IN a highly inflammatory opinion article on the long decided Yobe governorship election petition case published in a number of newspapers recently, one Barrister Ibrahim Abbagana ostensibly writing from Damaturu, the Yobe State capital made a desperate attempt at what I consider as 'judicial revisionism' in his effort at showing the rested case for what it was not.

What came out of that article, variously titled 'Why Should Albishir Trust Bulkachuwa Again?' or 'Why Should Albishir Trust this Court Again?' was clearly an attempt to intimidate the judiciary through name calling. The attempt has failed, however, because the facts of the matter could neither be decided by fictitious tale-bearing nor is the platform of the media the way to go about handling them.

For starters, reports indicate that the Damaturu branch of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) has publicly inveighed against 'Barrister' Ibrahim Abbagana's attempt to ridicule the Bench and to bring the name of Justice Bulkachuwa to disrepute using a fictitious name.

The Damaturu NBA has said it is not aware of any lawyer or legal practitioner in its register in Damaturu who goes by the name 'Barrister Ibrahim Abbagana'. This being the case, those behind the article could only be the serial losers in the Yobe governorship election petition matter who still felt they could use information of suspect authenticity to befuddle their confused supporters.

In the unfortunate personal attack on Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa of the Appeal Court, 'Barrister' Abbagana threw decorum to the winds and cast aspersions on the learned justice, accusing her of not doing what could not be done and of not taking decisions which the facts of the matter before the Appeal Court did not lend themselves to.

In my opinion, the accusation against Justice Bulkachuwa, who has not presided over any of the cases, smacks of vendetta. To criticise a judge in a public forum is an act of cowardice. Since the judge had no forum to reply in public, the most sensible thing the people behind the 'Barrister' Abbagana article could have done was to appeal a judgment they did not agree with. That they went public wrongly and maliciously casting aspersions clearly shows they lacked a credible case which could stand in a court of law; and they were desperate to drag everyone into their drowning boat.

Although I am not a legal practitioner, I am sufficiently informed, being a Yobe indigene abreast of the ebb and flow of political events, to know that former Senator Usman Albishir had his case against Governor Mamman Ali stifled and extinguished because he abused the court process and was desperate to get a judgment favourable to him.

Albishir went to different courts of coordinate jurisdiction all at once, desperately trying to get a judgement he wanted. He was at the Maiduguri Federal High Court, which declined jurisdiction and asked him to return to the All Nigeria People's Party (ANPP) to try to sort out whatever differences existed between him and the party over its decision to nominate Governor Mamman Ali, and not him, as its flag bearer during the last elections.

Significantly, Albishir had refused to go back to the ANPP as advised and had refused also to take advantage of the conflict resolution mechanisms within the party to try to resolve the issues. Instead, he went on appeal at the Court of Appeal, Jos but he withdrew, abandoned Jos and ran to the Kaduna Federal High Court, which regrettably constituted itself into an Appeal court.

What followed the decision of the Federal High Court Kaduna to grant Albishir's request was very instructive, and showed that desperation could not give to someone what due process has not. For instance, as soon as the Kaduna Federal High Court delivered its verdict, Governor Mamman Ali appealed the ruling on the grounds, among others, that although the court had joined him as a party, it had not given him the opportunity to defend himself and that the judgment itself was an abuse of court process.The Court of Appeal, Kaduna ruled in Governor Ali's favour and so Albishir's attempt at 'Forum Shopping' had been nipped in the bud.

It is true that Albishir went to the Supreme Court, but even there, 'Forum Shopping' was hinted at, meaning the litigant was simply moving around trying to get a judgment that met his personal need regardless of the position of law.

The decision of the Supreme Court was a clear and unambiguous one. Albishir's appeal was struck out because of apparent abuse of court process. Never in its judgment, which was unanimous did the appellate court instruct the Court of Appeal, Jos to hear an appeal earlier filed by Albishir, as the fake Barrister Abbagana hinted. In fact, the statement that Albishir should return to the Court of Appeal was actually only an 'obiter', meaning something said by the way. It was therefore only of 'persuasive authority' and not binding.

In a plethora of decisions, the Supreme Court had re-stated what 'abuse of court process' means. In OKAFOR V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (1991 6 NWLR Particularly at page 681), for instance, Karibi-Whyte J.S.C held that '...there is said to be an abuse of the process of the court when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process such as instituting multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues'.

It is also my opinion that it was immaterial whether or not Albishir's suit before the Federal High Court, Maiduguri was struck out at an interlocutory stage. This was because the motion on notice filed by Albishir praying for an interlocutory injunction to retrain INEC and ANPP from substituting his name was hinged on the main suit. So, if the motion on notice was struck out for lack of jurisdiction, it is trite to say that it automatically goes with the main suit.

Although the law is clear about the right of an individual to appeal against the decision of a court if he is dissatisfied, such a right must be exercised within and not outside the ambit of the law. Where a party fails to exercise such right within the limit allowed by law, the party must seek the leave of court to file out of time. Such a leave, though, is not granted as of right. The party seeking such leave must present convincing reasons to the satisfaction of the court.

Albishir's case cannot be different. In law, he has no pending appeal before the Court of Appeal, Jos. The time within which he was to file his appeal had lapsed. These are some of the facts that the 'Barrister' Abbagana article had failed to point out.

Mr. Buba , a commentator on national issues, writes from Damaturu.