$418M JUDGMENT DEBTS AND CONTEMPT OF COURT: WHY DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF DMO HAS TO BE JAILED (PART 2)

BY JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq

Contd. from Part One.


THE IMPORT AND IMPLICATIONS OF A CONSENT JUDGMENT:
We begin from the very beginning by re-stating the concept of a Consent Judgment. On the import of a Consent Judgment, the Court, Per Nimpar, J.C.A, effulgently wrote in THE HONDA PLACE LTD VS. GLOBE MOTORS HOLDINGS (2015) LPELR-24589(CA) thusly:
"By its very nature a consent judgment is a product of unequivocal agreement by the parties which they naturally present to Court as basis of settlement of issues between them translated into a consent judgment to end the dispute between them; see ADEDEJI v. OLOSO (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1026) 133. The Supreme Court in the case of STAR PAPER MILL LTD & ANOR v. BASHIRU ADETUNJI & ORS (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647 on the efficacy of a consent judgment said thus: "It must be pointed out that it is one of the cardinal principles of our judicial system to allow parties to amicably resolve the disputes between them. By doing so, the otherwise hostile relationship between the parties would be amicably resolved and cemented. It is this amicable resolution of disputes by the parties that is called a settlement. When the terms of such settlements are reduced into writing, it is now called "terms of settlement". When the terms of settlement are filed they are called, and made the judgment of that Court. It is then crystallized into 'consent judgment'. When consent judgment is given, none of the parties has the right of appeal except with leave of Court. Hence consent judgment, is a contract between the parties whereby rights are created between them in substitution for order of consideration of the abandonment of the claim or claims pending before the Court. This is intended to put a stop to litigation between the parties just as such as a judgment which results from the decision of the Court."
More importantly, a Consent Judgment is as effective as every other judgment of the Court arrived at after a full trial on the merit. Vindicating this legal postulation, the Apex Court, in Race Auto Supply Company Limited &Ors V. Alhaja Faosat Akib (2006) 6 SCNJ 98 23 emphasised more strongly the finality of consent judgment in this telling language:
“In this regard it is necessary to point out that a consent judgment or order is as effective in law in respect of all the matters which are therein settled as any other judgment or order arrived at after the matters are fully fought out to the end in a full trial. As Lord Herschel, L.C. explained in the case of In Re: South American and Mexican Company, Exparte Bank of England (1895) 1 Ch. 37 at 50:
"The truth is, a judgment by consent is intended to put a stop to litigation between the parties just as much as is a judgment which results from the decision of the court after the matter has been fought out to the end.
Above all, as at today (2nd September, 2021), no appeal has been lodged by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum against the sacred Judgment of the Court entered on the 8th day of April, 2019 by Consent of the parties which the President, the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and the Minister of Finance are merely implementing.
ALL AUTHORITIES AND PERSONS ARE BOUND BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY UNDER OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE SAME:
There is no person or functionary of government who has the discretion to disobey the Judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction. This is what our forebears decreed in Section 287(3) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic [CFRN] of Nigeria says:
“The decisions of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and of all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other Courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and those other Courts, respectively”
It is against the foregoing background that we consider it an abomination of the rankest specie that the Director-General of DMO, MS PATIENCE ONIHA has refused, neglected and or failed to carry out a positive Order of the Court issued on the 27th day of July, 2021 mandating her to issue Promissory Note in favour of PASS, in liquidation of the judgment debt, which the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (through the appropriate channels) had earlier directed her to do. This is disobedience to an Order of Court and carries grave consequences, one of which is precipitation of anarchy which the Supreme Court captured admirably in the case of Hart v. Hart (1991) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt. 1) 184 at 199, thusly;
“I would like to state that obedience to Orders of Courts is fundamental to the good order, peace and stability of the Nigerian nation. The ugly alternative is a painful recrudescence of triumph of brute force or anarchy, a resort to our old system of settlement by means of bow and arrows, machetes and guns or, now, even more sophisticated weapons of war. Disobedience to an order of Court should, therefore, be seen as an offence directed not against the personality of the Judge who made the Order, but as a calculated act of subversion of peace, law, and order in Nigeria society. Obedience to every Order of Court is therefore a duty which every citizen who believes in peace and stability of the Nigerian State owes to the nation. To allow Court orders to be disobeyed would be to tread the road toward anarchy. If orders of the Court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn…If the remedies that the Court grants to correct wrongs can be ignored, then, there will be nothing left for each person but to take the law into his own hands. Loss of respect for the Court will quickly result in the destruction of our society”
The President, the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and the Honourable Minister of Finance were/are therefore in the warm embrace of the law in ensuring the enforcement of the Consent Judgment of the Court, delivered on the 8th day of April, 2019, and against which there is no valid pending appeal. Having not delivered the Promissory Note to the Registrar of the Court within the seven days period mandated by the Order of the Court, MS PATIENCE ONIHA risks jail terms if the aggrieved Judgment Creditors opt to commence criminal proceedings against her in that regard. She equally risks the loss of her job. This is because, like nature, it is an elementary law that the law abhours vacuum. If jailed for contempt of court (which is not a distant possibility), her chair as the Director-General of DMO becomes vacant and must be filled to avoid vacuum. At this stage, the choice is hers!
HON. NDUDI ELUMELU’S PRESS STATEMENT: A MISGUIDED OUTBURST
It is completely bizarre that Ndudi Elumelu could have issued the kind of press statement he issued. The astonishment of this writer stems from three considerations. One, Honourable Ndudi Elumelu has been a Federal Lawmaker for donkey years and for a Legislator of his standing, he ought to have acquainted himself with Section 287(3) of the amended 1999 CFRN. More importantly, as a Federal Lawmaker, he swore to uphold the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria including Section 287(3) thereof. By his pedigree, he ought to have known that no other Government agency, institution or authority has the vires either to “review” or “probe” the sacred Judgment of the Court unless and apart from an invitation to a higher Court to examine the decision arrived at by the lower Court by way of an appeal, an option the Governors’ Forum has (in its wisdom) refused to exercise since the year 2019 when the judgment in contention was rendered. Hon. Elumelu’s expletives and misguided outbursts is an outright invitation to abuse, desecrate and possibly bury Section 287(3) of the amended 1999 CFRN. Is that what a Parliamentarian stands for or should stand for? Does he have what it takes to achieve such ignoble aim? Obviously not. Elumule needs to be lectured on ‘how’ a true Parliamentarian (if he considers himself one) should treat the Constitution of the land as perspicaciously taught by the Nigerian Supreme Court in Inakoju vs. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (PT1025) 423 S.C. We very respectfully invite the Late Hon. Justice Tobi, J.S.C. to speak and Hon. Elumelu should listen to this:
The Legislature is the custodian of a country's Constitution in the same way that the Executive is the custodian of the policy of Government and its execution, and also in the same way that the Judiciary is the custodian of the construction or interpretation of the Constitution. One major role of a custodian is to keep under lock and key the property under him so that it is not desecrated or abused. The Legislature is expected to pet the provisions of the Constitution like the way the mother pets her day-old baby. The Legislature is expected to abide by the provisions of the Constitution like the way the clergyman abides by the Bible and the Iman abides by the Koran. And so, when the Legislature, the custodian, is responsible for the desecration and abuse of the provisions of the Constitution in terms of patent violation and breach, society and its people are the victims and the sufferers
What emerges from the womb of the foregoing is that what rather requires an urgent “probe” is how a Federal Parliamentarian of many years in Elumelu’s mold could have exhibited such crass and disgraceful ignorance of the fundamental workings of the Nigerian Constitution by which he is expected to abide “like the way the clergyman abides by the Bible and the Iman abides by the Koran.”. Pity is the word!
Secondly, Honourable Ndudi Elumelu is a devout Catholic. Most times, this writer worships with him at Holy Trinity Maitama, Abuja where he attends morning Masses. It is against Catholic teachings and conscience to deny a labourer the fruit of his labours. It is in 1 Timothy 5:18 clearly written that “The laborer is worthy of his reward.” The campaign of Hon. Ndudi Elumelu is that a labourer should be denied his wages. This is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
Thirdly, Hon. Ndudi Elumelu made a case for fight against corruption. Hon. Elumelu comes from Delta State where a former Governor milked his own state’s treasury dry and even as at today, the Federal Government is still in the effort of repatriating some of the humongous sums looted from Elumelu’s Delta State. There is no record suggesting that Hon. Ndudi Elumelu (as an anti-corruption crusader) has issued a press statement condemning the former Governor for the legendary looting or urging his own State Attorney-General to initiate his criminal prosecution. Charity, they say, starts from home. It was in circumstances similar to that which we are dealing with in this article that Our Master and Lord Jesus Christ spoke to the people of his time thusly: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” [Matthew 7: 5].
CONCLUSION:
We are a nation of laws. Our laws can only keep us if we keep our laws. Our democracy can only preserve us if we preserve our democracy. Just like the Nigerian Court of Appeal, Per Denton-West, J.C.A., in the memorable case of Balonwu v. Obi (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 488 at 538 aptly noted,
“Without a strict adherence to the rule of law, our nascent democracy and indeed our Constitution will only be worth the paper on which it is written. What makes a great country is adherence to the rule of law. Even in hell, there is order and discipline.”
Nothing could be truer! I choose to stop here.

The needful should be done