Senior advocate of Nigeria (SAN),Chief Mike Ozekhome said the nullification of the election of the PDP legislators from Plateau State was an act of injustice.
He said he is now of the view that all election petitions should terminate at the apex court.
Ozekhome who spoke on ARISE TV said: “If all of these cases had gone to the Supreme Court, all of them would have their seats retained.
“On what grounds were they reversed? The Court of Appeal surprisingly was saying the PDP had no structure in Plateau State.When did PDP structure,membership of a political party,nomination,congresses and primaries become part and parcel of matters that the court can have jurisdiction?
“Injustice has been done to them. What is the remedy now? That is why I’m going to review my stance with all respect and humility as a constitutional lawyer,to say that yes, these cases should go to the Supreme Court as the final court of the land.”
Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN),Mr.Wahab Shittu said all that the country ought to do is to strengthen the capacity of the judiciary to perform its responsibility.
He hailed the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that courts are not entitled to dabble into the internal affairs of political parties on nomination of candidates for election as sound.
He said the decision is sound on the index of legal reasoning and justification.
“The justification is that issues of sponsorship, nomination and candidacy remain the prerogative of political parties. The only limitation is compliance with the requirement of internal democracy,” he said.
Shittu, however, argued that the Court of Appeal’s nullification of the elections of the Plateau lawmakers ought to be rationalised based on the peculiar facts of each case.
His words: “The question of validity of nomination has to be examined in the context of provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act. The court has a duty to ensure compliance with relevant enactments.
“It is necessary to read the facts of the Court of Appeal decisions thoroughly before deciding whether the position of the Court of Appeal contradicted the Supreme Court decisions under reference.
“It is not in all situations that the court will not interfere with internal affairs of political parties. For example, the court will intervene where a political party nominates candidates for an election without organising primaries as stipulated by the Electoral Act.
“The intervention of the court in such situations will be justified because such candidates were not validly nominated because of absence of valid primaries as required by the Electoral Act.”
He noted that there have also been arguments that all electoral matters ought to terminate at the Supreme Court adding that such a position overlooks the fact that the apex court is saddled with heavy dockets of cases and the modern thinking is that not all cases should come to the Supreme Court for resolution.
Shittu said he favoured critique of a judgement on the index of justification after analysis of the peculiar facts, settled principles and the legal reasoning underlying the decisions reached.
He said: “I am unable to whimsically conclude that the decisions of the Court of Appeal run contrary to the Supreme Court’s position without analysing the context in which the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were arrived at.
“The solution lies in strengthening the capacity of our courts at all levels to ensure only our best brains adjudicate over cases including electoral matters”, he said.
Shittu said agitation for all electoral matters to terminate at the Supreme Court tends to overlook the reality that the apex court as a court of law and policy adjudicates over all matters not just electoral matters.
Chief Louis Alozie (SAN) called for an urgent amendment of the Electoral Act to deal with the issue of courts jurisdiction in matters of validity of nomination of candidates.
He said: “In pre-election matters, Section 84 ( 14) has been introduced to vest jurisdiction in the courts to entertain complaints where it is alleged that the constitution and guidelines of the party have been breached.
“By this provision, the arbitrariness of party leaders ought to have been curtailed. But our courts still insist on this principle, founded on the common law that matters arising from nomination of candidates remain the internal affairs of political parties.
“ In this case, they do not interpret the statutes. My understanding of recent decisions of both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court is that they have rubbished the innovations introduced in the Electoral Act of 2022.
“What I know to be certain is that election tribunals and appellate courts have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints on issues that occurred before the election. In other words, jurisdiction is limited to complaints on the actual conduct of the election because the election petition tribunals and appellate courts do not function as regular courts, that cannot entertain pre -election issues.
“ What is worrisome is that the courts contradict themselves by the spate of contradictory decisions. It’s unfortunate for justices of the Supreme Court to be saying one thing and the Court of Appeal or even different panels of the court of appeal to saying different things on similar facts. For me, every judge decides cases based on his conscience and extent of knowledge of the law. This can’t be regulated, even by statute.”
The post Plateau: Terminating Election Matters At Supreme Court Divides Senior Lawyers appeared first on Barristers.NG.
5 min read
920 words
9 views