Yesterday the 8th day of May 2020, was one of those days the expectations of the self-righteous public was cut short, and indeed the anti-corruption campaign of this President Buhari, PMB as he is fondly called amongst many suffered a major uppercut that was delivered by no other that the apex court of the land.

The apex court in a way considered judgment posited that the trial court, quorum Hon. Justice M.B. Idris lacked jurisdiction to deliver Judgment of the trial court, having been elevated the Court of Appeal. Perhaps the apex court in so deciding toed the path of its decision in the case of Ogbunyinya & Ors. v. Okudo & Ors. (1979) All N. L. R. 105 and the more recent case of S. C. C (Nig.) Ltd. v. Our Line Ltd. (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 382 S.C, wherein the very learned Justice ONNOGHEN, J.S.C (as he then was), posited thus;

"I hold the considered view that by the fact of the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, he ceased to be a trial judge and took on the robes of a Justice of the Supreme Court irrespective of the fact that he was yet to be sworn in since his swearing-in remains relevant only to his assumption of office of Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria” at Page 39, paragraph B-D.

This is without gainsaying that the court also considered the express provision of Sections 1(3), Sections 238, and 250 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 2010. Also, the Apex, court in the dictum of Bairamian, F. J. (as he then was) in Madukolu & Ors. v. Nkemdelim & Ors. (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 581, aptly elucidated the circumstances wherein a court can assume jurisdiction.
It is the law that parties cannot by an agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that has no jurisdiction ab-initio. This was the decision of the appellate court in Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350/373.

It therefore presupposes that the application by the Defense counsel and consequently the fiat issued by the then president of the Court of Appeal pursuant to Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, was per in curium, as it ultra-vired the provisions of Section 1(3) of the CFRN as aforesaid.

On the letter written by the defence counsel, it is my position that this was part of their litigation strategy to ensure they accorded fair representation to their client and gave their very best in defence of their client. Thus, it was a strategic trap, and the court erroneously took the bait. This is premised on the elucidation of my most loved jurist of all time Justice Niki-Tobi (of blessed memory) in the case of[b] Inakoju v. Adeleke(2007)4NWLR (Pt. 1025)423 SC[/b], wherein he posited thus;

“I am rather surprised, though not flabbergasted, that Mr Lana, learned Attorney-General of Oyo State and Mr Ayanlaja, learned Senior Advocate, asked the High Court and this Court, respectively, to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. While I say this, I am not unaware of the professional duty Counsel owe to their clients to present their cases to the best of their professional ability. This is the first and foremost duty Counsel owes their clients. And in the desire and zeal to perform that professional duty, Counsel can ask for any relief, meritorious or unmeritorious, under the sun (and a few of them ask for unmeritorious reliefs), but it is left for the court to remove the chaff from the grain in the context of the enabling law and grant or refuse the relief. There are times when Counsels ask for a relief with the full knowledge that the law is not on the side of his client. In such a situation, Counsel merely tests the legal strength of the Judge, who, in his capacity as the unbiased umpire and master and expert of the law, should give judgment according to the law. While the parties are the clients of the lawyers, the law is the Judge's clientele and constituency and he must apply it properly without fear or favour. That is the oath he took on the day he was sworn in as a Judge qua judex.”

In conclusion, was the defence counsel right in law to have requested that the trial judge be allowed to complete his trial assignment in this matter pursuant to Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act? My answer is in the affirmative.

It is the duty of counsel to ask the court for an impossible act if he believes in the biblical elucidation in Mark 11:24. But it is left for the court to consider such request within the ambit of the law, and do justice in accordance with the applicable laws, as litigation could be akin to a military warfare wherein all is fair.

I, therefore, submit that the apex court was right to quash the judgment of the trial court without considering the substantive issues raised in the appeal, as the court lacked the powers to so do.

I so humbly posit in my capacity as an unrepentant litigator with over 7years broad-spectrum, and all hands on deck experience.

Analysis unto what...you for out for learning sake. I no be lawyer..but I know the case has ended na..abi?