Election petitions: Why Supreme Court sat till night hours

Revelations have emerged on why the Supreme Court sat late into the night to decide most of the governorship election petition appeals before it against the normal closing hours of between 4 and 5pm. Insider sources say it was meant to ward off external pressures on the learned justices. It was learnt that the marathon […]

Revelations have emerged on why the Supreme Court sat late into the night to decide most of the governorship election petition appeals before it against the normal closing hours of between 4 and 5pm. Insider sources say it was meant to ward off external pressures on the learned justices.
It was learnt that the marathon late sittings were part of deliberate steps taken by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, to neutralize growing perception that justices of the apex court can be influenced in deciding political disputes.
In contrast, with the conclusion of election petitions resulting from the 2015 general elections, the Supreme Court unambiguously made a resolute pronouncement that ‘justice cannot be bought’.
Some of the actions taken by an unfazed Justice Mohammed were to ensure those justices, who are members of the panels, were unknown – even among themselves few hours to hearings; and that they were made to sit through submissions of counsels even late into the night to deliver judgement on petitions.
From all accounts, with the courageous changes he made to the usual schedule for election petitions, the CJN literarily played a fast one on desperate political blocs piling pressure on the judiciary to favour their preferred candidates.
Before the changes, selected panels of justices who are to sit on the appeal of petitions from the tribunals and appeal courts are listed for upward of 14 days, while the files are also sent to them.

This procedure created room for lobbyists to approach the judges through third parties or directly.
This time, however, the CJN kept everything under wraps till the last minute. Senior Advocates of Nigeria, who are counsels to the candidates of the various political parties, also received impromptu messages to appear in court and argue their briefs. After listening to the arguments, the panel almost simultaneously delivers a brief judgment, and sets another date to give reasons for their verdict.
Observers, who were expecting that with their ages – averaging 65 years – the Supreme Court justices would adjourn and retire to their homes after the back and forth arguments of briefs by the counsels, were disappointed at each turn. Between 9am till 12 noon, the sages would make their notes, glance and nod at each other. They then take a break to review the cases in chambers. After some few minutes, the conclave re-emerges to continue the proceedings – much to the dismay of tired audience, which included family members, party stalwarts and supporters.
On February 3, the hearings on Abia, Akwa Ibom and other petitions dragged past dinner time till midnight while expectant APC, PDP and APGA faithful and journalists stayed on.
It was suggested that with 15 justices of the Supreme Court, the political parties and their counsels being given little notice as to who handles what case and when, the possibility of external interference became slim.
Indeed, before the election petitions reached the apex court, the cases generated so much tension at the tribunal stage in affected states such as Abia, Akwa Ibom, Delta, Ebonyi, Ogun, Oyo, Kebbi, Rivers, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara. The situation got to a head when a governor reportedly drove personally to seek audience with the CJN. The CJN turned him back because it was unethical for the chief administrator of the nation’s third arm of government to be seen receiving a party in a dispute before him.
Not done, lobbyists sought to reach each of the justices through their official residences but were put off by the uncertainty of their being named among the seven-member panel which would sit in their particular case.
According to the sources, the Anambra senatorial tussle, which was on January 29 decided by the Supreme Court, had the most intensity of lobby. The situation remained dicey until February 24, when the apex court decided it in a ruling on the application by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for clarification on its judgement affirming the Ejike Oguebego-led state executive of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The court held that nowhere in its judgment was the state executive directed to take over the functions of the national executive on the issue of list of candidates.
Also, a governorship candidate boasted that she had inner contacts to get details of judgments before they were read. This raised concerns as to the integrity of such judicial pronouncements. When the candidate’s petition was eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court on February 10, it was a case of dashed expectation.
Apart from shielding justices sitting on the panel for election petition appeals from compromise, another major reason for the strategic changes made by the CJN is to ensure the petitions are adjudicated upon swiftly to avoid the lapse of time as provided in the Electoral Act. The time limit for election petitions, 180 days at the tribunal and 120 days for Appeal Court and Supreme Courts, made it mandatory that the Supreme Court justices conclude the matters within time.
A senior assistant to the CJN, who craved anonymity, confirmed that there were attempts by “desperate politicians” to influence the decisions of the Supreme Court in the election petitions. He added that the CJN “took some proactive measures as the chief administrator of the judiciary.”
“The CJN made sure that the panel that will sit won’t know each other to enable them take decisions out of their conscience. That is why most of the decisions were unanimous; you had no dissenting judgments as was the case in the past,” he said.
Also reacting on the issue, Abeny Mohammed (SAN), one of the counsels who represented Yobe governor in the election disputes, debunked suggestions that justices of the Supreme Court could be influenced by desperate politicians either directly or through lawyers.
“I will be the last to believe that Supreme Court justices are being bribed. It is a wild allegation, it does not exist. Considering that these justices work very hard to go through the records and documents before delivering their judgment, there is no time for such at all,” he said.