TEXT OF A MEDIA BRIEFING
TODAY FEBRUARY 12TH 2020
Gentlemen
of the fourth Estate of the Realm, you are welcomed to this rescheduled Media
Briefing. The reason for this media interface is to appraise the decision of
the immediate past Imo State governor Hon. Emeka Ihedioha to return to the
Supreme Court of Nigeria to seek for a review of the judgment of the 7 member
panel headed by the Honorable the Chief Justice of Nigeria Muhammad Tanko in
which the election of Hon. Emeka Ihedioha last year March was overturned by the
singular verdict that has become the most dangerous piece of judicial heist in
nearly 100 years of Nigeria's amalgamation.
As
stakeholders on the democratization process, we have reviewed the ingredients
of the process already initiated by Hon. Emeka Ihedioha in which through his
team of well-respected lawyers, he is praying the Nation's highest judicial
forum to reverse the horror of a verdict inflicted on millions of the good
people of Imo State. Through his legal team headed by erstwhile Attorney
General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Kanu Agabi (SAN) he has
identified some areas he alleged the court was misled into arriving at its
decision.
In
his papers before the apex court seeking for setting aside of the judgment,
Agabi observed that the beneficiary of the judgment, Governor Hope Uzodinma
failed to plead the votes scored by all the parties in the 388 affected polling
units, as it was only the votes scored by him that were pleaded – an omission
he said, rendered the petition incompetent.
He
submitted that the consequence of this omission was that the apex court was
misled into making a vague order directing the inclusion of votes from the 388
polling units without stating or specifying the particular number of votes to
be included from those polling units for all the parties.
Agabi
added that “without computing the votes for all the parties from the 388
polling units this honorable court was misled into making a declaration that
the 1st Appellant/Respondent was the winner of the gubernatorial election in
Imo State – an election that the Appellants/Respondents had themselves branded
or stigmatized as invalid on account of non-compliance.
In a
motion on notice filed pursuant to section 6(6) of the 1999 constitution,
section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, 2004, and the inherent jurisdiction of the
court, Ihedioha is seeking the setting aside the judgment on the ground that it
was obtained by fraud.
The
motion which was filed by the legal team of the former governor headed by Chief
Kanu Agabi (SAN), was in respect of appeals Nos: SC. 1462/2019; SC/1470/2019;
CA/OW/GOV/05/2019and petition No: EPT/GOV/IM/08/2019, between Senator Hope
Uzodinma, All Progressives Congress (APC) and Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha, People’s
Democratic Party (PDP) and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
It
is the contention of Ihedioha that the judgment of the Supreme Court ought to
be set aside as it us a nullity obtained by fraud.
On
this ground, Ihedioha submitted that “the Appellants/Respondents (Uzodinma),
fraudulently misled this court into holding that a total of 213,495 votes were
unlawfully excluded from the votes scored by the 1st Appellant/Respondent in
the gubernatorial election of 9th March 2019 in Imo State.
“In addition,
it is the position of the former governor that the apex court gave the judgment
without jurisdiction.
On
this point, he argued that having regard to section 140(2) of the Electoral Act
(as amended), the Appellants/Respondents divested this Honorable Court of the
relevant jurisdiction to declare the 1st Appellant/ Respondent as the winner of
the gubernatorial election conducted in Imo State on the 9th day of March 2019
by branding or stigmatizing the entire election as invalid.
“This
Honorable Court had no jurisdiction to declare the 1st Appellant/Respondent as
elected in an election petition which was based on two inconsistent and
mutually exclusive grounds, to wit, (i) that the 1st Applicant was not duly
elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election, the implication of
which is that the majority of votes cast at the election were valid; and (ii)
that the election was invalid for non-compliance with the Electoral Act, the
implication of which is that the election be annulled.
This
Honorable Court did not have the jurisdiction to declare the 1st
Appellant/Respondent as elected in the absence of any proof that the votes
ascribed to him met the mandatory geographical spread stipulated in section 179
(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
This
Honorable court did not have the jurisdiction to declare that the 1st
Appellant/Respondent met the constitutional geographical spread without
providing in its judgment the reason(s) for that conclusion.
The
apex court had in a unanimous judgment delivered on January 14, removed
Ihedioha on the grounds that he did not win a majority of the votes cast in the
March 9 governorship election.
The
court said Ihedioha was returned as governor of Imo State based on wrong
computation of the election results in the state.
In
the lead judgment delivered by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, the court voided
the concurrent decisions of the tribunal and Court of Appeal, which had
declared Ihedioha winner of the poll on the grounds that they both failed to
take into account votes from 388 polling units in the election.
Justice
Kekere-Ekun said that 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.
In
addition, the court held that the excluded votes from the 388 polling units be
ascribed to the appellants.
Consequently
the apex court ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission to
withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to Ihedioha and issue a fresh one to
the candidate of the APC, Uzodinma, on the grounds that he won majority of
lawful votes cast in the election.
Judiciary
and its integrity:
A
judicial office is a trust. In the discharge of this, there are
responsibilities that must be discharged.
In
the process of the discharge of these responsibilities certain attributes must
be exhibited. Some of these attributes are competence, diligence, propriety,
impartially and objectivity. We the judges of this country must face up to our
responsibilities.
Some
recent events make my heart to bleed. Some of the misdeeds committed by some of
our colleagues of recent are utterly condemnable. That is the misuse in a
reckless manner of the process of exparte order.
What
exactly is the reason for this recklessness is it corruption as alleged in
certain quarters or is it lack of competence or diligence, whatever it is, it
is giving the Nigerian Judiciary a very bad name, and it must be stopped.
Judges must perform their judicial duties without fear or favour, bias or
prejudice and ensure that their conduct both in and out of Court maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public. Administering justice is not intended to
be used to support the private ventures of others as opposed to the National
interest.
Recommendations:
“Judiciary
must put its house in order and act unanimously from the point of strength and dignity”
“Heads
of Courts must provide the necessary leadership qualities by putting in place
policies that can promote a sense of belonging to all judges under their
leadership”.
“Ambitious
judges should control their ambitions and stop undermining the position of
their respective Heads of Court in the interest of the judiciary. At the end of
the day, they will also be losers. They stand the risks of being dumped after
they were used.”
“The
judiciaries at all levels must work together and take a common stand to force
State Chief Executives to respect the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria with regards to funding of the judiciary. Enough is enough.”
“Heads
of Courts are duty bound to work hard to create an amiable environment for
Magistrates, Area/Customary/Sharia Judges and all supporting staff of the
Judiciary to have a sense of belonging and be appreciated.” – (Hon. Justice
Umaru Abdullahi, CON., Hon. President, Court of Appeal.)
“In
order to maintain integrity, and independence certain rules and worthy
principles must be followed unremittingly. Some of these are; rules of Natural
Justice and the Latin maxims ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ and iniquim est aliquem
rei sui esse judicam (literally means no one should be a judge in his own
case). In practical application, the maxim insists that no judge preside over a
matter in which he has a personal interest or involvement. It is a canon of Natural
Justice which demands a judge to declare any interest he may have in
proceedings before him and stand down accordingly if he does have an interest
other than the impartial dispensation of justice. If this is not observed, a
presumption of bias would be rife and any decision(s) arrived at could be
soiled by foul murmurs and outcries of travesty.”
In
the extradition proceedings related to the alleged political atrocities of
Chile’s Late General Pinochet, Lord Hoffman, failed to declare that he was a
member and chairman of Amnesty International Charity Limited a body responsible
for carrying our Amnesty’s charity work. Considering that the proceedings to
extradite Pinochet were initiated by Amnesty international, the House of Lords’
decision was set aside and the case was reheard by a differently constituted
panel of Law Lords.[See Regina Vs.
Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [2000 1 AC 61,119
and 147].
The
principle behind the foregoing was popularized by Lord Chief Justice Hewart of
the King’s Bench division in the famous case of Rex v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923]
All ER 233) which established the principle that the mere appearance of
bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It brought into common
parlance the off-quoted aphorism.
“Justice must not only be done; but must
also be seen to have been done”
Therefore
the question is not whether Lord Hoffman (in Pinochet’s case) actually allowed his personal
involvement with Amnesty International to affect his professional conduct but
rather whether his connection with them created rife grounds to ferment
unwholesome suspicions.
Another
maxim, audi altarem partem, is also recognized as cannon of Natural Justice and
was first couched by St Augustine De Duabus Animabus XIV, and it denotes fairness and impartiality in
adjunction.
Consequences of not reviewing the
judgement.
Subsequent
election could be undermined by judiciary, civil defence, customs, immigration
and prison warders to man polling booths, write results, tendered it and even
if INEC rejects it what you need to do is to buy over the judiciary and the
person could carry the day. The results tendered were not verified.
Panel
that sat the judgment must never be allowed to hear the review application. If
Trump could have been impeached by the congress for making a call, how much
more we will allow the judiciary to undermine democracy. INEC said the results
were cancelled due to over voting and violence. How can the court be the one to
award the result. The panel must never be allowed to sit for the matter.
Comrade
Emmanuel Onwubiko
National
Coordinator;
HUMAN
RIGHTS WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (HURIWA), www.huriwanigeria.com
No comments:
Post a Comment