Benson Enikuomehin, a legal practitioner, in this interview with OWEDE AGBAJILEKE, speaks on the judgment of the Supreme Court which affirmed the election of Nyesom Wike and advocates that all elections appeals should end at the Supreme Court. Excerpt:
What is your reaction to the Supreme Court judgment which affirmed Wike’s election?
Well, I have just heard like other Nigerians that the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the two lower courts; that is the Court of Appeal and the Tribunal. We are yet to know what reasons the Supreme Court adduced. The much I heard was to the effect that the Supreme Court had fixed 12th of February as the date in which they will give reasons as to what informed that decision. Subject to when I have the reasons, I will only just be talking off-air. Therefore, it will be difficult for me to say this happens or this does not happen.
In the light of the Appeal Court’s annulment of over 70 elections, some analysts have advocated that the apex court should be the final arbiter for all elections appeal. Do you support this argument?
For those who canvass for such a position, I may not blame them. And I am tempted also to subscribing to such a position because of the variation in decisions of the Court of Appeal. It’s very worrisome. And if the Court of Appeal cannot be coherent in its decision, then we wonder what is going on in that appellate court. For example, the decisions of various governorship elections that have now proceeded to the Supreme Court, assuming they ended at the Court of Appeal, that would have been the end. So, if in one breath, it is said that card reader is a useful tool for the election, in another breath, card reader is immaterial, don’t these justices of the Appeal Court read the judgment of their colleagues? Don’t they also call for meetings and say where do we go from here? Or there is more to it. And so, if everyone says that these matters should get to the appellate court, I may not oppose it. The only issue that will arise from it will be the issue of congestion at the Supreme Court. Let there be congestion as against justice denied to people. The Supreme Court is composed of about 17 justices. If we feel that as a result of all these matters getting to the appellate court, what stops our Legislature in expanding the number of justices appointed to the Supreme Court? We can go as much as 30 or 40 justices so that we will know things are properly handled at that apex level.
This is my personal view as regards the situation on hand. And I feel worried that some decisions that got to the Court of Appeal as a final authority in this respect is rather very sad. Particularly, I will mention a case in point in which somebody came into a party when the period of nomination of candidates had already closed. To worsen the whole story, this person is an aspirant of another political party, participated in their primary. Two days later, he went to represent his previous party. At the tribunal, it was rightly held that he was not eligible to participate in that election. The matter went to the Court of Appeal and they did what they know how to do best. For example, I am a member of APC. And then I move to PDP in the morning, come back to APC in the evening, move to another party in the afternoon and say based on the decision of the Court of Appeal, I’m entitled to be moving all about. These things are ridiculous. The Court of Appeal needs to sit up. We are not too pleased with what is happening.
I do believe that we are still evolving. God sparing our lives, in the next 15 to 20 years, democracy would have been well established. I am sure most of these things would have gone by.
Do you call for reform of the judicial system?
More often than not, I find out that these conflicting decisions happen more often in political matters.
Why is this so?
That is the worrisome aspect of it. Most of the decisions in other fields: criminal law, land law, the issues are well settled as to factor what you can prove when it comes to land matters either by tradition, history or title. When these matters come to Court of Appeal, they fall in line. But when it comes to political matters, you have variations. So, are we reforming the judiciary because of political matters alone? Are political matters the only matters that will come to the Court of Appeal? I do hope that the political class is not having its hand on the judiciary at that particular level. If it does, it’s a very sad one.
What becomes the fate of civil cases if all elections appeal should end at the apex court?
That was why I opined that if this situation persists, then the lawmakers may look into the possibility of expanding the number of justices of the Supreme Court and increase the number from the hitherto 17 to 30 or 40 so that we can accommodate these matters. As much as we know that political matters are also important, civil matters and other matters are also important. If at the end of the day, things are well stabilised because of our own circumstances, nothing stops us again from doing otherwise.
Do these annulments put a question mark on the credibility of the 2015 elections?
No, it does not. The fact of the matter is that there is no human institution that is perfect. The election was adjudged to be free and fair but you know amidst the disciples of Jesus Christ, once you have 12, you are likely to find one Judas Iscariot among them. So, if it happened during the period of our Lord Jesus Christ, it can happen at any moment of time. There will be one aberration of the other; the human nature is like that. And that will not cast aspersions on the election that was adjudged to be free, fair and credible.
What is your advice to political parties as it relates to conduct of primaries?
If political parties don’t want to be disgraced or want their members to suffer loses, it’s high time we began to do things right. If they do what is right in the selection or election of their candidates, most of the issues that now generate would not be there. So, the foundation must be properly laid. Right from the primary level, we must be doing things right. Who are the people to participate in the primary election? And once these people participate and result is released, it must be agreed that nobody goes ahead to alter that result? Result that is coming from Rivers State, as soon as it gets to Lokoja, it enters into water and when it gets to Abuja, it has changed. Leaders of political parties must show that they are credible individuals. Let them follow the rule of the game. You may not like the face of that person that is winning but he’s a member of your party. The human body comprises of so many parts. By the time you see the eyes of a man; you say this man is handsome. But there are functions that are performed by the anus that you may not ordinarily see. But the function being performed by the anus is very germane or else the mouth, the eyes and the nose will have issues. So, the person who you do not like his face today, tomorrow you may decide to like him. Therefore, let us do what is just, fair and equitable because the foundation of the house determines how the structure of the house will go. If the foundation is faulty, the Holy Scripture says what can the righteous do? Once the primary has issues, the other person will wait for you until you get to a place of no return and the courts say you must start the election afresh. Why are we belabouring the judiciary when we ought to have done what is right? If you have interest in a candidate, why not lobby the people that will vote at the primaries? The political parties, to a very large extent, are the major issue in this respect. If it is done well, you can be sure all other things will follow.
Will the judgment of the apex court not set a judicial precedent for lower courts and right the wrongs in future elections appeal?
Like I said, I have not read the judgment. I don’t know the content of what they did. But the truth of the matter is that the Supreme Court’s judgment is the final judgment in the land. All other courts below Supreme Court are bound by the principle of stare decisis to follow that particular decision of the Supreme Court. Whether you consider it right or wrong, it is the final court in the land. Until issues are brought before it and the Supreme Court reverses itself. Otherwise, it becomes the law of the land. You will remember the case of Amaechi and INEC where the court held that a person who won the primary and was not well substituted, that the votes which Omehia said he had was not for him but for the party. And that the person who won the primary and was not lawfully substituted, was the one entitled to that particular vote, which made Amaechi the governor of Rivers State. But when the legislature looked at the issue that this will not be beneficial, they amended the law. So, that judgment of the Supreme Court is confined to history because the law has now changed and that you must participate in the election processes. So, issues will always come up. And therefore, it behooves all courts to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court or else we go to the state of anarchy. And that will not be good enough for us.
OWEDE AGBAJILEKE
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
