Ise-Oluwa Ige
6 January 2009
analysis
But for the exemplary performances of few courageous judges serving on the nation's bench, it will not be unfair to say that the judiciary disappointed or so it seemed in the performances of its sacred roles in the last twelve months. This is so given several controversial and conflicting verdicts that emanated from the hallowed temples of justice in several political cases that came before it between the last legal year and now. The conducts of few serving judicial officers who played gods in their handling of sensitive public interest litigations did not help matters.
From the magistracy level to the Supreme Court bench, verdicts suggesting that the judiciary under-performed abound.
Of course, aggrieved parties in some of the cases with controversial verdicts did not fold their arms as they fired petitions to the National Judicial Council (NJC) which has the statutory powers to dismiss erring judicial officers.
Muhammadu Buhari
Regrettably, in spite of several weighty petitions against some serving judges over their alleged questionable handling of some public interest litigations submitted to them, the National Judicial Council (NJC) has not been as pro_active as expected. The happenings in the era of Justice Muhammad Lawal Uwais and Justice Salihu Modibo Belgore are yardsticks to this conclusion.
All through the last 12 months, it is doubtful if the NJC had successfully concluded any investigation on any of the several petitions made against serving judges in the country let alone wielding its big stick to send signals to erring judges.
The implication of this is that many Nigerians are losing hope in the judiciary.
A quick run down of several political cases that came before different tiers of courts in the country towards the tail_end of President Olusegun Obasanjo's administration in 2007 but which dragged till 2008 and several others filed as soon as the baton of leadership changed hands on May 29, 2007 may be necessary to perhaps underscore the point being made.
For instance, before Obasanjo handed over powers in 2007, several political disputes went to court.
Few of such include the one filed by Hon Rotimi Amaechi challenging his substitution by the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP); the one filed by Chief John Oluwole Fashogbon against Chief Albert Abiodun Adeogun; another by Chief Ime Akpan against Senator Effiong Bob, all pre_election matters.
Others are the election petitions filed by Maj._Gen Muhammadu Buhari, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, Olapade Agoro and four others challenging the electoral victory of President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, several petitions filed by candidates in various states of the Federation including the one filed by Engineer Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State against Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola, all post election cases.
There were also several criminal cases maintained by EFCC against not less than nine past state governors including James Ibori of Delta state, Orji Uzor Kalu of Abia state, among others.
Atiku Abubakar
For the pre-election cases, Vanguard authouritatively reports that most of them are yet to be determined by the regular courts almost two years after the election which they sought court's intervention to participate in.
Some of such cases are presently even hanging in that they have not been heard at all and it is even quite impossible to say whether there would be judgments on them before the expiration of the on_going four-year term of the incumbent whom elections are being challenged.
A good example of the pre-election case that readily comes to mind is the case of Chief John Oluwole which he filed about 18 months ago before a Federal high court in Abuja to enable him participate in the April 2007 general election held nationwide.
Because his case was not given expeditious hearing as desired by the nature of his case, he cannot move forward.
Besides, nothing has been done by the President of the Court of Appeal Justice Abdullahi to intervene by reversing the long adjournment notwithstanding the fact that Hon Fashogbon wrote to him urging him to intervene.
Worse still, even the pre_election cases that were decided by the high courts and the Court of Appeal provoked so much controversy that the apex court had to intervene.
A good example that came to mind here is the one filed by Hon Rotimi Amaechi challenging the decision by the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to substitute his name with Sir Celestine Omehia for the Rivers state gubernatorial election.
The fact of that case was that Hon Amaechi contested the primary election conducted by the PDP for the Rivers' state gubernatorial seat and won with his name forwarded to INEC as the ruling party's gubernatorial flag-bearer.
But before the election was held, the party, for no known reason, wrote INEC a letter substituting Amaechi's name with Sir Celestine Omehia.
The former Rivers Speaker was aggrieved by the decision and challenged it in court.
The case traveled from the high court to the Supreme Court twice without the live issues raised therein addressed or pronounced upon with a finality.
Specifically, the Abuja trial high court entered judgment against Amaechi but the Court of Appeal where the verdict of the trial court is being contested refused to hear his appeal on the grounds that Amaechi had been expelled from PDP and had been robbed of the locus to sustain the case.
Amaechi disagreed with the Court of Appeal and went before the Supreme Court which held that the intermediate court was wrong to have declined jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, sent the case_file back to the Court of Appeal and ordered it to give the matter an expedited hearing.
But when the appeal came up for hearing before the appeal court, Justice Rabiu Danlami Muhammad who presided over the panel of five justices that sat on the case refused to hear notwithstanding the express instruction by the Supreme Court and referred the case back to the apex court.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Idris Kutigi could not believe what happened.
In fact, he first gave an administrative order that the case_file must be returned to the Court of Appeal panel and that the matter must be given an expedited hearing.
But when the Court of Appeal refused to heed the CJN's instruction and when the matter eventually came up before his panel, he chided the five justices of the Court of Appeal for refusing to consider the merits in the appeal.
He said their refusal to hear the case not only amounted to insubordination but was also alien to the tradition of the bench. He had to formally order the lower court to take the appeal.
When the Court of Appeal eventually took the case of Amaechi, it was not surprising that the panel hid its face from the facts of the matter and entered judgment against him. Of course, at that time, supporters of Amaechi were already losing hopes.
Amaechi had to come to the Supreme Court where a full panel of the Supreme Court endorsed him as the lawful candidate of PDP in the April 21, 2007 and ordered Sir Celestine Omehia, to vacate his seat with immediate effect.
The apex court premised the order on its finding to the effect that Omehia was not the candidate of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which won the gubernatorial election held in the state on April 14, 2007.
The court specifically said that he held the office in error and illegally.
The court however ordered the immediate swearing_in Amaechi in his (Omehia) place even though he never participated in the election.
The apex court said that since it had found that Amaechi was the lawful candidate of the ruling party (PDP) that won the election in the state, it said that he was the winner of the gubernatorial poll, in law.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
