature of the task ahead entails that you may get accolades. But unfortunately, condemnation will also come your way. If you work in good conscience and according to the law, not selling justice to the highest bidder or mortgaging it for tribalism, nepotism or any other unwholesome sentiment, society, history and posterity will acquit you by placing. You are on the positive side of the scale,” he said.

     

  • Lawyer wants experts to handle election petition cases

    Lawyer wants experts to handle election petition cases

    An Abuja-based Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr Solo Akuma, has advocated the handling of election petitions by experts in that field of law.

    Akuma told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Abuja on Friday that experts handling the cases would facilitate quick dispensation of justice.

    The senior advocate reasoned that election petitions were not the conventional matters that were dealt with on a daily basis by the courts.

    “Election petition cases are special areas of law. It is not every legal practitioner that can do it well.

    “It is left for litigants that want to embark on election petition to contact a lawyer that is vast in that area to handle their cases,’’ he said.

    He said that the decision of the Court of Appeals in the country on election petitions were “a clear demonstration of justice in the judiciary’’.

    In the same vein, Mr Stan Ofoma, another lawyer, told NAN that the judiciary rendered justice to the masses without fear, favour, affliction or ill-will.

    Ofoma said that court justice should be well appreciated by the ordinary man in the street and from the standpoint of the law.

    He said that the judiciary had been in the eye-of the-storm in recent times, and attributed it to political influences.

    “Nevertheless, the judiciary has been in the forefront of late, we hear of judgments here and there every day; they give judgment on the same issue, even though it is not the same case.

    “Every other day we hear that this court has given judgment on one issue, our brother court is giving a different judgment on the same issue even though it is not the same particulars.

    “It is a cause for concern.’’

    He, however, expressed optimism that in 2016 both the bench and the bar would render its duties sacredly to the society.

    “I want to believe that this year, God willing, the judiciary both the bench and the bar will realise our sacred duties to ourselves as individuals and to the society.”

  • Easy way to resolve election petitions

    At times like this, lawyers would be craving for literature that can hone their legal skills.

    From the traditional laws like Land, Marriage, Matrimonial, Torts, Breach of contract to libel, books abound for their use.

    With the increase in election petitions since 1999 general elections, it is gratifying to welcome a new literature on how a petitioner can discharge the burden of proving his or her   case.

    The arrival to the market of a 102-page book: “Forensic Advocacy and Election Litigation in Nigeria”, by a former Edo State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Omoruyi Augustine Omonuwa(SAN) whom the Ondo State Commissioner for Justice, Eyitayo Jegede (SAN) described  as someone  “in his usual intellectual depth scholarship and analytical mind” should be applauded.

    The learned author in the introduction while giving the definition and scope of the subject, quoted the definition of the subject matter by two learned authors: Andrew R. Jackson & Julie in their book, Forensic Science 2nd Edition  (2008) as “the application of science to the resolution of legal disputes. Science is valuable in this context because it has the potential to provide reliable, pertinent and definite information about a given case.”

    Omonuwa, therefore, submitted that “Forensic Science has helped in the development of the law in several jurisdictions where it has been fully accepted and practised. In these jurisdictions, it is no longer difficult to prove the identity of a suspect nor his criminal culpability when eventually he is arraigned for the offence… It is no longer in doubt that forensic science is useful to the development of the law in any society”.

    He summarised the branches of forensic science as follows:

    • Forensic Science and Law of Contract;
    • Forensic Science and the Law of Torts;
    • Forensic Science and Construction Law;
    • Forensic Pathology;
    • Forensic Toxicology; and
    • Forensic Serologist among others.

    The learned author on   page 19 defined Forensic Advocacy as the “art of channeling the energies and resources of forensic experts by legal practitioners in proof of his case before a court. The legal practitioners through his mastery of the legal intricacies underlying his case, is able to determine what manner of forensic evidence is needed to prove a particular charge or fact in   issue  in civil proceedings”.

    Forensic Science: The Evidence, Act and Criminal Trials a Nigeria is discussed on pages 20 – 22, while pages 22 – 25 are dedicated to discuss Forensic Advocacy and Election Litigation. Here the tenor of section 138 of the Electoral Act 2010 for the grounds for the nullification of an election where the burden of proof was placed on the petitioners   came to fore. He cited the cases of Nwobodo V. Onoh (1984) ALL NLR; Buhari V Obasanjo (2005) 2NWLR (Pt. 910) 24; Awuse V Odili (2004) 8NWLR (Pt. 876) 481 and Ajadi V. Ajibola (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 898) 91.

    As an active participant in the post-2007 General Election  petition i.e. Adams Oshiomhole V. Prof Osunbor & Ors (2007) 18 NWCR (Pt. 1065) 32 CA, Omonuwa devoted 17 pages to discuss Forensic Advocacy as a New Vista in the 2007 Post Election litigations (page 25 – 41).

    He  refreshed our memory where    British Forensic expert, Andrian Forty was a Petitioner Witness  in the case of Dr. Kayode Fayemi & Ors V. Segun Oni & Ors (2009) 7NWLR (p1. 1140) 223 CA. The election according to the petitioner was fraught with “irregularities, massive rigging and all manner of electoral malpractices.”

    Prior to Fayemi’s case, the author recalled the first time the service of the Forensic expert (Forty) was used in post election litigation in Nigeria. The case of Olusegun Mimiko & Ors V Chief Olusegun Agagu & Ors (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt.1140) 342 CA, was cited. Forty’s report on the case, according to Omonuwa on p. 27 “had to pass the test of relevancy and admissibility in the course of proceedings. Although the respondents resisted the admissibility of this report, the Practice Direction made pursuant to the Electoral Act of 2006, made it easy to admit the said report. It is no longer news that it was with the aid of this report that the petitioner was able to establish his case at the tribunals”.

    On Oshiomhole’s case in which he participated, the author submitted that “The trial court used the voters register as well as the accreditation of voters as a basis for determining the lawful votes, although there was no actual manual recount of the ballot papers, it would have been tidier if the said ballot papers were subjected to forensic analysis to determine the genuiness of the thumbprints on them.”

    Subsequent Elections in Nigeria and Forensic Science is another important issue raised by the learned author on p. 43 where he submitted  that in the aftermath  of the 2011 Presidential Election, there was the allegation by the then Presidential Candidate of the defunct Congress for Progressive Change(CPC) that the election was rigged, ……. “Unfortunately  though in view of the time frame allowed under the Electoral Act 2010 and the Practice Direction made pursuant thereto, the petitioner had no time to prove these weighty allegations”.

    On Page confession of a Captain in the Nigerian Army that Army and other security agencies were compromised and used to rig the Governorship election that ousted Dr. Fayemi of Ekiti State from the office.

    With the use of forensic analysis the voice recording of the suspected conspirator’s and co-conspirators in the rigging plan and execution was instructive though the confession came too late as the report confirmed an 80 percent accuracy of the voices of the public figures by the Army Officer in the Ekiti rigging incident.

    Coming to this year’s General Election and Forensic Advocacy, the learned silk noted the unique strategy of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to use electronic cards i.e. Permanent Voter’s card (PVC).

    He said in all the proceedings going on at the various election petitions, “data from the card readers  will be subjected  to Forensic Analysis preferably by information communication technology experts”.

    He added on page 47 that “It is equally expected that these will form the basis for forensic advocacy by the respective parties, thus   making the job of the adjucator (the elector tribunal) less arduous”.

    On the way forward, Omonuwa suggested the following points:The proposal for the review of the Evidence Act should be done to take cognisance of forensic advocacy. The rules for the relevancy and admissibility of forensic evidence should be included. The use of the sections dealing with expert evidence would not suffice in the circumstances as the experts contemplated therein are expected to proffer opinions as distinct from a forensic scientist who is expected to present a scientific report.

    • Our law enforcement agents should be adequately tutored in the area of forensic science. This would improve on their investigative skills, especially the gathering and protection of evidence in a crime scene. A lot of in-service training and refresher courses may suffice in the circumstances:
    • Legal practitioner, especially those wanting to be successful in election petitions should endeavour to understand the fundamentals of forensic advocacy within the parameters of the Electoral Act and the Practice Directions made pursuant thereto. No doubt, a symposium in the continuous legal training programme on this would equally suffice.
    • he curriculum content of our undergraduate training for lawyers should be expounded to include a training in the fundamentals of forensic science and;
    • The electoral reforms should include a review of the Electoral Act to streamline and reduce the difficulties involved in the admissibility of forensic reports in election petitions proceedings.

    Adequate references  were made to the use of Forensic Science in Election Jurisprudence in other jurisdictions, namely the United States, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands where he affirmed that, “ in all of these cases, the point that came clearly, is that election as a process is not error free, even with the use of electronic or digital technology”.

    For easy reference the book has four appendixes with indexes.

    I recommend the book whom the author dedicated to the immediate past Minister of  Justice  Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN)CFR “ for restoring  dignity and professionalism  to the office of the Attorney-General and  Minister of Justice in Nigeria” to all and sundry.

    “I, therefore, adopt the words of Jegede (SAN) in the Foreword: “the increasing reliance on electronic register, voters’ Card reader and finger print verification machine the manner and mode  of proof of evidence by forensic means makes this initiative and the book itself a worthy companion for lawyers while interest is in Election Litigation and the development of our law”.

    In conclusion, I am positive that the desired aim of this book according to the author which “is to create an increased awareness  in forensic advocacy and help determine how potentially useful it could be ought to be in the resolution of post-election litigations in Nigeria” would be met.

  • How to conduct election petitions, by judge

    How to conduct election petitions, by judge

    Justice Biobele Abraham Georgewill of the Court of  Appeal has called on the Bar and Bench to observe international best legal practices in the conduct of election petitions.

    He was delivering a keynote address at the Annual Seminar of the Eastern Bar Forum (EBF)  of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) at the Multipurpose Hall of the Akwa Ibom  State Ministry of Justice, Uyo

    Speaking on The Bar and Bench in Nigeria: the imperatives of  ethical revolution  in the legal profession, Justice Georgewill said the Bar and the Bench must collaborate.

    “The relationship between the Bar and the Bench is a very unique one, they share a common bond and a symbolic connection whereby one cannot exist without the other.

    “Indeed, the Bench is the product of the Bar. There  cannot be the Bench without the Bar, the Bar is the life giving source  of the Bench and they both make up the legal profession in Nigeria,” he said.

    He urged the profession to do its best to remain above board so as to protect its aura.

    His words: “When you see them garbed in their black gown and white wig, they are the envy of others and they belong to the prestigious club of the legal profession.

    “As members of this club,  they are entrusted with the duty to act as a gauge or a barometer and as watch-dog of the society to ensure that the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry are respected and protected so that no man is oppressed.

    “They are to ensure through the instrumentality of the law that rights of citizens who may not be capable of protecting themselves from the oppression of the powerful and mighty are not trampled upon without due legal redress.

    “The legal profession, the Bar and Bench, also carries the sacred duty of ensuring that there is justice, equity and fairness in the land. The Bar does this by championing good causes in the justice, equity and fairness in the land.

    “The Bar does this by championing good causes in the system and using its good knowledge of the law to defend the oppressed. The Bar continues  to fight the good fight for justice to ensure that our society is changed for the better and governed by just laws for a just society.

    “The Bench, on its part, carries out its responsibility by ensuring that justice is rendered to all that are brought or come before it with integrity and without fear or favour, ill will or affection

    “The legal profession prides itself as the learned profession and its members as learned men, learned a little in almost everything and learned most in the law. They are a special breed of professionals, to whom much respect and honour is given and therefore from whom much more is expected by the society. The question is whether the Legal profession in Nigeria is living up to its billing by the society? Is it a thing of bride to belong to the Legal profession in Nigeria today? We shall soon find out.”

    Justice Georgewill said the legal profession encompasses the length and breadth of the administration of law and justice  systems in Nigeria and those involved in it, including the courts and the practitioners of the law.

    According to him, the societal expectations are as essential as the very fabrics necessary for the country’s survival and growth.

    “We must carry out our duties with integrity, honour, commitment to excellence and adopt the best practices in the post election litigations. We must collectively strive to attain justice so that only the true wishes of the peoples of Nigeria in their various states as expressed by their votes is respected.

    “The Bar and the  Bench must shun all acts or perceived acts of corruption and undue influence in all its  ramifications so that our country will march on into glory with integrity and justice as our watch word even in the post election era litigations.

    “The Bar and  Bench must work assiduously to regain the obviously lost confidence of the Nigerian people, who in the past had wondered aloud, and justifiably so, over the unsavoury happenings and the usefulness of post election litigations in this country bedeviled with lack of transparency and integrity.

    “This perception of the Nigerian people against the Bar/Bench must be changed through our conscious efforts to turn things around for good and justice in this year’s post election litigation so as to reduce to nil or the barest minimum all such perceptions of corruption in the judicial process in the post election era,” he said.

    Chairman of the Governing Council of EBF, Chief  Ogbonna Igwenyi,  explained why the seminar was organised.

    “Since 2012, the EBF has always organised a seminar on topical issues of the day with a view to keeping members and the entire society abreast with developments on contemporary issues affecting everybody in the society,” he said.

    He praised his predecessor, theBayelsa State Attorney-General  and Commissioner for Justice Mr. Kemasuode Wodu for his legacies  in the forum including nurturing the annual seminar and Dinner.

    Igwenyi  thanked Imo State Governor Owelle Rochas Anayo Okorocha for his support to the forum especially,  his donation of a piece of land for the construction of the EBF headquarters.

    He also praised the forum’s founding fathers for their continued assistance to the association.

    Former President of the NBA, Okey Wali (SAN), former General Secretary of the association, M. Emeka JP Obegolu and  Mr. Chidi Anyaegbu, Chief Executive Officer of Chisco Transport were honoured at the occasion for their contributions to the development of the NBA and socio-economic development of the country.

  • Supreme Court re-affirms time limit for election petitions

    An application was brought before the Court pursuant to Sections 6(6)(a) and (b), 36(1) and (3), 294(2) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended); Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, 2004; Order 2 Rule 28(1) and Order 8 Rule 17 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1999 (As Amended); and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and seeking for the following reliefs:-

    a) An order setting aside its ruling delivered in open court on 8th day of June, 2012 in Appeal Nos. SC.191/2012 and SC.191A/2012, terminating the said appeals;

    b) An order implementing/enforcing its order/decision delivered on 14th November, 2011 that the petition be heard on the merits;

    c) An order Restoring Appeal Nos: SC.191/2012, SC.191A/2012 terminated on 8th June, 2012 and hearing same on the merits;

    d) Accelerated hearing of this application;

    e) Such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

    The background facts leading to this application may be stated as follows:-

    The applicants were the petitioners against the declaration of the 1st respondent as the winner of the Gubernatorial Election which held in Benue State on 26/4/2011 in Petition No: GET/BN/02/2011 filed on 17/5/2011. On 23/6/2011 they applied by motion ex-parte for the issuance of pre-hearing notice under paragraph 18(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act (as amended). The Tribunal granted the order and caused pre-hearing conference notice to be issued to all the respondents. The 1st and 2nd respondents by different motions on notice sought orders to set aside the pre hearing notices already issued. While the 1st respondent later withdrew his application which was struck out on 29/6/2011 the Tribunal proceeded to hear the 2nd respondent’s motion which was dismissed on 19/7/2011. On appeal by the 1st respondent, the Court of Appeal set aside the ruling of the Tribunal and consequently decided that leave under paragraph 47 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act is applicable to all applications under paragraph 18(1) of the same schedule and proceeded to dismiss the petition. On an appeal to the Supreme Court in SC.360/2010 delivered on 14/11/2011, the appeal was allowed and the decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside. The Supreme Court then made an order that the petition be heard on the merit. By the time the parties went back to the Tribunal, the 180 days time limit prescribed by the Constitution for hearing and determination of the petition had lapsed and the petition was accordingly struck out.

    On 4th June, 2012 when Appeal Nos. SC.191/2012 and SC.191A/2012 came up for hearing before this court, the 3rd respondent’s counsel informed the court that it had preliminary objection in respect of SC.191/2012. It was agreed by both parties that since Appeals SC.191/2012; SC.191A/2012 and SC.192/2012 are based on the same decision of the court below, the preliminary objection should be taken first and ruled upon. This Court then ruled on 8th June, 2012. This is the ruling that is being sought to be set aside.

    The central focus of the submission by the applicants’ counsel alleged a breach on the Constitutional provision of the right to fair hearing. The senior counsel related copiously to the Constitutionality of Section 285(6) in the light of Sections 4(8), 6(6)(a) and (b) and 36(1). In further establishing his position, learned counsel reiterated that Section 285(6) of the Constitution cannot take away the inherent powers and sanctions of a superior court of justice such as the Supreme Court etc that are not created by statute but by the Constitution. Counsel also submitted the damaging effect of Section 285(6) which is capable of emasculating or destroying the appellants’ Constitutional right of action, Constitutional right of appeal and Constitutional right to fair hearing implicit in Sections 285(2), 285(7), 246(i)(ii), 233(2)(e) (iv) and 36(i) of the said Constitution.

    It is also the submission of senior counsel that in the exercise of its powers under Sections 6(6), 233(1)(2) (e) (iv) and 285(7), the court is not to be inhibited by the provision of Section 285(6) of the Constitution especially if the tribunal gives the judgment within 180 days in compliance with the said Section and appeal arising there from is also decided by the Appellate court within 60 days in compliance with Section 285(7) of the said Constitution. Specifically and with reference made to the case of Alao V. A.C.B. Ltd. (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) 264 at 296; 2000) LPELR-SC.14/1995(2), the counsel re-iterated the findings therein and added that the provision of Section 6(6)(a) and (b) of the Constitution does not derogate from the general judicial powers of the court to set aside its own decision should injustice or miscarriage of justice be perpetuated; that the Supreme Court will unhesitatingly set aside its decision which is a nullity. Counsel in the result urged that prayers (a) and (c) on the motion paper be granted.

    On behalf of the 1st respondent, submitting to substantiate their course of objection, the 1st respondent’s lead counsel Mr. D.D. Dodo. SAN formulated three issues for determination. Submitting on the 1st issue raised, the 1st respondent’s counsel drew reference to the established principle of law that where an action or an appeal has no practical or utilitarian value to the appellant, even if judgment is given in his favour, the appeal is rendered a mere academic exercise. It was the counsel’s submission that, 180 days having lapsed from the date the original petition was filed and 60 days also having lapsed from the date of delivery of judgments by the Court of Appeal which judgments were appealed against in Appeals SC.191/2012 and SC.191A/2012, the two appeals have lapsed; that with the substantive appeals which gave rise to the present application having lapsed therefore, the application itself has become academic and bereft of any live issue consequent upon which the court now lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the application which should determine only live issues. It was the contention of counsel that the court should decline jurisdiction by reason of the Constitutional operation.

    In further submission, the learned counsel considered issues 2 and 3 together and stressed in strong terms the position taken by the court on the finality of its decisions, in a number of cases, which does not however extend to or include the power to sit on appeal over its decisions. Considering the decisions of the court, it was the counsel’s contention that the application did not satisfy any of the exceptional circumstances to warrant the honourable court interfering with its well considered decision delivered 8th June, 2012. The counsel on the totality therefore impressed upon this court to dismiss the application as lacking in merit.

    In opposing the motion also, the 2nd respondent’s counsel submitted that the court does not as a general rule have the jurisdiction to set aside its own judgment except on satisfaction of certain stringent conditions as set out in the case of Igwe V. Kalu (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 787) P. 435; (2002) LPELR-SC.26/1996 that the applicants at hand have failed to satisfy any of the conditions enumerated in the said authority to warrant setting aside the Ruling of the court delivered 8th June, 2012.

    In further submission, counsel re-echoed that the order of the court made 14/11/2011 to hear the petition denovo has no effect whatsoever because it was made after the 180 days within which the tribunal was to hear and determine the applicants’ petition filed 17/5/2011, which time expired on 12/11/2011. On the totality of his submission the counsel concluded that the applicants have failed to satisfy the conditions that will warrant this court to set aside its ruling delivered 8th June, 2012; he therefore urged that the application be dismissed.

    While adopting the submissions by the 1st and 2nd respondents, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Mr. Okutepa, SAN centered the totality of his argument on Order 8 rule 16 of the rules of the court which empowers the court to set aside its own decision; that in the absence of any reason given for the setting aside of the judgment, the counsel in summary also called for the dismissal of the application as a sheer abuse of court process.

    In considering the application, the Court noted that the crux of the application was centered on the 1st relief which sought an order setting aside the ruling delivered 8th June, 2012 and that the main issue for determination in this application therefore was:-

    “Whether in the circumstances of this case the applicants have, as a matter of law, satisfied the conditions to warrant this court, setting aside its Ruling delivered on 8th June, 2012.”

    The Court stated that Order 8 Rule 16 of the rules of court is specific in stating that the court has no jurisdiction to set aside its decision, Ruling/Judgment if properly made in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction. The Court further stated that it was rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and the court has re-affirmed the finality of its decision in a plethora of cases and also held times without number that its inherent power to set aside its own decision, when same is later found to be a nullity or obtained by fraud, does not extend to include the power to sit on appeal over its judgment/ruling. This principle of law the Court stated was well entrenched in the case of Igwe V. Kalu (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 787) P. 435; (2002) LPELR-SC.26/1996. The Court held further relying on the above case that notwithstanding the above principle, there is also a rider or a caveat which holds secure that in appropriate cases, it is expedient that the court, in the exercise of its inherent powers, can set aside its Ruling or judgment provided the circumstance calling for such order has satisfied the stringent conditions that the judgment or ruling is a nullity; that such decision was obtained by fraud; and that the court was misled in delivering the said judgment or ruling.

    The Court noted that the appropriate question to pose at that juncture was, does the applicants’ application before the Court fall within the situational circumstances and the decided authorities? The Court further noted that it is for instance expedient to restate that the totality of the applicants’ averments in their supporting affidavit, only allege an “error” on the part of the court and not lack of competence in delivering the Ruling of 8th June, 2012. The Court held that with reference made to the conditions set out in the case of Igwe V. Kalu (supra), it is evident that for the court to set aside its judgment, the decision must have been a nullity. In other words it must have been made by the court either without statutory jurisdiction, or when a condition precedent for the court to assume jurisdiction has not been fulfilled. An erroneous judgment however, is one made within the court’s competence and therefore cannot be branded as a nullity.

    The Court stated that the affidavit in support of the applicants’ motion did not indicate that the court was misled into giving its ruling, or that there was the absence of jurisdiction on its part in entertaining the preliminary objection that culminated in the said ruling of 8th June, 2012. It was not also disclosed that the ruling sought to be set aside was obtained either by fraud or deceit.

    The other arm of the applicants’ view-point for consideration was the submission relating Section 285(6) and (7) of the Constitution which learned senior counsel argued constituted encroachment on the Independence of the judiciary and a denial of right of fair hearing to the determination of the applicants’ petitions.

    The Court stated that the Constitutional mandate and also its enforcement were well pronounced and enunciated in various judicial authorities by the court wherein imposition is placed upon the tribunal to deliver its judgment within 180 days from the date of filing a petition. The Court further stated that prominent among such authorities is the case of ANPP V. Goni (2012) 1 NWL R (Pt.1298) P.147 at 181; (2012) LPELR-SC.1/2012 (Consolidated), which affirmed the immutability of the 180 days instituted in Section 285(6). The Court held that the jurisdictional competence of the tribunal under Section 285(6) cannot by any reason exceed the 180 days allotted. It remains sacrosanct and can neither be added to nor subtracted from.

    On the whole, the Court held that the Constitutional effect of Section 285(6) and (7) had been well pronounced upon by the court times without number, in a plethora of authorities. The Court further held that the subsequent recurrence of suits filed and seeking to overreach the Constitutional interpretation of the Section thereof was of great concern. The Court stated that Clarion calls are made in loud and clear terms that there must be an end to litigation. The Court noted that it is unfortunate that the call appears as if it is a lone voice sounding only in the wilderness and not within human hearing. Decisions in case laws are meant to speak volume both in the given situation and for future guidance. Counsel was well advised to desist from filing unnecessary suits which are merely academic and yielding no benefits but mere waste of quality time. The Court held that the application at hand is purely academic and therefore frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process. Same was thereby refused and dismissed. The Court awarded punitive costs against the applicants’ counsel and it is assessed at N1,000,000.00k in favour of each set of respondents.

     

    Edited by LawPavillion

    LawPavilion Citation: (2014) LPELR-22882(SC)