The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court directs CCT to suspend Saraki’s trial

    Supreme Court directs CCT to suspend Saraki’s trial

    The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to suspend proceedings in the trial of Senate President, Bukola Saraki.

    The apex court asked the CCT to “tarry awhile” and await its decision in the appeal filed by Saraki.

    The directive by a five-man panel, led by Justice John Fabiyi, followed an undertaking by respondents’ lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), to the effect that since the court has granted accelerated hearing in the appeal, he will prevail on the CCT not to proceed with trial until the apex court rule on Saraki’s appeal.

    “The appellant’s brief of argument was filed yesterday (November 11, 2015). The respondents’ brief of argument shall be filed within seven days from today. If need be, the appellant’s reply shall be filed within seven days thereafter.

    “All these point to the fact that both parties are interested in expeditious hearing of the main appeal before this court.

    “Learned counsel for the respondents has given an undertaking that no unusual steps would be taken on behalf of the respondents. It is imperative to say that parties, as well as the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), should tarry awhile.

    “In effect, further proceedings before the Code of Conduct Tribunal should be stayed pending the hearing of the main appeal. Hearing date shall be communicated to the parties in due course,” Justice Fabiyi said in a ruling that was adopted by other members of the panel.

    Earlier, Jacobs and Saraki’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), argued the Senate President’s application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.

    While Daudu prayed the court to order a stay of proceedings at the CCT, Jacobs argued otherwise, contending that Saraki was only interested in frustrating his trial before the tribunal by filing multiple applications in various courts.

     

  • ‘Supreme Court must be consistent’

    ‘Supreme Court must be consistent’

    Decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria should as much as possible not conflict with one another, says Prof Koyinsola Ajayi (SAN).

    Ajayi, who spoke against the backdrop of the court’s two recent decisions on the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)’s Stamp and Seal Policy, said for Nigeria’s judicial system to catch up with that of the rest of the world, there must be consistency of judicial decisions.

    He said: “When you consider what two full panels of the Supreme Court in a period of two weeks said about the stamp and seal policy of the Nigerian Bar Association, it certainly leaves cause for great concern, because I believe on October 15, in a political case, a full panel of the Supreme Court said failure to have a seal on a court process doesn’t matter and on October 27, it said it is fatal.

    “Now, clearly, one of the reasons why we have the courts is so that we can have certainty and predictability in what we do, and where our courts are inconsistent, and not just inconsistent but clearly inconsistent within a period of two weeks in a calendar month in respect of political cases, then we need to begin to speak to ourselves.

    “And it’s not just the judges, it’s also the lawyers because obviously it’s lawyers that proffer these arguments before the courts. Good practice requires lawyers to be faithful to their calling, they are called learned and noble, therefore lawyers should always do what they can to aid the court to achieve justice.”

    The latter of the two decisions that the learned silk referred to is the judgment delivered on October 27, 2015 in Appeal No. SC/722/15 All Progressives Congress (APC) V. General Bello Sarkin Yaki, where the Supreme Court declared that lawyers in the country must affix the NBA Stamp and Seal on any legal document that they intend to tender for legal transactions.

    By this decision the court affirmed that “If without complying with the mandatory provision of Rule 10(1) Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 which requires a lawyer acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, legal officer or adviser of any government department or ministry or any corporation, who signs or files a legal document to affix on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association, the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed.”

    The court, therefore, declared that the signing and or filing of a legal document will be incompetent.

    On which of the two decisions lower courts should follow, Professor Ajayi said: “The problem is, this is two full panels of the Supreme Court within a period of two weeks. The problem here is that the Supreme Court itself has no controlling authority on what to do.

    “We have Supreme Court decisions that say if you have two of its conflicting decisions, one says follow the one that is later in time, another one more or less says take the one you like. So, we have a problem. Someone has to create clarity as to which way to go.”

     

  • Saraki appeals to Supreme Court

    Saraki appeals to Supreme Court

    •Apex court urged to stay proceedings before CCT 

    Senate President Bukola Saraki has appealed the October 30 decision of the Court of Appeal, which upheld his trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) ý on a 13-count charge of false assets declaration.

    Saraki, in his notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, faulted the Court of Appeal and asked the apex court to set aside the appellate court’s judgment and stop his trial before the CCT.

    The Senate President filed, along with the notice of appeal, an application for stay of proceedings in his trial.

    The CCT had, on October 21, elected to await the judgment of the Appeal Court in Saraki’s appeal before taking any further steps in the case. It adjourned to November 5.

    On October 30, a three-man bench of the Court of Appeal, by a split decision of two-to-one, dismissed Saraki’s appeal. Saraki had appealed against the CCT’s decision to assume jurisdiction over his trial.

    The appeal and application for stay of proceedings filed by Saraki may not affect proceedings before the CCT tomorrow as it is not likely that the Supreme Court will sit before then to consider any of the documents the Senate President just filed.

    Saraki raised seven grounds of appeal in his notice of appeal attached to the application for stay of proceedings, both filed for him by his legal team led by Joseph Daudu (SAN).

  • Supreme Court dismisses Ihedioha’s appeal

    Supreme Court dismisses Ihedioha’s appeal

    Former Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha lost Thursday in his challenge of Imo State governor, Rochas Okorocha’s victory at the last governorship election in the state.

    The Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment, dismissed the appeal by Ihedioha, who was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the election held on April 11. Okorocha was the candidate of the All Progressives Party (APC).

    A seven-man bench, led by Justice John Fabiyi, affirmed an earlier judgment by the Court of Appeal, Owerri, which held that Ihedioha’s failure to properly serve Okorocha and his party robbed the appellate court the jurisdiction to hear the case.

    The Supreme Court noted that Ihedioha’s failure to indicate, in the appeal processes (documents), addresses of other respondents was fatal to the case.

    The court consequently dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

    The court also affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal to reject three separate motions which the appellant as petitioner had filed before the tribunal.

    The apex court held that it could not evoke its jurisdiction under section 22 of the Supreme Court Act since the appeal had been rightly dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

    Justice Iyang Okoro, who read the lead judgment, held that the Court of Appeal was right to have granted the preliminary objection raised against the service of notice of appeal by Okorocha.

    He upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal to the effect that the appellants merely “dumped” the processes on the protocol officer of the APC instead of personal service provided for by the law.

    “Although the court is not a slave to its rule, it is the duty of the court to ensure that its rules are obeyed,” Justice Okoro ruled.

    He dismissed the appellant’s argument that the Appeal Court, having earlier ruled that the processes had been served on all the respondents, no longer had the power to subsequently rule that the respondents were not properly served.

    He held that the statement confirming that the respondents had been served was only that of a registrar of the court and not a decision of the court.

    Justice Okoro said: “The summary of all that I have said above is that the statement by the registrar that the processes had been served on all the respondents was not a decision of the lower court and does not preclude the court from satisfying itself from available records on whether the 26 absent respondents were actually served.

    “Secondly notice of appeal being an originating process, must be served personally on the respondents unless otherwise directed or ordered by the court or intended by the provision of the law.  In this case there was no such order.

    “On the whole, there is no merit in this appeal at all. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed by me.

    “Thus the judgment of the lower court (Court of Appeal) in Owerri delivered on September 3, 2015, which struck out the appeal of the appellant is hereby affirmed. Parties are to bear their respective costs.”

    The Imo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal had, in a ruling on July 22, dismissed Ihedioha’s petition against Okorocha’s victory on ‎on the grounds that it was incompetence.

    Ihedioha appealed the ruling. The Court of Appeal, Owerri dismissed the appeal in its decision given on September 3, 2015, prompting the PDP candidate to appeal to the Supreme Court.

  • Imo: Supreme Court dismisses ex-Deputy Speaker’s appeal

    Imo: Supreme Court dismisses ex-Deputy Speaker’s appeal

    Former Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha lost Thursday  morning in his challenge of Imo State governor, Rochas Okorocha’s victory at the last governorship election in the state.

    The Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment  dismissed the appeal by Ihedioha, who was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the election held on April 11. Okorocha was the candidate of the All Progressives Party (APC).

    A seven-man bench, led by Justice John Fabiyi, affirmed an earlier  judgment by the Court of Appeal, Owerri, which held that Ihedioha’s failure to properly serve Okorocha and his party robbed the appellate court the jurisdiction to hear the case.

    The Supreme Court noted that Ihedioha’s failure to indicate, in the appeal processes (documents), addresses of other respondents was fatal to the case.

    They consequently dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit. Ihedioha appealed the ruling.

    The Imo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal had, in a ruling on July 22, dismissed Ihedioha’s petition against Okorocha’s victory on ‎on the grounds that it was incompetence.

    The Court of Appeal, Owerri dismissed the appeal in its decision given on September 3, 2015, prompting the PDP candidate to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    [news_box style=”2″ display=”tag” link_target=”_blank” tag=”Tribunal” count=”8″ show_more=”on” show_more_type=”link”]

  • wike loses again

    wike loses again

    THE Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal by Governor Nyesom Wike and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), on the relocation of Rivers State governorship election petition tribunal to Abuja.

    The apex court, in a unanimous judgment yesterday, held that the appeal “lacked merit and substance”.

    The court dismissed it “in its entirety”.

    Justice Amiru Sanusi, who read the judgment on the interlocutory appeal, upheld the earlier decisions by the tribunal and the Court of Appeal that the tribunal’s relocation to Abuja from Port Harcourt, was in order because it was informed by security challenges.

    The tribunal last Saturday nullified Wike’s election in its judgment in the petition by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate, Dakuku Peterside.

    Justice Sanusi held that evidence abound that there were security challenges in Rivers State when the tribunal was moved to Abuja.

    He said the court was not bound by an earlier decision in the case involving former Delta State Governor James Ibori  that tribunals must sit in a state where election was held to determine dispute from such election.

    The justice said the Ibori case was not binding where the relocation was effected by the tribunal’s constituting authority – the president of the Court of Appeal – and the relocation informed by security challenges.

    Justice Sanusi observed that in the Ibori case, the relocation of the tribunal was not by the president of the Court of Appeal, and that the relocation was not on the grounds of insecurity.

    “But in the instant case, it was the president of the Court of Appeal that relocated the tribunal to Abuja because of insecurity.

    “It was this situation that demanded a doctrine of necessity which made the president of the Court of Appeal to relocate the tribunal to Abuja to protect the lives of members of the panel.

    “I agree with the Court of Appeal that the president of the Court of Appeal is right in relocating the panel to Abuja.

    “On the whole, I hold that the tribunal was properly constituted by the president of the Court of Appeal even without consultation with the chief judge of Rivers State or the president of the Customary Court , even though, as at then, there was no chief judge, and there was no president of the Customary Court.

    “The consultation here is not as to the venue of the sitting, but to get judges in Rivers State that will be part of the various election petition tribunals.

    “It is necessary to protect members of the panel by relocating them from the theatre of war to where their lives will be secured. The president of the Court of Appeal has the power and has judiciously utilised the power.

    “The panel is properly constituted and it is not bereft of jurisdiction to hear the petition of the petitioners. The appeal lacks merit, and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Sanusi said.

    The Rivers tribunal was one of the tribunals relocated to Abuja on security grounds following its inability to conduct its proceedings in Port-Harcourt, the state capital.

    Others are those of Akwa Ibom, Yobe, Borno, Admawa and Taraba states.

    Uncomfortable with the tribunal’s movement to Abuja, Wike and PDP objected to its sitting in Abuja, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ibori case.

    The tribunal dismissed the objection to its jurisdiction to hear the petition in Abuja. It held that it could sit outside the state where election was held to decide any dispute arising from such election where security was a challenge.

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja, upheld the tribunal’s decision as it relates to its jurisdiction to sit in Abuja, following which Wike and his party appealed to the Supreme Court.

    A panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice John Fabiyi, heard the Appeal by Wike on October 16 and fixed judgment for yesterday.

  • Rivers: Supreme Court dismisses appeal by Wike, PDP

    Rivers: Supreme Court dismisses appeal by Wike, PDP

    •’Suit against tribunal’s relocation to Abuja lacks merit’

    THE Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), against the relocation of the state governorship election tribunal to Abuja.

    The apex court, in a unanimous judgment yesterday, held that the appeal “lacked merit and substance”.

    The court dismissed it “in its entirety”.

    Justice Amiru Sanusi, who read the judgment on the interlocutory appeal, upheld the earlier decisions by the tribunal and the Court of Appeal, to the effect that the relocation of the tribunal to Abuja from Port-Harcourt, was in order having been informed by security challenges.

    The tribunal last Saturday nullified Wike’s election in its judgment in the petition by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate, Dakuku Peterside.

    Justice Sanusi held that evidence abound that there were security challenges in Rivers State as at when the tribunal was relocated to Abuja.

    He said the court was not bound by an earlier decision in the case involving former Delta State Governor James Ibori to the effect that tribunals must seat in a state where election was held to determine dispute from such election.

    The judge said the Ibori case was not binding where the relocation was effected by the tribunal’s constituting authority – the President of the Court of Appeal – and the relocation informed by security challenges.

    Justice Sanusi observed that in the Ibori case, the relocation of the tribunal was not by the President of the Court of Appeal, and that the relocation was not on ground of insecurity.

    “But in the instant case, it was the President of the Court of Appeal that relocated the tribunal to Abuja because of insecurity.

    “It was this situation that demanded for a doctrine of necessity which made the President of the Court of Appeal to relocate the tribunal to Abuja to protect the lives of the members of the panel.

    “I agree with the Court of Appeal that the President of the Court of Appeal is right in relocating the panel to Abuja.

    “On the whole, I hold that the tribunal was properly constituted by the President of the Court of Appeal even without consultation with the Chief Judge of Rivers State or the President of the Customary Court , even though, as at then, there was no chief judge, and there was no President of the Customary Court.

    “The consultation here is not as to the venue of the sitting, but to get judges in Rivers State that will be part of the various election petition tribunals.

    “It is necessary to protect members of the panel by relocating them from the theatre of war to where their lives will be secured. The President of the Court of Appeal has the power and has judiciously utilised the power.

    “The panel is properly constituted and it is not bereft of jurisdiction to hear the petition of the petitioners. The appeal lacks merit, and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Sanusi said.

    The Rivers tribunal was one of the tribunals relocated to Abuja on security ground following its inability to conduct its proceedings in Port-Harcourt, Rivers State capital.

    Others are those of Akwa Ibom, Yobe, Borno, Admawa and Taraba states.

    Uncomfortable with the tribunal’s movement to Abuja, Wike and PDP objected to its sitting in Abuja, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ibori case.

    The tribunal dismissed the objection to its jurisdiction to hear the petition in Abuja. It held that it could sit outside the state where election was held to decide any dispute arising from such election where security was a challenge.

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja upheld the tribunal’s decision as it relates to its jurisdiction to sit in Abuja, following which Wike and his party appealed to the Supreme Court.

    A panel of the Supreme Court led by Justice John Fabiyi, heard the Appeal by Wike on October 16 and fixed judgment for yesterday.

  • Rivers: Supreme Court dismisses Wike’s suit against tribunal

    Rivers: Supreme Court dismisses Wike’s suit against tribunal

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the suit filed by Rivers State governor, Nyesom Wike, challenging the jurisdiction of the state governorship election petition tribunal to hear a petition filed against his election by the All Progressive Congress (APC) candidate in the April 11 gubernatorial poll, Dakuku Peterside.

    The tribunal on Saturday nullified the election and ordered a fresh poll within 90 days.

    Wike, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the poll, had said in his petition that the tribunal which sat in Abuja had no jurisdiction over matters that transpired in Rivers State.

    He insisted that the tribunal should have conducted its activities in Rivers and not in Abuja.

     

     

  • Rivers tribunal’s jurisdiction: Supreme Court rules Tuesday

    Rivers tribunal’s jurisdiction: Supreme Court rules Tuesday

    The Supreme Court will Tuesday deliver judgment on whether or not the Rivers State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal was right to have sat in Abuja.

    The tribunal was one of the tribunals relocated to Abuja on security ground following its inability to conduct its proceedings in Port-Harcourt, Rivers State capital.

    Others are those of Akwa-Ibom, Yobe, Borno, Admawa and Taraba states.

    The Rivers’ tribunal, in its judgment last Saturday, nullified the last governorship election in the state that produced Nyesom Wike of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and ordered a rerun.

    Wike and the Independent National Electoral Commission (who were respondents in the petition by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate in the election, Dakuku Peterside) challenged the tribunal’s decision to relocate to Abuja.

    The tribunal dismissed the objection to its jurisdiction to sit and here the petition in Abuja.

    It held that it could sit outside the state where election was held to decide any dispute arising from such election on ground of insecurity.

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja upheld the tribunal’s decision as it relates to its jurisdiction to sit in Abuja, following which Wike appealed to the Supreme Court.

    A panel of the Supreme Court led by Justice John Fabiyi, had the Appeal by Wike on October 16, heard the appeal by Wike and fixed judgment for Tuesday.

  • Supreme Court strikes out Agabje’s appeal against Ambode

    Supreme Court strikes out Agabje’s appeal against Ambode

    •Says Agbaje cannot appeal without his party

    The Supreme Court yesterday struck out the appeal filed by Jimi Agbaje, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in Lagos.

    Agabje appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos, which upheld the decision of the governorship election petition tribunal and dismissed the appeal he filed with his party.

    The tribunal had, in its judgment on June 20, dismissed the petition jointly filed by Agabje and his party challenging the victory of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Akinwunmi Ambode, on the grounds that it was incompetent.

    Yesterday, the seven-man panel, led by Justice Tanko Mohammad, in a unanimous decision, struck out Agabje’s appeal for being incompetent.

    In the judgment read by Justice Clara Ogunbiyi, the Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection filed by Ambode against the appeal initiated solely by Agbaje.

    The court upheld Ambode’s contention that Agbaje’s appeal was incompetent and merely academic because the party (PDP) that sponsored Agbaje as its candidate accepted the decision of the Appeal Court on the issue and refused to join Agbaje to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Justice Ogunbiyi: “For all intents and purposes, the communal deduction of the foregoing is a situation where a sponsoring political party has accepted the dismissal of its challenge to an election as binding on it.

    “Also inclusive in the said decision is the party’s candidate (appellant in this appeal). It is significant to restate further that the judgment given in CA/L/EP/GOV/762A/2015 has not been appealed,” the judge said.

    Justice Ogunbiyi said a political party was more important than the candidate in an election.

    The judge said the appellant and his lawyer, Richard Ahonaruogho, failed to “dislodge the preliminary objection raised by the second respondent (Ambode) and which same I uphold and sustain”.

    “Consequently, the appeal herein is struck out for incompetence. The judgment of the lower court which upheld that of the trial tribunal and striking out the petitions is also affirmed by me,” Justice Ogunbiyi said.

    Listed as respondents were the Independent National Electoral Commission, the APC and the Resident Electoral Commission.

    Ambode described the judgment as a welcome development, saying the people’s mandate which was expressly demonstrated on Election Day had been reaffirmed.

    In a statement by his Chief Press Secretary, Habib Aruna, the governor said: “The decision of the Supreme Court has put all issues on election matters to rest once and for all.

    “Our government is thus poised without further delay to provide the needed leadership to justify the confidence reposed in us, especially with the ruling coming in the wake of the swearing-in of members of the state executive council.”