“My simple answer is that it is not part of the jurisdiction or duties of this Court to go on looking for imaginary conflicts. We are final not because we are infallible; rather we are infallible because we are final”.- Hon. Justice Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa, J.S.C.
The above notable and profound pronouncement forms part of the ipsissima verba of My Lord, the Hon. Justice Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, (late), most blessed and remarkable memory when he delivered the leading judgment (to which Obaseki, Nnamani, Karibi-Whyte and Agbaje, JJSC all agreed) on Friday 19th day of May, 1989 in the popular case of ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD v. DR. BABATUNDE ADESANYA & ANOR (1989) 3 NWLR (pt 109) 250 at 274; (1989) 5 S.C 113 at 129 in response to the issue whether there is a conflict between the Supreme Court cases of SKENCONSULT (NIG.) LTD and ANOR v. UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6 and EZOMO v. OYAKHIRE (1985) 1 NWLR (pt 2) 195, each decision having been made on its own peculiar facts.
This article seeks to demonstrate that the Supreme Court of Nigeria as the final Court of last resort has done an inestimable good to Nigeria and the good people of Rivers State through its wise decision handed down on Wednesday 27th day of January, 2016 when it overturns the concurrent decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Election Tribunal and upheld the election of Nyesom Wike as the duly elected Governor of Rivers State. Although, the reason for its decision is reserved for February 12, 2016, the Supreme Court have always drawn their inspiration and their strength for the judgments from the very facts and peculiar circumstances of each individual case before it which framed the issues for their decision.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria as the apex Court in Nigeria enjoys the singular privilege under the law to give its decision on a matter on a particular day and reasons on different days. That law is to be found in Section 285 Subsection 8 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). The Subsection provides that:
“The Court, in all final appeals from an election tribunal or Court may adopt the practice of first giving its decision and reserving the reasons therefore to a later date”.
In CHIEF GREAT OVEDJE OGBORU v. DR. EMMANUEL EWETAN UDUAGHAN & 2 ORS (2012) 11 NWLR (pt 1311) 357, the Supreme Court of Nigeria was confronted with the meaning of the word “final appeal” in Section 285 (8) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as well as the issue of whether the Court of Appeal can deliver judgment and reserve its reasons therefore to a later date in governorship election petition appeal. Delivering the lead judgment in the OGBORU’S CASE (Supra), IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C held on the meaning of final appeals on page 388, paragraphs B-C as follows:
“Final appeals from the tribunal to the Court of Appeal to my understanding, is one which has disposed of the rights of the parties thereto. That is the final bus stop for that Court as far as that case, issue, or matter is concerned. Nothing further can be done as there is no avenue for appeal”.
On the question whether the Court of Appeal can deliver judgment and reserve its reasons to a later date in governorship election petition appeal, His Lordship, MUHAMMAD, J.S.C had this to say on page 388 paragraphs C-D as follows
“Thus, a Court of Appeal sitting on appeal on a governorship election from an election tribunal, which now serves as an intermediate Court (and not final), can only give its decision within time stipulated, along with reasons thereof. It has no power to defer giving reasons to a later date as both the judgment and its reason thereof have to be delivered at once within the stipulated time frame”.
Perhaps, her Lordship, ADEKEYE, J.S.C was more apposite on the point when the learned jurist reinstated the position of the law in a most lucid manner on page 391, paragraphs D-E as follows:
“The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Court of Appeal gave judgment in the appeal before it on 5/12/11 and adjourned reasons for the judgment to 27/1/12. As at the time the Court gave reasons for the decision of 27/1/2012, the appeal was statute barred. The decision was given outside the statutory period. By virtue of Section 294(2) of the 1999 Constitution, a Court must give reasons for its judgment in law. By virtue of Section 285(8) of the Constitution as altered the Court of Appeal is only an intermediate Court in matters relating to Governorship election petitions and so cannot enjoy the privilege under that law”.
Consequently, the legal changes introduced by the alteration of the 1999 Constitution in 2010, vide the second amendment, the Supreme Court of Nigeria is now vested with appellate jurisdiction to hear final appeals in gubernatorial election dispute by reason of Section 233(2) (e) (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). This jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has justifiably exercised in the Wike’s case and has reserved its reasons pursuant to powers conferred on it by Section 285(8) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The Supreme Court, no doubt, scarcely interferes with the concurrent findings of Court. However, where the decisions of the lower courts are shown to be perverse, the Supreme Court will not hesitate to intervene. As AYOOLA, J.S.C would say in AGBANELO v. UNION BANK PLC (2000) FWLR (pt 13) 2212, there is no need to follow their Lordships of the Court of Appeal into error. Agreed that the justices of the Supreme Court are human beings, capable of erring, they are mostly constituted by men and women of first talents who can help discern when principles are being violated.
They are men, learned men with deep understanding who appreciate the fact that the law should not be regarded as a brooding omnipotence in the sky but the prophecies of what the Courts will do in fact and nothing more pretentious. Like the children of Issachaar who had an understanding of the times, the Justices of the Supreme Court have better understanding that the law should not be regarded as an end in itself but as a means to an end in a good society.
They are men who are alive to the circumstances of the time, the justice of any particular matter and their responsibility not to exist as a mere dictionary of words, to borrow the words of KAYODE ESO, JSC in the case of AWOLOWO v. SHAGARI (1979) 6-9 SC 51.
Commenting on the reason for the decision in AWO’S CASE, Chief (Dr.) Nabo Graham Douglas, SAN noted that: “Against this background, if the judgment of the Supreme Court had been other than it turned out to be, this would have been not just an occasion of purposeless crass legalism but an abdication of one of the cardinal purposes of judicial functions”.
In his lecture, “Legal and Judicial Activism in an Emergent Democracy: The last hope for the common Man? delivered at the First Justice Chike Idigbe Memorial lecture on 8th January, 2004 at the Oduduwa Hall of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife on page 22-23, Oputa, J.S.C. noted as follows:
“Justices of our Court of last resort should therefore be philosophical judges moving in the spirit of the classical Roman jurists. They should be able (and our justices have shown that in countless occasions) and willing to react with creativity and depth to cases coming before them especially those with massive conceptual, philosophic or social implications. Creativity is but another name for activism… The judiciary has rightly been called “The Last Hope of the Common Man”.
This aphorism should be conspicuously evident in a democracy. The judiciary in a Democracy should be the hope of the hopeless, the help of the helpless, a safe hospice for the legally injured; in short, the last hope of the common man”.
By the finality of the decision of the Supreme Court in Wike’s case, the Supreme Court has again demonstrated that it is not just the last hope of the common man but also the last hope of the mighty and movers and shakers of our Democracy to borrow the words of Justice S.C. Amadi, J. of the High Court of Justice, Rivers State. The judiciary can no longer be emasculated any longer. The days of self-imposed impotence of the judiciary and intentional subservience are over in our democracy.
Whilst we look forward to the reason for the decision in Wike’s case, may we draw conclusion from the words of OKORO, J.S.C delivering the lead ruling in BARRISTER ONKER JEV v. SEKAV DZUA IYORTOM (2015) 15 NWLR (pt 1483) 484 at 503 paragraphs D:
“Let me state clearly from the outset that by virtue of Section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Supreme Court cannot sit on appeal above its own judgment. The provisions give a stamp of finality to any decision of the Supreme Court.
There is no constitutional provision for the review of the judgment of the Supreme Court by itself or any other body. And that is without prejudice to the powers of the President or the Governor of a State with respect to prerogative of mercy. See ELEAZOR OBIOHA v. INNOCENT IBERO & ANOR (1994) 1 NWLR (pt 322) 503”.
Gabriel is of Lord Denning Chambers in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
No comments:
Post a Comment