By Emmanuel Onwubiko
There
was this esoteric coincidence that struck me about six days ago when the
nation’s apex court delivered what will go down in the judicial annals of our
country as the most degrading and ethically challenged verdict in the political
litigation between the then Imo state governor Chief Emeka Ihedioha and the All
Progressives Congress (APC) 2019 governorship flag bearer Chief Hope Uzodinma.
The
coincidence was that about the same time that this miscarriage of justice by the
Muhammad Tanko-led seven man panel was delivered, I picked up a copy of a book
I bought about six months ago titled “The Last Act of Love.”
Whilst
digesting the earliest pages of THE LAST ACT OF LOVE, then emerged the breaking
news which was about the ruling of the Supreme Court ordaining the candidate of
APC with no single seat in the House of Assembly of Imo state Senator Hope
Uzodinma who came fourth in the last Imo state governorship election as the
winner and controversially dethroning the then governor Emeka Ihedioha of the
People’s Democratic party who had spent seven months in office at the
Douglas House Owerri.
The
exclamation that came out of my mouth was that this miscarriage of justice and
a travesty from the supposed temple of justice is to be regarded as the
nation’s highest court's LAST ACT OF BEYRAYAL OF TRUST.
However,
I chose to watch developments just like the story told in the beginning chapter
of the wonderful fictional book called THE LAST ACT OF LOVE.
The story
being referred to in this beautiful fictional prose was captured as “The Prayer
Tree”.
Yours
faithfully embarked on introspection and reflection about how the highest court
in Nigeria could be this heartless to joke with judicial integrity which to me
is the last act of treachery and betrayal by ministers in the temple of justice.
Like
in this story of The Prayer Tree, the Supreme Court is not how I remember it.
The
story teller in that book stated as follows:
“The
chapel is not how I remember it. All these years I’ve imagined a simple wooden
room buried deep in the hospital. Instead, light shines through a splendid
stained-glass window onto an altar with an embroidered cloth and large brass
candlesticks. It feels like a church.”
“I
ask the chaplain if everything looks the same as it would have done when I was
here over twenty years ago.”
“We’ve
had a new carpet,’ she tells me, ‘and pink covers for the seats. Though soot
blows down from the roof so I’m always out here a little hoover.”
“There
is a smallish tree to one side of the room with a blue-and-white cuddly
elephant propped against the base and bits of coloured paper clipped among its
leaves.”
“That’s
newer,’ the Chaplin says, ‘a prayer tree. That won’t have been here when you
were.”
“I walk
over to it and take one of the leaves between my thumb and forefinger. Plastic,
but convincing from a distance. I read the messages written on the bits of
paper. This must make it easier for atheists. I think. Far easier as an atheist
in extremis to write something down and attach it to a tree
than to kneel in front of an altar and try to work out how to make a deity you
don’t believe in listen to what you have to say. Some of the messages are
addressed to God, some to the living, some to the dead. There is a range of
handwriting styles, differing levels of ease with grammar and spelling. It is
the badly punctuated ones that I find most poignant: I imagine they demanded
the most effort. Some are in a spindly, elderly hand, others in childish rounded
letters.”
It must
be stated that the fact that There are overwhelming rejection of the verdict
against Governor Emeka Ihedioha goes to show that the SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
seems to have redefined the place of judicial integrity which sets it apart as
the bastion of justice and equity. Indeed, there is the remarkable need for
those who love constitutional democracy to look for THE PRAYER TREE and begin
to demand the restoration of judicial integrity and impartiality in the
nation's highest court of justice.
Section 6
of the 1999 constitution (as amended) states thus: “(1) The judicial powers of
the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates,
being courts established for the Federation. (2) The judicial powers of a State
shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts
established, subject as provided by this Constitution, for a State. (3) The
courts to which this section relates, established by this Constitution for the
Federation and for the States, specified in subsection (5) (a) to (1) of this
section, shall be the only superior courts of record in Nigeria; and save as
otherwise prescribed by the National Assembly or by the House of Assembly of a
State, each court shall have all the powers of a superior court of record. (4)
Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall be construed as
precluding:- (a) the National Assembly or any House of Assembly from
establishing courts, other than those to which this section relates, with
subordinate jurisdiction to that of a High Court; (b) the National Assembly or
any House of Assembly, which does not require it, from abolishing any court
which it has power to establish or which it has brought into being. (5) This
section relates to:- (a) the Supreme Court of Nigeria; (b) the Court of Appeal;
(c) the Federal High Court; (d) the High Court of the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja; (e) a High Court of a State (f) the Sharia Court of Appeal of
the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; (g) a Sharia Court of Appeal of a State;
(h) the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; (i)
a Customary Court of Appeal of a State; (j) such other courts as may be
authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction on matters with respect to which the
National Assembly may make laws; and (k) such other court as may be authorized
by law to exercise jurisdiction at first instance or on appeal on matters with
respect to which a House of Assembly may make laws. (6) The judicial powers
vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section - (a) shall
extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution, to all
inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law (b) shall extend, to all
matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any persons
in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the
determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that
person; (c) shall not except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, extend
to any issue or question as to whether any act of omission by any authority or
person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with
the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy set out in
Chapter II of this Constitution; (d) shall not, as from the date when this
section comes into force, extend to any action or proceedings relating to any
existing law made on or after 15th January, 1966 for determining any issue or
question as to the competence of any authority or person to make any such law.”
Those
therefore who must exercise this highest judicial power must be ministers and
worshippers of the goddess of integrity and impartiality.
Already
there is a perfect storm generated by that disturbing judgement. The People’s
Democratic Party has alleged that the Supreme Court under Justice Tanko
Muhammad, as Chief Justice of Nigeria, had been heavily compromised.
The
PDP National Chairman, Uche Secondus, during a media briefing in Abuja, added
that the apex court had lost credibility.
According
to Secondus, the Supreme Court, under Tanko’s leadership, has been annexed “to
execute the ignoble agenda of the All Progressives Congress-led Federal
Government against the Nigerian people.”
Secondus
was reacting to the Tuesday judgment of the Supreme Court, which nullified the
electoral victory of Emeka Ihedioha, in the March 9, 2019 governorship election
in Imo State.
The
apex court removed Ihedioha, who had been Imo State governor since May last
year, and replaced him with Hope Uzodinma, who contested the election on the
platform of the APC.
At the
press briefing, Secondus described the Supreme Court’s verdict as a miscarriage
of justice.
He
said, “The National Working Committee of our great party, the People’s
Democratic Party, after a thorough examination of all the issues relating to
the miscarriage of justice by the Supreme Court on the Imo State governorship
election petition, and after a very extensive consultation, resolves as
follows:
“That
the Supreme Court, as presently constituted under Justice Tanko Muhammad, has
become heavily compromised; lost its credibility and is now annexed to execute
the ignoble agenda of the APC-led Federal Government against the Nigerian
people.
“That
the judgment of the Supreme Court, voiding the lawful election of Honourable
Emeka Ihedioha, who scored 276,404 votes, and awarding fictitious votes to
declare Hope Uzodimma of the APC, who scored 96, 458 votes, as governor of Imo
State, is highly irrational, unfounded, a provocative product of executive manipulation
and a recipe for crisis, which should not be allowed to stand.”
The
PDP national chairman claimed that the ‘results’ from the 388 polling units
were rightfully rejected by the tribunal and Court of Appeal, which had earlier
upheld Ihedioha’s victory.
Secondus
said the Supreme Court was wrong to have awarded votes in the 388 polling units
to Uzodinma.
The
PDP chairman said the party had intelligence before the verdict that the
hierarchy of the APC had decided that they would use the Supreme Court to
capture states, such as Imo, Sokoto, Bauchi, Adamawa and Benue won and
controlled by the PDP.
Secondus
said the PDP had it on good authority that Justice Tanko and his panel
allegedly worked on the instructions of certain forces in the Presidency.
He
warned that as any attempt to subvert justice in the pending petitions in
Sokoto, Bauchi, Benue, Adamawa as well as Kano and Plateau states would be
firmly and vehemently resisted.
He
said that in other to avoid an imminent breakdown of law and order, the PDP
demands that Justice Tanko immediately step down as the CJN and chairman of the
National Judicial Council as, according to him, Nigerians have lost confidence
in him and the Supreme Court under his leadership.
Tony
Iredia who had worked in INEC says: The rule that a court cannot reverse itself
is not absolute. He was of the opinion that the best way out of the ethical
quagmire that the SUPREME Court of Nigeria has found itself was the verdict to
be reviewed and reversed.
To
revisit a case already settled he said has happened many times before.
He stated
that almost 50 years ago, we had the case of Johnson v Lawanson (1971) 7 NSCC
82 where the Supreme Court found cause to overrule itself. In that case,
Justice G.B.A Coker of the Apex Court made the point that “when the court is
faced with the alternative of perpetuating what it is satisfied is an erroneous
decision which was reached per incuriam and will, if followed, inflict hardship
and injustice upon the generations in the future or of causing temporary
disturbances of rights acquired under such a decision, I do not think we shall
hesitate to declare the law as we find it.”
What the
above implies is that the convention that Courts do not reverse themselves has
exceptions; one of which is that a party is allowed to seek a revisit of a
decided case if the decision was arrived at by fraud or deceit or in earnest,
when there are clerical errors in the judgment, says Tony Iredia a Doctorate
Degree scholar.
From the
little that has been made public about the Imo judgment, Iredia said it is
obvious that the election has been accorded more votes than the number of
voters accredited to vote – an anomaly that is made more visible by the current
arrangement in which accreditation and voting are merged.
However,
the number of votes scored in an election can be lower than the number
accredited where some ballots are found to be invalid. The decision of the
Supreme Court in the Imo governorship case that the exclusion of certain votes
was illegal because it was done by unauthorized officials cannot be faulted; it
is in actual fact a point to be saluted if we must put an end to our history of
rancorous elections. Tony Iredia maintained that the Supreme Court gave more
votes than the total of voters that actually were accredited to vote thus
leading to a damaging mathematical illogicality.
Where
then is judicial integrity?
"Adela
Cortina, a well-known philosopher, emphasizes that corruption - etymologically
related with the idea of 'destruction' - is encouraged by the weakening of the
so-called 'internal good', described as the reason that justifies the existence
of any given profession. Since judges exist to accomplish the essential goal of
delivering justice to their fellow citizens, a vigorous ethical commitment should
constitute a genetic trace of its professional code.
On the
other hand, an irreprehensible ethical behavior by the legal professionals,
particularly judges, has an essential role in the legitimacy of the judicial
system, as necessarily based on a bond of trust with the involved community.
Ethics, as Rodolfo Vigo explains, endorses Democracy, since it implies an open
debate about professional conducts, besides inspiring magistrates to go far
beyond the mere obedience to their functional duties as prescribed by Law.
Ethics strengthens and reinforces Judicial Independence by promoting the
implementation of a culture of excellence, the ultimate ambition of any
judiciary. (By Judge José Igreja Matos).
“The country needs judges whose oath of office would
remain sacrosanct. Integrity and courage are two virtues that define a judge.
In developed democracies, a judge who soils his robe does not get a slap on the
wrist, but is put on trial and, upon conviction, jailed, to serve as a
deterrent. But here we have “billionaire judges,” whom the late Kayode Eso, a
Justice of the Supreme Court, denounced; without forgetting the lamentations of
a former President of the Court of Appeal, Ayo Salami, that some retired
jurists despicably serve as conduits for bribes to judges.”
The internal disciplinary control of the NJC for
self-regulation should be subjected to a rigorous scrutiny. It is clear that
the provision of Paragraph 20 of Part One of the Third Schedule to the 1999
Constitution that outlines the composition of the NJC needs overhauling as it
arrogates too much power of appointment of other NJC members to the CJN.
He alone appoints five retired Justices from the Supreme
Court or Court of Appeal; five Chief Judges of States from among the
Chief Judges of the states and of the High Court of the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja in rotation to serve for two years; one Grand Khadi from among
Grand Khadi of the Sharia Courts of Appeal to serve in rotation for two years;
one President of the Customary Court of Appeal from among the Presidents
of the Customary Courts of Appeal to serve in rotation for two years and five
members of the NBA on the recommendation of its National Executive Committee.
In addition, the CJN appoints two non-lawyers, who in his opinion are of
unquestionable integrity.
Where law rules, no one should be above it. While the
judiciary must be insulated from executive shenanigans, judges who soil their
robes should be punished in accordance with the rule of law. The Telegraph of
London reports that more than 75 British judges were disciplined for misconduct
last year with some banned after being jailed for crimes as serious as
blackmail and manslaughter. (Punch)
*Emmanuel
Onwubiko is the Head of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria
and blogs@www.huriwanigeria.
No comments:
Post a Comment