The Sokoto debacle and the Supreme Court

Contrary to what some commentators have said by criticising the Supreme court for allegedly acting outside its jurisdiction by dabbling into a governorship election petition case, with due respect, this was not an election petition case but a pre-election case in which the Supreme court has jurisdiction. The Supreme court had held in its judgment […]

Contrary to what some commentators have said by criticising the Supreme court for allegedly acting outside its jurisdiction by dabbling into a governorship election petition case, with due respect, this was not an election petition case but a pre-election case in which the Supreme court has jurisdiction.

The Supreme court had held in its judgment of April 8, 2011 that: “in the instant case, in the case of the 2nd respondent, INEC found that he was a member of the PDP and was sponsored by that party before he contested the election in 2007 and also the re-run in 2008. That was the end of the matter. That issue could not be raised before a tribunal. The Sokoto tribunal was right to have declined jurisdiction. Thus, if Appeal no. CA/S/EPT/GOV/10/09 was not purely an election petition appeal, but was more of pre-election matter, there could not be a breach or violation of sections 233 and 246(3) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

Justice Adekeye, who read the lead judgment, was more emphatic on the need to do justice.

While I would not dwell on the suspension of the former president of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, on his tiff with the former Chief Justice, Katsina-Alu and the National Judicial Council, as it is subject to judicial adjudication, unfortunately, the issues that are quite germane to the debacle have been beclouded by emotion and sentiments.

It has been alleged that the crux of the matter was the refusal of Justice Salami to be used to compromise the Sokoto appeal tribunal by the Chief Justice, Alloysius Katsina-Alu. Your write-up even went further to claim that the CJN directed the stoppage of the pending judgment of the Sokoto appeal tribunal.  In the first place, at the hearing of the administrative panel set up by the NJC, Justice Dahiru Musdapher gave evidence wherein he said he was invited by the former CJN who was also the chairman of the NJC, following the petitions he received against the Sokoto appeal election tribunal and that in his presence, the former CJN invited Justice Salami to intimate him of the petitions.  It is my understanding that if the former CJN had anything to hide or wanted to compromise the Sokoto case, he would not have called a witness to his discussion with Justice Salami. It would have been his word against Salami. But in his evidence, Justice Musdapher debunked the claim of Justice Salami that the CJN wanted him(Salami) to compromise the Sokoto case.

Subsequently, acting as the Chairman of the NJC, the CJN directed the Sokoto Appeal tribunal to put their proceedings on hold pending the outcome of the investigation of the petition against them. Similarly, the Supreme court, also halted the proceedings when issues were joined by the two contending parties at the Supreme court. Interestingly, the appeal at the Supreme Court was filed by Alhaji Maigari Dingyadi of the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) against Alhaji Wamako.

Meanwhile, in view of the multiplicity of actions by the first appellant in the election petition cases, Alhaji Maigari Dingyadi of the Democratic Peoples party (DPP), who in fact was the one who went to the Supreme court while Governor Wamakko’s lawyers brought an interlocutory application before the Supreme court which was quite germane to the whole processes to challenge Dingyadi’s application at the Supreme court. On the basis of this, the Supreme Court had to maintain the res in the case, in the interest of fairness to the two parties.

The case was subsequently laid to rest by the Supreme Court which ruled in favour of Governor Wamakko.

In a detailed interview in the TELL magazine edition of November 16, 2009, with the cover headline, “Justice for sale”, a former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Abdullahi Mustapher, explained the judicial debauchery that occurred three years ago at the Enugu Elections appeal tribunal in these words:

“There was this election in Anambra state. Results were declared and people were issued with certificates of return. Three days later, the state’s electoral commissioner called a press conference where he took away two certificates from two candidates and issued them to two other people who did not participate in the election. So the two people that were deprived of their victory went to the tribunal. The tribunal gave them their right and declared that they were the people who were elected and not these people who got certificates three days after the election.

But the judgment of the tribunal was appealed at the Court of Appeal in Enugu. I set up a separate panel to hear the appeal because at that time, the court was very busy attending to other matters.

It was a panel of five members, but unfortunately, two of them could not participate. One was sick and the other had travelled out of the country. So it was left to the three other judges, since three can form a quorum they took the appeal, held a conference and agreed that one of them should write the judgment. He went ahead to write the judgment. But two days before judgment day, the presiding judge went to meet him saying the matter should be re-examined. He said he thought the matter should not go the way they had all agreed and that it should go in a certain way. But the judge who wrote the judgment told him well, if that is what you want, then I will write a minority judgment.

When it was time to deliver judgment, the judge who wrote the judgment was asked to deliver his own minority judgment first, contrary to the rule of the court. In fact, the justice announced that the judge who wrote the lead judgment was going to deliver his “opinion”. So he read his judgment and the presiding justice read his own lead judgment after him. While he was reading the lead judgment, the crowd inside the court was getting restless because they could see what was happening.  Before he got halfway, the whole court was agitated and the people started rushing. So the judges had to run out of the court.”

Eventually, the National Judicial Council (NJC) stepped in, investigated the matter and accordingly, two of the justices were found guilty. There was evidence that some money had gone round and they were recommended to be removed from office and they were removed. In addition, a new panel was set up to hear the appeal.

Just three weeks before he was suspended, Justice Salami disbanded the Anambra Election Petitions Tribunal following allegations of corruption. But the pertinent question is, if he could do this in Anambra, why didn’t he do similar thing in the case of Sokoto as directed by the NJC Chairman following the petitions he received against the Sokoto tribunal?

However, this is without prejudice to the case filed by Justice Salami over his suspension.

Akinnola is the publisher of MEDIA LAW JOURNAL, [email protected]