The obiter dictum from the fecund mind of, late pre-eminent jurist, Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa, JSC, in Adegoke Motors Ltd vs. Dr Babatunde Adesanya & Anor (1989) 3NWLR (Pt. 109), 250 at 274, on the finality and the infallibility of the judgments of the Supreme Court, regardless of what lesser mortals, may think, wherein he said: “we are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final”, has resurrected, following some recent judgments of the apex court; and will resonate across the country, for some time to come.
Just as Nigerians were ruminating on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ejike Oguebego & anor. vs. Peoples Democratic Party & ors., on the Anambra State Peoples Democratic Party’s 2015 party primaries, the court delivered her judgments, in the controversial Akwa Ibom and Abia states’ gubernatorial elections, to add to the fire, already stoked by her earlier judgment in the Rivers State’s gubernatorial election. While awaiting the reasons behind the judgments, from the apex court, no doubt, these judgments, that have secured the mandates of all the gubernatorial incumbents, have stirred controversies.
What is however abundantly clear, from the reactions, in the mainstream and social media, is that some Nigerians are insinuating extraneous reasons for the judgments. Indeed, many of the commentators that were offended by the judgements, that upturned the concurrent judgments of electoral tribunals and the court of appeal, in some of the cases, used unprintable words, in their condemnation of the learned Justices. Even among the parties to the suit, and their supporters, their actions, days before the judgment, betrayed their strong believe that the courts are not merely guided by the provisions of the law and the facts emanating from their presentation at the tribunals, but can be influenced by fresh media campaigns, rallies and sponsored commentaries.
So, while the Justices of the Supreme Court were sifting through the facts presented to them, and gauging the provisions of the law, the parties were busy presenting their claims, evidences and supporting arguments to the public, in the earnest believe that the Justices, who also live within the larger society, would be persuaded by the dexterity of these presentations. With the judgment delivered, those who feel that the facts in the public domain, particularly with respect to the Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Abia states’ elections, do not support the judgment of the apex court, are up in arms, against the learned law lords.
For some of those who participated in those elections, some of those who saw action in the war that our elections turn out as, some of those who were flagrantly and violently denied participation in some of the elections by thugs and political opponents, and who were upbeat that some of the results would be cancelled or upturned, are flabbergasted by the decisions of the courts, and would swear that some of the judgments were procured by external influences. Conversely, those who have gained from the judgments are expressing their gratitude to the jurisprudential ingenuity of the learned Justices of the Supreme Court. Perhaps it is time to open a debate on our adversarial legal system, and consider the merits of mediation, which substantially approximates to our native jurisprudence.
In Anambra State, the jejune interpretation by a vocal minority, of the judgment of the Supreme Court, over the 2015 PDP primaries in the state, more than any other, portrays our legal system, as a joke, particularly for a layman. In that state, where the PDP acquired a gargantuan reputation for cash and carry politics, the state executive committee, recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), organized a primary which produced a set of candidates, whose names were submitted to the electoral body, for the 2015 general elections.
Some weeks to the election, that state executive committee was dissolved, and a caretaker committee was put in place. INEC was compelled by a judgment of the Court of Appeal, which set aside a High Court judgment, and recognised the caretaker committee, to change the names of the party’s candidates, to those elected in the primaries organised by the caretaker committee. Now, the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and re-instated that of the High Court, which had declared the caretaker committee, “as illegal, null and void”.
The restored judgment made an order that any delegate list or nominated candidates from the purported caretaker committee or ad-hoc committee, is “illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, abuse of court process, null and void and cannot be used for any purpose.” It also forbade the PDP from sending the list from that caretaker committee, to INEC, and also ordered INEC, not to accept any such list.
Those who were elected at the primaries conducted by the Oguebego faction, whose mandate as the authentic state executive council, has now be restored, hoped that INEC would give them their certificates of return, without much ado, since their names were substituted with the eventual winners in the election, based on the Court of Appeal judgment, just before the 2015 general election. Now, to their chagrin, the beneficiaries of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, already enjoying their ‘purported mandate’ at the National Assembly, are saying that the reversal suffered at the Supreme Court, do not affect them.
After reading the judgment, as published in the press, which I presume to be correct, I do not agree that the judgment does not jeopardise the continued representation of those, nominated by the ‘purported caretaker committee’. Of note, the court specifically declared any primary conducted by them, or any list submitted by them as “illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, abuse of court process, null and void and cannot be used for any purpose.” The argument that the judgment is merely declaratory, and cannot be enforced, is not supported, by the available facts.
While reliefs 1 and 2 are declaratory, reliefs 3, 4 and 5 in my humble view are mandatory injunctions, clearly restraining the PDP and INEC, from specific acts. While the PDP is restrained from submitting the list from the ‘purported caretaker committee’ to the second defendant, INEC is retrained from accepting any such list, from the PDP. In my view, the judgment of the Supreme Court renders the election of those on the list submitted by the ‘purported caretaker committee’ a nullity. To contend otherwise, is gravely absurd. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not make any consequential order, as to what happens, after nullifying the said process.
Even those contending that the judgment is merely declaratory, and dose not amount to anything, miss the point. For by our High Court Rules, emanating from England Rules of 1883 and their Order 15, r. 16, “no action or other proceeding shall be open to objection on ground that a mere declaratory judgment or order is sought thereby, and the court may make binding declarations of right, whether or not any consequential relief is or could be claimed.” This position is supported by the judgment of our Supreme Court, in Dantata vs. Mohammed (2000) FWLR, 889, at 908. The real tragedy in Anambra State, is in the integrity of some of the personas involved, and their despicable do-or-die politics.
