- Court records indicate 7 different letters were written to former and current CJNS to fix hearing date since 2020
Some senior lawyers have brought different perspectives to the Supreme Court’s imposition of a N40 million fine on rights advocate and constitutional lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, SAN on Tuesday, for filing a “frivolous” motion before the court regarding the Imo governorship tussle, which was decided in 2019.
A detailed record of proceedings obtained by Barristerng revealed that prior to the Tuesday hearing, the Ozekhome team had written seven separate letters to the former CJN and the current CJN to fix a hearing date on the matter since 2020.
“…let us not forget, sirs, the fact that we were compelled to write 7 separate letters to the former CJN and the current CJN to set this matter down for hearing since 2020 – until today’s hearing.What is in issue here is the illegality that was in the conduct of the Appellant. And it has no time limit; it cannot be affected by time limitation. That was what you held in this very appeal (CV/1348/2019: UGWUMBA UCHE NWOSU V. APP (2020) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1749) 28).”
A senior lawyer who did not want his name in print indicted the apex court and brought another angle to the controversy.
“The Supreme Court is the problem. How can a Supreme Court make two inconsistent orders on the case? How can the Supreme Court keep a case on its dockets for 3 years unassigned and later assign it and later move it to after election? This supreme does not have the character of a judicial body. It reeks of a gang of ill-educated and unconstrained dictators. Sorry to say.”
Prior to the fine imposition, Ozekhome told the justices why he was before them.
“We are here to urge this Honourable court to give effect to its judgement delivered on 20th December, 2019 and for enforcement of same. It is predicated on our process dated 23rd November, 2023, and filed on 24th November, 2023. It is a motion on notice seeking consequential orders. We are not asking that the court revise or review its judgment; rather, that the court enforces and give effect to it. We are not appealing or saying that this court should revise itself but. Far be it. Even if we were, the court has the powers to do so as decided by this apex court in the case of ADEGOKE MOTORS V. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109). In the lead judgement delivered by Oputa, JSC (of blessed memory), which is often not fully quoted by many, he said as follows and I quote:
‘We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this court are human beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be short-sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. It is also true that this court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions. Similarly, the court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes. When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such a decision be over-ruled. This court has the power to over-rule itself (and has done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error. Learned counsel has not asked us to over-rule either Skenconsult or Ezomo supra. If that was what was wanted, the briefs should have said so specifically and the Chief Justice of the Federation would have gladly empanelled a Full Court’
“My Lord, this is precisely the case here. We ,like in the above scenario, are not asking this court to overrule itself. If we wanted, we would have humbly requested the CJN to empanel a full constitutional court of 7 Justices.”
Prof. R.A.C.E Achara in a statement shared his thoughts.
“From the abbreviated report, it was, in the circumstances, a frivolous motion; and, in my respectful submission, abusive of the processes of the court.
“My worry is on the growing penchant of the respected Supreme Court to not only impose excessive costs, but to place the weight on counsel.
“The problem with this often transcends the particular lawyer involved, but subverts the entire judicial system by creating a general chilling effect both for malicious as well as merely mistaken advocates.
“Any capricious power is dangerous.
“The constitution frowns more on this sort of in terrorem power where it is assumed by a final court and in circumstances where opportunity has not been shown of the charge and an opportunity to the mulcted lawyer to offer a defence, one way or another, to it.
“Even for the litigant, the severity, even if not the sanction, ought to conform to some verifiable standards of scale and logic.
“We must never descend to a position where justice in our courts can’t easily be distinguished from local vigilante justice.
“The knee-jerk vigilante reaction to petty theft is death by wheel tyre incineration; however, the justice we expect in a normal court of law may find guilt but nevertheless constrains its sentencing against graduated guidelines imposed by our civilized notions for the rule of law.”
Please watch the address of South Africa’s Chief Justice Ray Zondo at the opening of their Judges Conference on Tuesday below.
Prof. Achara also added: “”As we … know, abuse of process transcends, and even sometimes is aliunde, the merits of the underlying case. And focuses rather on surrounding circumstances of timing, intent, prudence, enforceability and generally the supervening nature of the facts of each case.
“The court and counsel can’t here pretend innocence of the judicially noticeable supervening events here:
“The thrust of this motion is to enforce a Supreme Court judgment made 4 years ago in December 2019.
“The nature of the relief is for the court, which to the knowledge of all parties had ruled (rightly or wrongly) to the contrary in January 2020, that the person returned as Imo State Governor under the 2019 electoral cycle, should be ousted for another candidate, whom the SC (again, rightly or wrongly) had rejected as such over 3 years ago.
“This request for replacement is founded on the different SC decision in which the party the SC eventually returned as winner, had conspicuously not been made a party.
“In a prior attempt at reversal of the (clearly questionable) 2020 return by the SC, that top court of our land, by a 6 to 1 margin, angrily rebuffed the motion. And imposed cumulative costs in the region of 30 million in Naira.
“The person the Supreme Court returned as governor has completed that 4-year term. He has stood a completely fresh election where there is a serious contention by his rivals that the majority of the Imo State electorate had cast their votes for this totally fresh new electoral cycle to them. There is a possibility that the electoral tribunal and courts might agree with them. Yet this motion requests the SC to ignore the entirety of the will of Imo State voters (especially those who became eligible after 2019 and those who might have changed their minds from how they might have voted in 2019)… right there, is the abuse…”
Below is the executive summary of the case leading to Ozekhome’s application.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY [PDP] AND ACTION PEOPLES PARTY [APP] TO EXECUTE OR ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SC/1384/2019 – UGWUMBA UCHE NWOSU Vs APP & ORS ON 20th DECEMBER, 2019
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Sometime last year, in the run up to the general elections, the Action Peoples Party [APP],its Imo State Governorship candidate Mr. Uche Nnadi and the Peoples Democratic Party [PDP] approached the Federal High Court, Abuja; seeking, amongst other reliefs, the disqualification of Ugwumba Uche Nwosu from contesting the Imo State Governorship election on the ground that he [Ugwumba Uche Nwosu] was nominated as Governorship candidate by two [2] political parties namely: Action Alliance [AA] and All Progressives Congress [APC] contrary to Section 37 of the Electoral Act 2010 [as amended] which forbids double-nomination.
1.2 Upon being served with the originating processes, the Defendants in that suit: Ugwumba Uche Nwosu, Independent National Electoral Commission [INEC] and Action Alliance [AA] filed their various counter-affidavits to the originating summons including preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court to entertain the suit. After hearing parties, the Court delivered a well-considered judgment on the 19th August, 2019; wherein it dismissed the preliminary objection and proceeded to
grant all reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs including an order disqualifying Ugwumba Uche Nwosu from contesting the Imo State Governorship election on the platform of any party for double nomination contrary to Section 37 of the Electoral Act [supra].
1.3 An appeal by Ugwumba Uche Nwosu to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division against the judgment was dismissed for lacking in merit on the 28th October, 2019. A further appeal by Ugwumba Uche Nwosu to the Supreme Court was also dismissed for being without substance in the judgment delivered by the apex court on 20th December, 2019. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court, in the lead judgment delivered by Honourable Justice Amina Augie, upheld the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal with respect to the fact that Ugwumba Uche Nwosu was the Imo State Governorship Candidate of the Action Alliance [AA] and the All Progressives Congress [APC] contrary to Section 37 of the Electoral Act [supra] and sustained his [Ugwumba Uche Nwosu] disqualification from contesting the Imo State Governorship election.
1.4 It is this judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 20th December, 2019 that the motion on notice currently pending before the Supreme Court intends to enforce.
2.0 MOTION ON NOTICE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON 19th DECEMBER, 2019 IN SC/1384/2019 – UGWUMBA UCHE NWOSU Vs APP & ORS
2.1 The motion on notice currently pending before the Supreme Court seeks the enforcement of the judgment delivered by the Court and is brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 66 and Section 287[1] of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 [as amended], Section 22 of Supreme Court Act 2004 and Order 8 Rule 17 of the Supreme Court [Amendment] Rules 2014. The motion is premised on the following grounds:
a. The candidature of Ugwumba Uche Nwosu was nullified for being invalid for reason of his double-nomination by two [2] political parties: Action Alliance [AA] and All Progressives Congress [APC] contrary to Section 37 of the Electoral Act [supra].
b. By reason of the above, the All Progressives Congress [All Progressives Congress] did not field any Governorship candidate in the Imo State Governorship election and as such cannot be returned as the winner of the Imo State Governorship election.
c. The Peoples Democratic Party [PDP] Governorship candidate, Rt. Hon Emeka Ihedioha, having polled the highest number of votes cast at the Imo State Governorship election, ought to be declared winner of the said election as the acclaimed winner [All Progressives Congress] did not field any candidate following the disqualification of its duly nominated candidate, Ugwumba Uche Nwosu.
2.2 In support of the motion is a twenty [20] paragraph affidavit deposed to by Adedamola Farokun Esq, a Legal Practitioner working with the Peoples Democratic Party [PDP] to which four [4] exhibits: Exhibits “PDP1” [Judgment delivered on by the Federal High Court coram Honourable Justice Inyang Ekwo on 19th August, 2019], “PDP2” [Judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division on 28th October, 2019], “PDP3” [Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in SC/1384/2019 on 20th December, 2019] and “PDP 4” [Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 14th January, 2020 returning Senator Hope Uzodinma as the Governor of Imo State] were annexed.
2.3 The prayers sought in the motion on notice in a nutshell are:
a. An order enforcing the judgment delivered in SC/1384/2019 by holding that Ugwumba Uche Nwosu was the Imo State Governorship candidate of both the Action Alliance [AA] and the All Progressives Congress [APC] and was disqualified for double nomination. And consequential orders to the following
effect:
b. An Order to the effect that the All Progressives Congress [APC] did not field any Governorship candidate in the Imo State Governorship election following the disqualification of its duly nominated Governorship candidate in the person of Ugwumba Uche Nwosu for double nomination and as such cannot be returned as the winner of the Imo State Governorship election.
c. An order directing the swearing in of the Governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party [PDP] Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha as the Governor of Imo State.
