By Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN
Yesterday, the 12th day of January 2024, the Supreme Court delivered judgments in the governorship involving elections to the offices of the Governors of Plateau and Kano States. There were other appeals whose judgements were delivered also. But that of the Governors of Kano and Plateau States stood out more for obvious reason
In these two states the trial Tribunal nullified the election of the Governor Kano State, and the same was affirmed by the Court of Appeal while that of the Governor of Plateau state the Court of Appeal nullified the election of the Governor after the trial Tribunal dismissed the petition against election of the Governor.
Appeals of these two governors had generated so many passions and anger not so much because these governors were the best, but reasons given by the Court of Appeal in nullify their election did not go down well with the people, as the choices of the people were truncated by the court of Appeal.
Now that the Supreme Court has faulted the decisions of the Court of Appeal regarding these Governors one is tempted to ask if its still reasonable and advisable to make the Court of Appeal the final Court in electoral matters concerning elections to Parliament at both the Federal and state levels.
While it is conceded that the docket of the Supreme Court is too loaded with many cases, I do not think the solution to too many appeals in the Supreme Court does not lie in making the Court of Appeal in appeals arising from Nation Assembly and state Houses of Assembly.
As it stands today apart from presidential and governorship appeal that go to Supreme Court in electoral disputes, all other appeals in election petitions end at the Court of Appeal as provided in section 246 of the 1999 constitution.
As it is today, any member of the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly whose election has been nullified on the grounds that the appeal the governor of Plateau State was allowed today stood no chance of immediate remedy as there is no further right of appeal.
The decisions of the Supreme Court today in these two cases call for the judiciary to be very careful in the way and manner the judiciary treats the concept of judicial precedents or stare decisis. Adherent the principles of respecting decisions of the superior court by the Court below the Supreme Court, which is the Court of Appeal, is crucial for the stability and predictable outcome of litigation.
The Supreme Court has done well today. But for me, some decisions of the Court of Appeal and even sometimes those of the Supreme Court that tend to undermine the perceptions of the public who are the ultimate consumers of justice is the reason why people are speculating undercut arrangements in these judgments of our courts.
I think the law limiting the right of appeal in parliamentary election petitions to the Court of Appeal needs to be thoroughly looked into as the Court of Appeal, in some cases, seems to be persuaded by reasons not rooted in justice and loyalty to judicial precedents.
The decisions of the Court of Appeal in the parliamentary election petitions appeal to it, it been, the final court has inflicted monumental injuries to the sovereignty of the people.
Are those who were sacked on the basis of the facts that led to two appeals in these two cases been allowed without any remedy?
I do not think so. Where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy. This is a popular legal jargon. Those lawmakers removed on grounds, which the Supreme Court said is outside the jurisdiction of the trial Tribunal and the Court of Appeal should not go home without remedies given to them by the judiciary which is an arm of the State.
They have remedies. Judges cannot be sued, but the state FGN employed these judges who wrongly removed these lawmakers of Plateau States. These judges worked for FGN pursuant to section 285 of the 1999 constitution. These judges are agents of disclosed principal. The FGN, their principal, cannot escape the consequences of the wrong decisions of its agents who acted without jurisdiction that inflicted injuries on the earned rights of these lawmakers from Plateau State.
