AS S/COURT RULES ON ZAMFARA, IMO…

The Supreme Court judgment that rejected the application filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) to reverse itself on Bayelsa state governorship election has thrown both the APC and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) camps into confusion ahead of Zamfara and Imo states governorship cases before the apex court, Blueprint can authoritatively  report.

The court is slated to rule on the two states Tuesday.

Bayelsa verdict

Last week, the apex court dismissed applications filed by the APC, its governorship candidate in Bayelsa state, Mr David Lyon, and his running mate, Mr Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, seeking a review of its February 13 judgment.

The Supreme Court had earlier voided the election of Lyon and his deputy, Degi-Eremienyo on the ground of perjury. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the APC and its candidates returned to the apex court asking that the judgement be reviewed and reversed.

But in a seven-minute lead judgment,  a visibly angry Justice Amina Augie, who read the ruling, descended heavily on counsel to the applicants, Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) and Wole Olanipekun (SAN) for filing the motions, saying their action amounted to desecration of the temple of justice.

She said: “With tears in my eyes, I feel sad that senior counsel in this case would ever bring this kind of frivolous and vexatious applications during my life time.”

She held that by Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court, the court has no powers or authority to review any judgment delivered on merit “safe for clerical error.”

A major highlight of the judgement was the N60million fine slammed on the two counsel who were both ordered to pay the respondents N10million each.

Olanipekun’s threat

Commenting on the verdict for the first time, one of the sanctioned counsel, Chief Olanipekun said he would be speaking up on the apex court’s verdict on Bayelsa at a later date.

Olanipekun spoke Sunday in Ikere Ekiti, Ekiti state, during a thanksgiving service commemorating an ultra-modern 1,600 capacity church auditorium he donated to St Peter’s Anglican Church in the area.

Olanipekun headed the legal team of Lyon, who sought a review of the judgement earlier delivered against the APC.

Speaking to journalists, the silk insisted he did no wrong by his action.

Olanipekun said: “I have never regretted any of my actions since I started my legal practice, because I always abide by the ethics of the job.”

 “The truth about the matter will be revealed soon, but I have the conviction that I have done no wrong because this is a profession I love so much.

“I see the legal profession as a ministry. I am convinced and know that what we did was within the best tradition in law. I can tell anyone about this.

 “But I will speak about the whole thing at the appropriate time. I won’t say more than that now,” he said.

On the killing of Christians by terrorists in the North, Olanipekun advised the church against being antagonistic neither should they act cowardly in handling of the vexatious matter.

“I could see the leadership of the church is not speaking up loud enough. Though I believe we need prayers to overcome insurgency and terrorism. I know the Christians must be cautious about their actions, but they should not act cowardly.

“But I know that no matter how strong the evil forces are, they won’t overrun the power of God, because the power of God is not run through the power of man,” said the legal practitioner.   

The worries

Meanwhile, with the Supreme Court judgement on Bayelsa, both the APC and the PDP as well as their legal teams have been thrown into some moments of confusion, as “the apex court may have foreclosed any chances of reversing itself” within the precinct of the prayers sought by parties.

For instance, multiple sources within the APC were of the view that the Zamfara experience was enough lesson for the party.

“We should have ourselves to blame for all that happened and still happening in Zamfara. We paid the price of not respecting the rules. I think the Supreme Court clearly said to us that ‘you guys should always put your house in order.’ Application for review of what if I may ask? What does the party want reviewed? I must tell you some people are putting themselves under unnecessary and needless tension. This is asking for the impossibility, let truth be told. But they won’t listen to voices like ours,” said a source.

Another stakeholder, who also spoke under anonymity, was of the view that “notwithstanding what appears the finality on law as pronounced by the Supreme Court, it will not be out of place to further test the law even as I am beginning to see this (review at Supreme Court) as an exercise in futility.”

APC chieftain Alkali

And coming very clean on the matter, an APC chieftain, Dr. Abubakar Alkali, told the party hierarchy not to dissipate time, energy and resources on Zamfara state at the apex court.

Fielding questions from Blueprint on implications of the Supreme Court’s verdict on Bayelsa, he said the party should rather go back to the drawing board and learn from the 2019 experience in Zamfara.

“I will advise the APC to withdraw the suit seeking review of Zamfara judgement. It will amount to a waste of time and resources. It will be an exercise in futility. The Supreme Court said  it all: its judgement is final.

“Reviewing any Supreme Court judgement will question the integrity of not only the Supreme Court but that of the Nigerian judiciary as a whole,” he said.

 “What our great party the APC needs to do is to go back to the drawing board, learn from the Zamfara mistake and put in appropriate measures to ensure that Zamfara doesn’t repeat itself in the 2023 elections and beyond,” he further added.

PDP

Although some elements within the opposition PDP were of the view that “the verdict on Bayelsa had pointed to us all-both the APC and PDP- that the apex court won’t review itself on ether Imo or Zamfara,” the PDP still believes it has a case to prove on Imo.

Indication to this effect was given by the party’s spokesman, Mr Kola Ologbondiyan in Abuja.

 He said its “demand on Imo is not in any way in contestation of the authority and finality of the Supreme Court but a patriotic effort to assist the Supreme Court affirm its infallibility by correcting the inherent mistakes in the judgment which came as a result of misleading presentation to it by the APC. 

“The party said the only reason APC was pushing for a review of the Supreme Court’s valid and flawless judgment on the Bayelsa and Zamfara governorship elections was to cause confusion and blackmail the Supreme Court from treating the Imo case on merit.

“The PDP maintained that the grounds for the reversal of Imo judgment are unambiguously constitutional and completely distinct from APC’s attempt to blackmail the Supreme Court with their demands on the Bayelsa and Zamfara states governorship election.

“The party therefore urged the Supreme Court not to succumb to the threats and blackmail by APC to push it to restrain itself from looking at the merit of the Imo case; correcting the mistakes and reversing the flawed judgment.”

Imo

Meanwhile, there’s seeming tension in Imo state as opinions were divided over the likely outcome of the applications by the PDP and its candidate, Mr Ihedioha.

The apex court would have given its verdict February 17 but for the applicant’s lead counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN) who asked for more time to enable him study the response by Uzodinma’s legal team.

 While some people believed Ihedioha should carry the day because of the merit of his submission, the pro-Uzodinma group were of the view that there would be enough money for people to share, a style that was not adopted by the former deputy speaker of the House of Representatives.

 For Ihedioha’s supporters, their candidate stood a better chance of getting a ‘favourable’ verdict from the apex court because of  “alleged irregularities in the last judgement and considering that he performed creditably during his 7-month stay in office by restoring people’s confidence in the state, improving on pension system and paying pensioners, paying 100% of workers’ salaries as against 70% by Okorocha ‘s administration and awarded many projects capable of changing lives of the people scattered all over the state among others.”

And in the view of those rooting for Ihedioha, the state would have some federal government’s presence, which it did not enjoy even with Owelle Rochas Okorocah, also an APC governor. 

Again, while Uzodinma’s supporters believed the Bayelsa case where it was ruled that the review was unnecessary and insisted on the supremacy of Supreme Court would be applied on Imo case, Ihedioha’s group maintained that Bayelsa’s case was different from that of Imo. The latter group said Bayelsa appellants could not point out any error, whereas Ihedioha cited many errors which the apex court should honestly look into and reverse in order not to make the nation’s judiciary  a laughing stock before the international community.

 What lawyers say

A senior lawyer, who did not want his name mentioned, said the two parties are confused following the ruling of the apex court that it could not reverse itself on judgment delivered on merit.

“The highest court in Nigeria had ruled in the Bayelsa governorship case where the APC approached it to reverse itself.  Justice Amina Augie said apex court is not authorised and indeed lacked jurisdiction to review any judgment delivered on merit.

“Also, my Lord Justice also said more so when the applicants have not pointed out any accidental error or slip in the judgment, there must be an end to every litigation,” said the legal expert.

For another legal mind and academic who also pleaded anonymity, “the court was very wise in its decision. How do I mean? There are many grounds upon which both the APC and the PDP and their candidates are asking the court to reverse itself. The clerical error raised by the court remains one ground none of the parties really raised. Though, law is not mathematics, but one thing that is sure is that the court doesn’t give you what you don’t ask for. I am not aware any of the applicants raised issue bordering on clerical error. So, what does that tell us about other applications for review before the court? Let’s leave it at that for now and see how things pan out on Tuesday (today).”

Legal teams

 As the apex court delivers judgment in the two cases Tuesday, it was gathered that leading counsel in the legal tussles are reportedly entertaining fear that they could be treated like Babalola and Olanipekun.

Zamfara legal debacle

On Zamfara, the Supreme Court had rejected an application by the APC asking it to review its last judgment in which it voided the party’s participation in the last elections in the state.

In its ruling, a five-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, struck out the application, argued by Mr Robert Clarke (SAN).

Justice Rhodes-Vivour in his lead judgment held that the application was incompetent, time barred and that the court had no jurisdiction on the matter.

However, in a fresh application by a faction of the APC led by a former governor of the state, Alhaji Abdulaziz Yari, counsel to the applicants, Clarke, said his clients were challenging the verdict of the apex court on the basis of its consequential orders that handed victory to PDP candidates, which he said rendered the entire judgment a nullity.

Imo experience

On Imo, in January, the apex court sacked Emeka Ihedioha as governor on grounds that he did not win majority of the votes cast in the March 9, 2019 governorship election.

The court also ordered the immediate swearing in of candidate of the APC, Senator Hope Uzodinma, as lawful winner of the March 9, 2019 governorship election in the state.

In the court’s unanimous Judgment which was delivered by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, the Supreme Court held that the case of the appellants had merit and consequently granted the reliefs as prayed by the appellants.

According to the apex court, the concurrent judgments of the lower court erred in law when it excluded votes totalling 213,295 from 388 polling units from the total scores at the election.

It ruled that Ihedioha was returned as governor based on wrong computation of the election results in the state.

Justice Kekere-Ekun said the lower court misconstrued the case of the appellants that he was challenging the validity of the election whereas he was challenging the unlawful exclusion of votes in the 388 polling units.

Sacked gov seeks review

But some weeks after the ruling, Mr Ihedioha in February formally applied for a review of the judgment.

In a reaction, he said “It is not about Emeka Ihedioha, it is not about Imo state. It is about tomorrow. Do you go into an electoral process without having an idea? It has to be resolved one way or the other.”

Leave a Reply