The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the appeal
filed by candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party
(PDP) in the 2018 Osun governorship election,
Ademola Adeleke, against the election of
Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives
Congress (APC).
The apex court in a majority judgment of 5 to 2
upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja
which nullified the judgment of the Osun State
Governorship Election Petition Tribunal on the
grounds that the tribunal was not properly
constituted in regards to numbers.
The majority decision which was delivered by
Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, agreed with the lower
court that the absence of Justice Peter Obiorah from
the proceedings of February 6, who delivered the
lead judgment was fatal to the case of the
appellants.
The apex court accordingly dismissed the appeal
and affirmed the election of Oyetola as governor of
Osun State.
Reading the verdict of the apex court, it is clear the
majority based their decision on technical breach of
procedure rather than on the substantive merit of the
case against INEC.
Senator Ademola Adeleke
According to By Dr Charles Omole, a legal
technicality is a small but ultimately important detail
of the law. When a case is decided on “a
technicality”, it means the plaintiff would have won
but for some – though small – oversight or
misinterpretation of a rule, or a procedural mistake
he lost the case.
The court said the judge who had read the majority
judgement at the tribunal, Justice Peter Obiora, was
“evidently absent” on February 6th, 2019, following
the documents before the court.
In this case, the Supreme court says because the
Lead judge in the Tribunal did not sign the
attendance sheet on 6th February, it is assumed that
he was not in attendance; hence cannot be a judge
in a case he did not hear its facts and details.
Justice Bode Rhodes- Vivour who delivered the
majority judgment supported by five of the seven-
justices held that it is settled law that when “the
rightly constituted panel of a court does not seat the
activities carried out by that panel is a nullity.”
However, Justice Akaahs in his minority judgment
held that INEC in an election ought to remain an
unbiased umpire because even when it erred in law
by relying on it’s manual to cancel some aspects of
the election, the applicant still met the constitutional
requirements of having the highest votes cast and
spread. But the Election umpire went ahead to
cancel the election and carried out a rerun showing
that INEC had a plan up its sleeves.
It appears then that while the Majority based their
verdict on a Procedural breach, the Minority based
theirs on Substantive justice, ignoring the
technicality relied upon by their majority colleagues.
Osun State governor, Agboyega Oyetola
So who made the right decision?
From publicly available facts, Justice Obiora stated
he was in court on 6th February but forgot to sign
the attendance register. APC in its appeal argued
that the judge’s failure to sign at the end of the
proceedings on February 6, 2019, was enough
evidence to justify their claim that Justice Obiora
was absent on the day.
Thus at the Appeal and Supreme Courts, the case
was no longer about substantive discrepancies and
illegalities alleged against INEC. It was hinged solely
on legality of the Composition of the Tribunal on 6th
Feb.
On one hand, I can see why procedural justice
should be promoted as an aid to substantive justice,
after all, the fruit from a poisonous tree is also
equally poisonous, on the other hand, the court
should have put more weight on what is at stake in
this case.
Verdicts like this does not develop our jurisprudence
as all the substantive matters about INEC’s conduct
have not been addressed by either the Appeal or
Supreme courts. They simply focused on the
procedural irregularity and dismissed the case on
that ground alone. So we are not better informed on
whether INEC can do what it did in Osun in future
elections or not as the courts turned willfully blind
eyes on the substantive issues.
Justice Obiora, could have been deposed on oath to
ascertain his attendance and the courts can then
focus on the substantive issues that will help
develop our law and polity. That is what is needed;
not simply a technical judgement; especially when
the technical irregularity was not the fault of all
parties to the case.
A judicial irregularity of such pettiness, that could
have been remedied as suggested above should not
have been relied upon solely to vitiate a verdict such
that the substantive allegations were not explored by
the justices. The Supreme court should have
ordered a retrial.
This is becoming a pattern.
In the case of former Supreme Court Justice
Onnoghen, the court of appeal dismissed the case
because, “it has been overtaken by events” because
Onoghen has resigned.
In my opinion however, Onoghen’s resignation
should not have affected a full verdict that would
have developed our laws and set justiciable
precedents to grow our jurisprudence.
As a result of their reluctance to address the
substantive issue of whether the President has
power to suspend a CJN, we are left non the wiser
and so a President can therefore confidently
suspend a CJN in future as the appeal court did not
address that question at all.
Using mere technicalities to decide cases on certain
magnitude is a disservice to justice and in certain
cases can be result of judicial corruption. It is
almost certain that the current Presidential election
petition could also be decided purely based on
technicalities if these precedents hold.
This is not about APC or PDP. When a substantial
wrong is alleged, the court should give their verdicts
on the allegations and not simply dismiss such
cases on mere technicalities. At the very least, the
courts could dismiss a case based on technicalities
and still give opinions on the substantive matters in
ways that informs and grow our common law. That
is what Lord Denning did in Central London Property
Trust Ltd v High Trees Ltd , (Obiter) where although
the case was dismissed, the judge nevertheless
used its facts to re-establish the doctrine of
Promissory Estoppel in modern English Law on
Contract.
I am not a lawyer but if this case was decided based
on technical breaches as listed here which is not the
fault of any of the parties involved, then a very
wrong precedence has been set by the Supreme
court.
To simply dismiss cases on technicalities while
failing to address alleged substantial illegalities
perpetuates impunity and weakens the rule of law.
This must stop now!


DISCLAIMER : Opinion articles are solely the
responsibility of the author and does not
necessarily reflect the views of the publishers of
Elombah News


https://elombah.com/review-of-supreme-court-verdict-on-osun-governorship-election/

Supreme Court should have ordered for retrial and not dismiss Pdp appeal.

Dr Charles Omole on Twitter.

REVIEW OF OSUN VERDICT BY SUPREME COURT. Reading the verdict of the apex court, it is clear the majority based their decision on technical breach of procedure rather than on the substantive merit of the case against INEC. A legal technicality ...is a small but ultimately important detail of the law. When a case is decided based on "a technicality", it means the defendant would have been in trouble for something but through some small oversight or misinterpretati on of a rule, they are found not guilty. The apex court in a split decision of five to two members of the panel, on Friday, agreed substantially with the Court of Appeal which ruled that a majority judgement delivered at the tribunal was a nullity. The court said the judge who had read the majority judgement ...at the tribunal, Justice Peter Obiora, was “evidently absent” on February 6th, 2019, following the documents before the court. In this case, the Supreme court says because the Lead judge in the Tribunal did not sign the attendance sheet on 6th February, ...it is assumed that he was not in attendance; hence cannot be a judge in a case he did not hear its facts and details. Justice Bode Rhodes- Vivour who delivered the majority judgment supported by five of the seven-justices held that it is settled law that when ...“the rightly constituted panel of a court does not seat the activities carried out by that panel is a nullity.” Justice Akaahs in his minority judgment held that INEC in an election ought to remain an unbias umpire because even when it erred in law by relying on it’s manual ...to cancel some aspect of the election, the applicant still met the constitutional requirements of having the highest votes cast and spread. But the Election umpire went ahead to cancel the election and carried out a rerun showing that INEC had a plan up its sleeves. In this case, the Majority based their verdict on a Procedural breach; while the Minority based theirs on Substantive justice, ignoring the technicality relied upon by their majority colleagues. So WHO made the right decision? From publicly available facts so far; ...Justice Obiora claimed he was in court on 6th February; but that he forgot to sign the attendance register. So APC in its appeal argued that the judge’s failure to sign at the end of the proceedings on February 6, 2019, was enough evidence to justify their claim that Justice Obiora was absent on the day in question. So at BOTH Appeal & Supreme Courts; the case was no longer about substantive discrepancies & illegalities alleged against INEC. It was hinged solely on legality of the Composition of the Tribunal on 6th Feb. On one hand; I can see why procedural justice should be promoted as an aid to substantive justice. After all, the fruit from a poisonous tree is also equally poisonous. But the court should have put more weight on what is at stake in this case. Verdicts like this ...does not develop our jurisprudence as all the substantive matters about INEC’s conduct have not been addressed by either the Appeal or Supreme courts. They simply focused on the procedural irregularity and dismissed the case on that ground alone. So we are not ...better informed on whether INEC can do what it did in Osun in future elections or not as the courts turned wilfully blind eyes on the substantive issues. Justice Obiora, could have been deposed on oath to ascertain his attendance and the courts can then focus ...on the substantive issues that will help develop our law and polity. That is what is needed; not simply a technical judgement; especially when the technical irregularity was not the fault of all parties to the case. A judicial irregularity of such pettiness, ...that could have been remedied as suggested above should not have been relied upon solely to vitiate a verdict such that the substantive allegations were not explored by the justices. This is becoming a pattern. In the case of Onnoghen; the court of appeal dismissed ...the case because, “it has been overtaken by event” since Onoghen had resigned. Onoghen’s resignation should not have affected a full verdict that will help develop our law and set justiciable precedents to grow our jurisprudence. As a result of their reluctance ...to address the substantive issue of whether the President has power to suspend a CJN; we are left non the wiser. So a President can therefore confidently suspend a CJN in future as the appeal court did not address that question at all. Using just technicalities to ...decide cases on certain magnitude is a disservice to justice and in certain cases can be as a result of judicial corruption. It is almost certain that the current Presidential election petition could also be decided purely based on technicalities if these precedents hold.

9jahotblog:
Supreme Court should have ordered for retrial and not dismiss Pdp appeal.

I will agree that this was probably the correct decision if you agree that the supreme court had no right to punish the people of Zamfara for observing the Court of Appeal ruling that APC waa allowed to participate in the election.

I will agree if you also agree that at worst what the SC should have done was cancel the election and call for a new one excluding APC instead of giving victory to an unpopular party that barely scored 20%.

Supreme Court Ruling On Osun Gov Poll: Victory By
Technical Justice Calls For Sober Reflection On Nigerian
Justice System By Dr. A.S Ishola


Like many other cases similarly decided by the Supreme
Court, the incumbent Governor of Osun State has won his
election petition at the Supreme Court on technical ground.
I do strongly believe that technical justice is a legal way by
which injustice is still allowed to thrive in our justice system.
If beneficiaries of technical justice were to be guided by
Islamic justice tenets, they would realize that, if by technical
justice, they are judicially given what does not belong to
them, it is hell fire that is being handed over to them.
This is how Prophet Muhammad used to admonish the
litigants that came to him.
The same also goes to lawyers who employ technicalities to
defeat the course of justice which they themselves glaringly
know. Like Professor ALARO said, such technical justice
lawyers who are Muslims should warn themselves lest their
legal practice become the price they pay for their divine
salvation in the hereafter.
For judges, Islamic law has made it clear that there are
three
types of judges and only one of them will earn the divine
pleasure of their Creator.
For any litigant that is denied his entitlement on technical
ground, let him be comforted that his prayer as an oppressed
person has direct entrance to his Creator.
The above is not however in particular reference to the
recently delivered judgment of the Supreme Court, but on
the need for our justice system to do away with technical
justice practice. Many tears are out there which have refused
to dry up because they were denied what belongs to them by
technical justice.


Written by Dr. A.S Ishola.

https://thenigerialawyer.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-osun-
gov-poll-victory-by-technical-justice-calls-for-sober-
reflection-on-nigerian-justice-system-by-dr-a-s-ishola/

samstradam:


I will agree that this was probably the correct decision if you agree that the supreme court had no right to punish the people of Zamfara for observing the Court of Appeal ruling that APC waa allowed to participate in the election.

I will agree if you also agree that at worst what the SC should have done was cancel the election and call for a new one excluding APC instead of giving victory to an unpopular party that barely scored 20%.

Zamfara State is highly different from osun state now. it's Apc Vs Apc factions.

9jahotblog:
Zamfara State is highly different from osun state now. it's Apc Vs Apc factions.

And 500k voters were disenfranchised. Your bigotry knows no bound.

samstradam:


I will agree that this was probably the correct decision if you agree that the supreme court had no right to punish the people of Zamfara for observing the Court of Appeal ruling that APC waa allowed to participate in the election.

I will agree if you also agree that at worst what the SC should have done was cancel the election and call for a new one excluding APC instead of giving victory to an unpopular party that barely scored 20%.

Zamfara State is highly different from osun state case please. my question is that why can't Apc conduct primary election in Zamfara State before the aggrieved members went to court and seek justice hmmmm.

rafindo:

And 500k voters were disenfranchised. Your bigotry knows no bound.

No one was disenfranchised please, what Apc should have done is to settle it amicably among themselves, but no they were fighting themselves. it will be long before they will recover what happened to them in Zamfara State. the same thing happened in Rivers State too. ex governor Yari and senator marafa will never agree to each other in Zamfara APC. likewise Amaechi will never agree with rivers Apc. 2023 will be very interesting.

Yamree review