Lawyers have disagreed with constitutional lawyer and chairman
of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Anti-Corruption,
Professor Itse Sagay (SAN), for calling on the All Progressives
Congress (APC) to return to the Supreme Court to seek a review of
its judgements disqualifying the party in Zamfara and Rivers
states.
Tsagay was quoted on Tuesday as describing the apex court’s
decisions on the two states a “travesty of justice.”
A Lagos-based human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of
Nigeria, Femi Falana, faulted Sagay, saying the Supreme Court will
not entertain applications on review of judgements delivered on APC
primaries in the two states.
Falana noted that since the crises in both Zamfara and Rivers
were caused by the problem of godfathers, the APC cannot on moral
ground approach the court. He however called for the review of the
Electoral Act in view of the development.
“The concern of Prof Sagay, SAN is understood but the
Constitution has prescribed time limits for pre-election cases and
election petitions. To that extent the Supreme Court will not
entertain applications for the review of both judgments as they are
time barred.
“I recall that the application for the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ugba v Suswan was dismissed while the lawyers
were seriously penalised. However, the decisions of the apex court
in both cases calls for a fundamental review of the Electoral
Act.
“Since the crises in Rivers and Zamfara were caused by political
godfathers, the APC cannot muster the moral courage to ask for
review of the judgments as they are. The system should punish
godfathers who subvert internal democracy in the parties by not
conducting primaries,’’ Falana said.
Anti-corruption lawyer, Abeny Mohammed (SAN) faulted Sagay’s
argument because it would amount to “standing the law on its head.”
He added that the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision was on the
requirement of the law for political parties to conduct valid
primaries to produce candidates for general elections.
“So it is that illegality by the APC that the Supreme Court has
corrected,” he said.
“Sagay is basing his argument on ‘justice for the voters’. But
initially, INEC said APC did not conduct primaries and they did not
have candidates for the election, so all the votes cast for them
were described as ‘wasted votes’.”
Mohammed said though he would have liked the Apex Court to order
a new election, allowing the APC to conduct fresh primaries, but
the court did not want to “bend the law to favour one political
party when others have complied with the Electoral Act and
conducted party primaries.”
But the former Legal Adviser to former Head of State, General
Sani Abacha, Professor Auwal Hamisu Yadudu, argued that a legal
basis for the Supreme Court to review its decision on Zamfara and
Rivers states’ elections exists.
Professor Yadudu told Daily Trust on Sunday yesterday that there
was the matter was originally pre-election one, saying there was an
opportunity for any political party that feels aggrieved from the
election to now challenge the issue as an election matter.
“In other words, APC or any other party can now challenge the
election results as announced and declared by INEC. My view is that
there is legal basis which can present an opportunity for the
Supreme Court to have another look at its decision, however it has
to be through an election petition process which can be initiated
by a party that is aggrieved because Section 140 of the electoral
act says where an election has been voided on account of an
ineligibility for any reason of one of the candidates, the court is
not entitled to award the verdict to the party that becomes second
in terms of number of votes scored.
“I’m saying it would succeed but it is a window through which
the decision of the Supreme Court can be reviewed. Obviously, it
would have to start from the election petition tribunal. If a party
dissatisfied with the outcome of the judgement, it can move to the
Appeal Court and then to the Supreme Court. And I am sure one of
the issues that would be canvassed would be that fact that the
decision of the Supreme Court in a pre-election dispute is faulty,
questionable and should be reviewed in light of justice,” he
averred.
Professor Yadudu added that the misrule of the APC leadership in
Zamfara and the impunity it showed and its refusal to conduct
primary election, for instance, should not be rewarded in a manner
that Supreme Court would award victory to another party.
He said: “If the argument that Prof Sagay has canvassed would be
listen to, the least the tribunal or a court of law can do is to
order for the conduct of a fresh election. The Supreme Court
judgement looks manifestly immoral and untied to democracy.
Therefore, if there is any opportunity for the court to review it,
it should be able to look at it again.
“If you look at the issue from another angle, it is well worth
reviewing because there was no legal basis to award a victory to a
party that has not won the election but, of course, we don’t know
what the court would say when it is approached to look at it
again.”
Also, a former President of the NBA, Austin Alegeh (SAN), said
such applications are welcomed in law practice, adding “anybody can
file anything, but whether the court will grant it is a different
matter altogether.”
“There are well laid out conditions for such unusual
applications, whether they exist in this particular case is for
them to convince the court,” he added.
Culled from Daily_trust