Alot of people have suffered because of the wrongful judgments of the appellate court  – Supreme Court Justice John Okoro

WITH those words, Justice John Okoro, who chaired the Supreme Court panel that yesterday quashed the sacking of Plateau State Governor Caleb Mutfwang by the Court of Appeal, summed up the fortunes of those whose appeals did not get to the apex court. Those unlucky ones comprised members of the National and Plateau State House of Assembly. Their elections were nullified on the grounds that their party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), flouted a court order to conduct ward, local government and state congresses. The appellate court consequently held that they contested the elections on a collapsed party structure.

With their right of appeal ending at the appellate court, they had nowhere else to take their cases. They lost their seats to the rival All Progressives Congress (APC) whose members have since taken up those legislative positions at the national and state levels. Mutfwang’s case has opened a new vista in the country’s electoral jurisprudence. The governor was elected on the same platform as the sacked lawmakers. He also got his ticket from the same primary as the one-time legislators. The primary was conducted by the PDP which structure the appellate court said had collapsed and on that ground voided the lawmakers’ election.

Though the lawmakers’ appeals did not get to the highest court in the land, Justice Okoro, who presided over Mutfwang’s case and his fellow Justices could not close their eyes to what happened at the lower court. The apex court did not make any pronouncement on the lawmakers’ case per se, but its seeming silence was pregnant with meaning. An inference to the lawmakers’ case could be drawn from its conclusions on Mutfwang’s appeal. The apex court described as “perverse” the appellate court’s decision that the governor was picked at an illegal primary. It said the appellate court had no power to make such finding. “The validity of nomination and sponsorship is not a valid ground to void an election”, the court held.

 “The Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The issue of sponsorship has elapsed long ago. The petitioners not being members of the PDP have no locus to challenge the party’s primary election. The issue of primary is an internal matter of political parties which both the tribunal and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to deal with”, it declared. Justice Emmanuel Agim, who delivered the lead judgment, held that contrary to the appellate court’s decision, the PDP did not disobey the order of the Plateau State High Court. He said evidence showed that the party conducted a fresh primary. His Lordship warned the legal profession to wake up or else, it would render itself irrelevant to society.

In his concurring verdict, Justice Okoro lamented the harm the appellate court’s decision had done to many people. He was apparently referring to the lawmakers whose cases never got to the apex court as appeals in those matters terminate at the Court of Appeal. In her contribution, Justice Helen Ogunwumiju upbraided the appeal court for going into the issues of nomination and sponsorship despite the several decisions of the apex court that a political party cannot challenge the primary election of another party.

Some issues have been thrown up by this decision vis-à-vis the fate of the lawmakers whose cases did not get to the apex court. Do they have any remedy in law? Or is it that they would just lick their wounds and move on despite this verdict? Is there a way they can benefit from the judgment? How can they do that? Go to court and seek to use the judgment to return to their seats? Can the judgment be retroactively enforced for their benefit? No matter, what is certain is that a law is now in place to avoid the kind of scenario that played out on the Plateau before yesterday’s Supreme Court’s decision.

A few years ago, similar scenarios played out in governorship election disputes before the law was amended to allow such cases to get to the Supreme Court. Mutfwang’s appeal has helped to solve a major constitutional problem, but it came at a price for those lawmakers who lost out because their appeals terminate at the Court of Appeal.

I will like to ask the court of appeal, what happens to the 11 lawmakers in plateau that were dismissed and now the Supreme Court ruled in their favour but can’t be remedied because the parliamentary elections ends at the court of Appeal. The supreme court condemning the court of appeal so blatantly speaks volumes of the judiciary.

Today, 12th day of January 2024, the Supreme Court delivered judgments in the governorship involving elections to the offices of the Governors of Plateau and Kano States. There were other appeals whose judgements were delivered also. But that of the Governors of Kano and Plateau States stood out more for obvious reason.

In these two states the trial Tribunal nullified the election of the Governor Kano State, and the same was affirmed by the Court of Appeal while that of the Governor of Plateau state the Court of Appeal nullified the election of the Governor after the trial Tribunal dismissed the petition against election of the Governor. Appeals of these two governors had generated so many passions and anger not so much because these governors were the best, but reasons given by the Court of Appeal in nullify their election did not go down well with the people, as the choices of the people were truncated by the court of Appeal.

Now that the Supreme Court has faulted the decisions of the Court of Appeal regarding these Governors one is termpted to ask if its still reasonable and adviceable to make the Court of Appeal the final Court in electoral matters concerning elections to Parliament at both the Federal and state levels. While it is conceded that the docket of the Supreme Court is too loaded with many cases, I do not think the solution to too many appeals in the Supreme Court does not lie in making the Court of Appeal in appeals arising from Nation Assembly and state Houses of Assembly. [/b]

As it stands today apart from presidential and governorship appeal that go to Supreme Court in electoral disputes, all other appeals in election petitions end at the Court of Appeal as provided in section 246 of the 1999 constitution. As it is today, any member of the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly whose election has been nullified on the grounds that the appeal the governor of Plateau State was allowed today stood no chance of immediate remedy as there is no further right of appeal.

The decisions of the Supreme Court today in these two cases call for the judiciary to be very careful in the way and manner the judiciary treats the concept of judicial precedents or stare decisis. Adherent the principles of respecting decisions of the superior court by the Court below the Supreme Court, which is the Court of Appeal, is crucial for the stability and predictable outcome of litigation.

The Supreme Court has done well today. But for me, some decisions of the Court of Appeal and even sometimes those of the Supreme Court that tend to undermine the perceptions of the public who are the ultimate consumers of justice is the reason why people are speculating undercut arrangements in these judgments of our courts.

I think the law limiting the right of appeal in parliamentary election petitions to the Court of Appeal needs to be thoroughly looked into as the Court of Appeal, in some cases, seems to be persuaded by reasons not rooted in justice and loyalty to judicial precedents.

The decisions of the Court of Appeal in the parliamentary election petitions appeal to it, it been, the final court has inflicted monumental injuries to the sovereignty of the people. Are those who were sacked on the basis of the facts that led to two appeals in these two cases been allowed without any remedy?

I do not think so. Where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy. This is a popular legal jargon. Those lawmakers removed on grounds, which the Supreme Court said is outside the jurisdiction of the trial Tribunal and the Court of Appeal should not go home without remedies given to them by the judiciary which is an arm of the State. They have remedies.

Judges can not be sued, but the state employed these judges who wrongly removed these lawmakers of Plateau States. The FGN can not escape the consequences of the wrong decisions of its agents who acted without jurisdiction that inflicted injuries on the earned rights of these lawmakers from Plateau State.

Now that the Supreme Court has faulted the decisions of the Court of Appeal regarding these Governors one is termpted to ask if its still reasonable and adviceable to make the Court of Appeal the final Court in electoral matters concerning elections to Parliament at both the Federal and state levels?

Akwamkpuruamu:
Until Judges are arrested for wrong judgements, we won't be serious in this nation.

Any judge who gives out 10 judgements and 4 are repealed by the supreme court, the Judges should be arrested and taken off the bench

Bobloco:
Those Appeal court justices must be sanctioned.

badoh:

Sanctioned for what? So because Okoro was promoted as a supreme court justice, he believes he knows it all. Who told him he is more knowledgeable than the justices at the court of appeal? It is possible judges in court of appeal and supreme see cases in a different way, hence give different judgement. You can't be casting aspersions on the learned justices as if you have a functioning brain than them.

Bobloco:


You are ranting

But it doesn't change the fact that those Appeal court justices should be sanctioned

tnerro1:
I maintain that judges who have their judgment overturned by a higher court, should have it noted against them so when there is an opening in a higher position, it should count against them