• Friday, March 29, 2024
businessday logo

BusinessDay

Imo: When fallible Supreme Court made an infallible judgment

Emeka Ihedioha-Hope Uzodinma

On Tuesday, March 3, 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed an application filed by former Imo State Governor, Emeka Ihedioha, seeking the reversal of the apex court’s January 14, 2020 judgment, which sacked him as governor and installed Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as governor.

A distraught Ihedioha and his party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), had sought reversal of the Supreme Court’s decision but a seven-man panel of Justices, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Tanko Muhammad, in a split six-to-one verdict on Tuesday, dismissed the application.

Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, who delivered the lead judgment, noted that Ihedioha’s application cannot stand because the apex court’s judgment was final, adding that the court cannot be compelled to sit in appeal over its judgment.

“It is settled law that this court has no power to change or alter its own judgment or sit in appeal over its own judgment.

“There is no doubt that the court has inherent powers in respect of matters within its jurisdiction, it certainly has no inherent power to assume jurisdiction in respect of a matter not within its jurisdiction.

“It is clear from the tone and the body of the instant application that what is being sought is asking the court to sit in appeal over its judgment already delivered and executed. That is certainly beyond the competence of this court,” he said.

“No constitutional powers for Supreme Court to sit in appeal over its decision. This court does not have the competence to review itself. The justices of this court are fallible, but their decisions are infallible,” Ariwoola said.

However, Justice Chima Nweze, who was the only dissenting voice, in the Supreme Court panel, rebuked his colleagues, saying it was “preposterous” for the court to award the “electoral victory” to Uzodinma who, he claimed, misled the court.

He noted that the apex court in the January 14, 2020 judgment wrongly declared Uzodinma winner of the March 2019 governorship election.  “In this circumstance, I take the humble view that this court has the inherent jurisdiction of redeeming its image by setting aside the judgment,” he said.

Nweze, who pointed to apparent irregularities in the apex court’s January 14, 2020 judgment, warned that “The reasoning in the judgment will sooner or later haunt our electoral jurisprudence.”

The question the apex court has not answered was how it came about the number of votes with which it declared Hope Uzodinma, who came a distant fourth, in the result declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) winner, when recorded number of accredited votes by INEC was less than what the Supreme Court apparently declared.

The Supreme Court had ruled in favour of Uzodinma based on his claim that his votes in 388 polling units were cancelled and that if the votes were collated he would have won. Not minding whether it was only the votes of Uzodinma that was cancelled in the said polling units, the court did what appeared to be an inexplicable arithmetic by apparently declaring results higher than accredited votes, with which it declared Uzodinma winner. This has remained like a mystery yet to be resolved but the verdict is final in the case of Imo State.

Putting the matter in clearer perspective, an aggrieved citizen of Imo State had queried the court judgment using INEC figures. He said: “From my own calculation, the total number of votes cast was 675,000, total accredited voters was 823,000 and cancelled votes was 25,000, how come what the Supreme Court passed as accredited number of voters came to 913, 854, far more than the total accredited voters. So, there is something wrong with the judgment. If INEC accredited 823,000 how come you have 913,854 in the Supreme Court judgment? He asked.

He attributed the judgment to alleged desperation of President Buhari in collaboration with the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Tanko Muhammad, to capture at least one state in the South east region in order to give the APC a national spread it failed to obtain after the 2019 election.

Against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s decision, it appears though that the apex court might be fallible, but its judgment is infallible. How this fallible institution can make an infallible judgment, opens another vista in the quest to enrich Nigeria’s jurisprudence especially on electoral matters.

The Supreme Court decision not to sit in judgment against itself in the case of Imo has apparently been seen as an error. But according to legal experts, who spoke to BDSUNDAY, even if the Supreme Court errs in law in a particular case like that of Imo, that error becomes the law, until it is perhaps corrected with a different case entirely.

Abuja-based lawyer, Ajibola Jimoh, said: “The truth is that it is a trite position of the law that the Supreme is constitutionally the highest court. When they commit error, the error becomes the law, so any body that is so affected, it is just unfortunate that the person will go and make his appeal to God Almighty. We don’t have any other court where you can appeal Supreme Court to.”

On why the Supreme Court would seemingly refuse to correct itself even if it made a glaring error, he said: “That is the democracy that we operate that the Supreme Court would be the highest court of the land, may be if another case comes up like that, they may now correct that error but not with this Imo case.”

Also speaking to BDSUNDAY, another legal mind, Ajayi Olatunji Olowo, said: “In the jurisprudence, Supreme Court is the last court of the land and by virtue of the provisions of the constitution any decision taken by the Supreme Court is not appealable. The only situation you have is in criminal matters where the President or governor under the principle of the prerogative of mercy can pardon somebody that has been convicted by the highest court.  But beyond that no decision of the Supreme Court is appealable.”

He clarified that the Supreme Court is a fallible institution and just like any institution run by human beings, and that there is bound to be error. He noted however, that by virtue of the fact that the Supreme Court is the last court, whatever they decide is the final, because there must be end litigations.

When asked about why the Supreme Court had refused to accept its errors in Imo, Olowo said: “The Supreme Court has not told you it made error; it only said we can review our decision if there were clerical error, and not fundamental error.

“The application of Imo was not talking about errors, they were asking the Supreme Court to review its decision in a manner that is tantamount to an appeal over their earlier decision. It won’t happen.”

He warned Nigerians not to allow desperate politicians to destroy the temple of justice.

 

 

Innocent Odoh, Abuja