INTRODUCTION
My attention was drawn to this write up, with the aforementioned caption by a law student of the University of Lagos on the 1st day of May, 2012. I found the heading very interesting and indeed topical, hence developed the interest to read it.

Unfortunately, ended up embraced and humiliated as a result of misleading comments and unguarded utterances, and submissions consistently maintained by the anonymous authors of the write up tagged “Friends of Steve”. I then deem it fit and indeed imperative to respond to the authors of this write up with a view to put the record. Straight to avoid misleading the average right thinking Nigerian. Existing sub headings of the authors are maintained with reactions.

Just like the authors of the write up submitted Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as (Amended) vested judicial powers on all courts in Nigeria. However from my little knowledge of the amended 1999 Constitution the sub Sections under Section 6 of the Constitution were only 6 and not 16 as claimed by Steve and his friends (See line 6 of the introductory part of the write up).

I decided not to join issues with them on their entire submissions, but rather chose to respond to them on the relevant part which is also the central issue of the write up i.e the “Borno Case”.

The Interpretation of the 180 Days.
The framers of the 1999 Constitution specifically inserted in the constitution in clear wordings that the life span of an election petition shall be 180 days from the date of filling (See Section 285(6)) of the 1999 Constitution as (Amended) without any proviso for extension of time in that section or any other section of the constitution. The operative word “Shall” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in plethora of authorities to mean “Mandatory” compulsory “must be complied with” without any discretion. See Onochie Vs Odogwu (2006) All FWLR Part (317) Page 569 – 570 Paras F-G.

The Borno Case Proper.
The Borno case which became the locus classicus that settled all lingering disputes pending before various tribunals and Court of Appeal of the various divisions in Nigeria was between The All Nigeria Peoples Party, Governor Kashim Shettima, Zanna Umar Mustapha and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Vs Alhaji Mohammed Goni and The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Appeal No. SC/1/2012 and SC/2/2012 (Consolidated) emanating from the decision of the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja handed down on the 23rd day of December 2011. Ordering a re-trial to commence hearing denovo before a different panel to be constituted by the Acting President of the Court of Appeal. The Appellant in SC/1/2012 and SC/2/2012 (consolidated) approached the Supreme Court on several grounds of errors and misdirections by the lower court (The Court of Appeal) in the decision it handed down on the 23rd day of December, 2011. Appeal No. SC/1/2012 and SC/2/2012 succeeded wholly.

The issue of 180 days is only an issue out of the many grounds of appeal that succeeded in the Supreme Court. Assuming the grounds upon which the applicant’s i.e Mohammed Goni and The PDP predicated their reliefs are valid in the eyes of the law. The judgment of the Supreme Court handed down by Honourable Justice S. W. N. Onnonghen on the 17th day of February, 2012 cannot still be set aside, as same can still be sustained by the Appellants other grounds of Appeal, which were decided in favour of the Appellants by the Honourable Court in the said judgment.

The Way out for the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has discharged its duties as provided for by Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by handing down a very sound judgment which has led to rest many lingering cases thereby enhancing peace and stability in our nascent democracy in Nigeria.

I found it very embracing the long chain of judicial authorities cited by erudite friends of Steve on jurisdiction of court. For instance, the case of MADOKOULU Vs NKENDLEM (Supra) strengthens the position of the Supreme Court on the Borno Case rather than operating against it. The Borno case was initiated by due process of law in the Supreme Court and it was a matter that came to the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction from the decision of the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja and not in its original jurisdiction of constitutional interpretation that requires seven (7) justices of the court. It is worthy to note that the Appellants in both SC/1/2012 and SC/2/2012 did not ask to court to interpret the 180 days, because it was clear from the wordings of the constitution that mentioned shall i.e there is no ambiguity to warrant any interpretation. Furthermore, it is settled principle of law that the issue of jurisdiction of court can be raised at any time of the proceedings before judgment, even on Appeal for the very first time. Friends of Steve and co were adamant until well after three (3) months of resting the case were introducing trivial issues to cause mischief for a simple political goal. No way, the law is sacrosanct and the Supreme Court is firm and consistent.

Disgracefully, friends of Steve, the authors of this write up wasted their precious time citing long chain of cases where the Supreme Court had overruled it self in the past and authorities that touches on fair hearing. I submit with respect, that this is a misconception and a complete departure from the real facts and circumstances of the Borno case and the authorities were based on the provision of the Old Constitution before the amendment of the 1999 Constitution and on different subject matters with the case instanta which I strongly submit that it do not support or favour any of their so called arguments. It is misleading and calculated to deceive the public and ridicule the integrity of the five (5) wise men led by Hon. Justice S. W. N. Onnonghen JSC and the judiciary as a whole.


The Status of the Borno Case.
By the combine effect of Sections 233 (2) (a) and (b) and Section 234 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Borno Case SC/1/2012 and SC/2/2012 (Consolidated) is a valid and subsisting judgment in the eyes of the law. Section 234 of the 1999 Constitution provides.

For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it by the constitution or any law the Supreme Court shall be dully constituted if it consists of not less than five (5) Justices of The Supreme Court.

Provided that where the Supreme Court is sitting to consider an appeal brought under Section 233 (2) (b) and (c) of the constitution the court shall be constituted by seven (7) justices.

As earlier submitted the Borno Case reached the apex court (Supreme Court) to exercise its appellate jurisdiction of entertaining appeals from the Court of Appeal and not in the exercise of its original jurisdiction of interpreting the constitution.

Following, the General Elections of April, 2011 by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and pursuant to inauguration of Election Petition Tribunals by the then President of the Court of Appeal Hon. Justice Isa Ayo Salami Appeals from tribunals lay to the Court of Appeal and in the case of Governorship and Presidential Election Appeals terminates at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. All Appeals in respect of Election Petition that emanated from the various divisions of Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court were adjudicated by five (5) justices of the Court.

The heavily relied Benue Case was completely different from the Borno Case, in the sense that Appeal No. SC/381/2011 and SC/383/2011 (Consolidated) in respect of the Benue Case was for the interpretation of Section 182 (j) of the 1999 Constitution dealing with the educational qualification and presentation of forged certificate by Governor Gabriel Suswan of Benue State handed down on 28th day of November, 2011.

Also Appeal No SC/360/2011 filed by Prof. Steve also inrespect of Benue State was heard and determined by a panel of five (5) justices of the Supreme Court.

The Akwa Ibom case was Appeal No. SC/336/2011 heard and determined by a penal of 5 justices of the Supreme Court.
Also See the following cases.
SILVER Vs DICKSON, The heavily relied cases of Akwa Ibom and Benue States earlier decided by the Supreme Court presided over by the Chief Justice of Nigeria CJN. Appeals No. SC/157/2011 and SC/334/2011 (consolidated) Between Senator Yakubu Garba Lado & 43 Ors Vs C.P.C & 16 Ors and Dr Yusuf Armiyau Vs C.P.C & 48 Ors handed down by Hon. Justice S. W. N. Onnonghen on the 16th day of December, 2011.

SC/332/2011, SC/333/2011 (consolidated) Between Alhaji Kashim Shettima & 3 Ors Vs Alhaji Mohammed Goni & 1 Or also handed down by Hon. Justice S. W. N. Onnonghen on the 31st day of October, 2011 to mention but a few cases.

The authority of SOKOTO STATE GOVERNMENT Vs KAMDEX NIG. LTD. (2007) ALL FWLR Pt. 365 – 669 at 490 per NIKI TOBI JSC heavily relied by Steve and friends is completely irrelevant, hence cannot apply to the case instanta. MADOKOULU Vs NKENDILEM (1962) ALL NLR Locus classics on jurisdiction cannot also apply to this case because, the Supreme Court adjudicated upon the matter in its appellate jurisdiction and the court is dully constituted by five (5) wise men having initiated the appeal through due process of law.

Finally on this issue, Steve and his friend, the authors of this write up happily romanced their mouth by misleading the public that the court was not properly constituted hence lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. However, a reasonable man with a little knowledge of constitutional law may conclude by saying they are entitled to their opinion.

The imperativeness of upholding the sanctity of S. 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
The issue of fair hearing was not an issue before the Supreme Court in the Borno Case, therefore reacting to this issue amounts to wastage of the precious time of the readers.

By way of emphasis, in Appeal No. SC/1/2012 and SC/2/2012 Alhaji Mohammed Goni and the PDP filed their brief of argument with a preliminary objection incorporated into it on the ground that, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was not part of the record of proceedings transmitted to the Supreme Court.

It is rather unfortunate and indeed tantalising for Steve and his so called friends to cite laws and judicial authorities on fair hearing. It is elementary principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings and fair hearing is not an issue before the Supreme Court.

The need for the Supreme Court to upheld the Constitutional Right of Appeal.
It is very disturbing to read the judgment of a competent court up side down (inside out) by in quote “enlighten” people like Steve and his friends simply because the judgment was not favourable to their interest.

Alhaji Mohammed Goni and the PDP dragged Alhaji Kashim Shettima & Ors to the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/352/2011 which was heard by the Supreme and judgment delivered on the 31st October, 2011.

The question that readily comes to mind is why did Alhaji Mohammed Goni and the PDP went to the Supreme Court? The answer to this question is simply Alhaji Mohammed Goni was at the Supreme Court to uphold his Right of Appeal which was obliged by the Supreme Court. The mere fact that the outcome of a judgment was not favourable to a litigant does not render the court indolent. The court is not a Father Christmas to grant baseless relief to console aggrieved litigants like Alhaji Mohammed Goni, the PDP and Steve and his friends.

Therefore, the judicial decisions cited cannot help this case in anyway it is an exercise of futility.

The need for the Supreme Court to be consistent in Benue and Akwa Ibom Governorship Case.

I am very delighted that the authors of this write up answered themselves in the affirmative on this issue (See line 7 of the sub heading) in effect the application was not argued before the Supreme Court and rulling delivered. Therefore, the court cannot act in vacuum. It would have been different if the Supreme Court had taken the application alongside the provisions of Section 36 (1) Sections 233 (6) Section 6 (6) (a) and (b) Section 285 (6) Section 22 of the Supreme Court Order 8 Rules 12 (2) and (5) of the Supreme Court Rules the Case of ROSSEK Vs ACB (1993) 10 SCNJ 20 at 39 – 43 Aladegbemi Vs Fasamande (1988) 3 NWLR Pt. 81 (129) Ladoja Vs INEC (2007) ALL FWLR Pt. 377 – 934, Falaye Vs Otapo (1995) 3 NWLR Pt. 381, Makoju Vs FWLR Pt. 373. 81 Ameachi Vs INEC (2007) 18 NWLR Pt. (1665) 42 and Malumfashi Vs NAL Merchant Bank Ltd. (1999) 4 NWLR Pt. 144 283 at 317 SC. and yet gave a contrary decision in the Borno Case.

Cases are decided by the courts on a peculiar set of facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court has always maintained consistency based on available facts and applicable laws.

Finally, it is my humble submission that the Borno Case is a locus classicus that finally settled many disputes and a land mark decision of the Supreme Court for the year 2012 and a tremendous achievement to our young democracy.

Rather than beating about the bush, cheap blackmail, shameless sycophancy, mockery of the judiciary and ridicule of the proven integrity of the justices of the Supreme Court. Steve and friends could have found a better option to ask for constitutional amendment to correct the anormally in the constitution.

In conclusion the judiciary has done very well in the Borno Case and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will maintain its position. (Status quo ante).


EBELEME CHRIS Esq
Lagos, Nigeria.