Babalola represented David
Lyon, whose election was cancelled by the court, while Olanipekun represented
the All Progressives Congress, Lyon’s party.
Senior lawyers Chiefs Afe
Babalola and Wole Olanipekun got more than they bargained for Wednesday when
they sought a review of the 13 February Supreme Court judgement on
the Bayelsa
election, as they were scolded like school boys by Justice Amina Augie, who
read the unanimous ruling.
Amina Augie in the
unanimous ruling came down heavily on the respected senior lawyers, rebuking
them for filing the motions, which the court described as regrettable motions
and a deliberate desecration of the judiciary.
“With tears in my eyes, I
feel sad that senior counsel in this case would ever bring this kind of
frivolous applications during my life time”.
“With tears in my eyes, I
feel sad that senior counsel in this case would ever bring this kind of
frivolous applications during my life time”—Amina Augie.
She held that by Order 8,
Rule 16 of the Supreme Court, the court has no powers or authority to review
any judgment delivered on merit safe for clerical error.
“This court is not
authorised and indeed lacked jurisdiction to review any judgment delivered on
merit.
”More so when the
applicants have not pointed out any accidental error or slip in the judgment.
“There must be an end to
every litigation.
“This is final court and
its decisions are final for all ages so as to ensure certainty in law,” she
held.
According to
her, “the two applications brought before us today lacked merit and constituted
abuse of this court and they are liable to dismissal and are hereby dismissed”.
Both Afe
Babalola and Olanipekun are widely regarded lawyers. Babalola, 90 years old,
was called to the English Bar in 1963 and started practising in Nigeria in
1965. He started his own law firm in 1967.
He became a
senior advocate of Nigeria in 1987.
Wole
Olanipekun, 68, was Called to the bar in July 1976 after he graduated from the
Nigerian Law School. He attained the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria in July
1991.
Justice Amina
Augie, in contrast, is 66 years old. She was called to the Nigerian Bar on 8th
July, 1978.
The
appearance of Babalola and Olanipekun for David Lyon and the APC apparently
annoyed the Supreme Court justices who then proceeded, after throwing away
their cases, to impose punitive fines on them.
The two
lawyers will pay a cost of N10million to each of the three respondents, the
Peoples Democratic Party, Governor Douye Diri and his deputy, making a total of
N60million, by one computation.
A rebuke
justified?
Babalola,
Counsel to Lyon and Deputy had in his submissions said that the Supreme Court
has inherent decision and power to set aside its own decision.
“The judgment
which voided the election of Lyon and his deputy was a nullity on account of
denial of fair hearing to them.
According to
him, ‘the procedure adopted by the apex court on February 13 was wrong because
there was no cause of action at the time it gave judgment against Lyon.
Babalola, a
senior advocate of Nigeria, argued that the apex court has the power to set
aside its earlier judgment.
He insisted
that the application is not for a review of the judgment but to set aside the
judgment sacking Mr Lyon who overwhelmingly won the election.
Mr Babalola
added that the judgment of the court delivered on February 13, amounts to a
denial of fair hearing. He urged the court to reverse its decision.
Chief Wole
Olanipekun, another senior advocate, representing the APC asked the apex court
to set aside its judgment on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to
have entertained the appeal in the first place.
He explained
that the suit was first filed at the Federal High Court as a pre-election
matter, which is the foundation of the matter that made the appeal get to the apex
court.
Mr
Olanipekun, therefore, restated his argument that the apex court lacks the
jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
He added that
all humans are fallible so it is not beyond the apex court to make a mistake.
Mr Olanipekun
also faulted the interpretation of the judgment of the court by INEC which
issued a certificate of return to Senator Douye Diri of the PDP, urging the
court to grant the application to set aside its earlier judgment.
Counsel to the PDP, Tayo
Oyetibo, also a SAN, argued that the application by David Lyon is an invitation
to violate the nation’s constitution
He said the applications by
APC and its candidates were dangerous invitation to the Supreme Court to
violate section 285 of the 1999 constitution, for the court to sit on appeal
over its own matter.
Oyetibo argued that having
delivered final judgment on merit, the court has no jurisdiction to sit on
appeal in the judgment, adding that it is scandalous to ask the apex court to
review the judgment.
He further stated that the
apex court was right in disqualifying Lyon as the governor-elect because
section 187 of the 1999 constitution is clear and unambiguous to the effect
that a governorship candidate who has no deputy candidate is not qualified to
contest any governorship election in Nigeria.
“When Supreme Court gives
judgment, it is deemed correct.
“It has never happened in
the history of the Supreme Court to reverse itself, its judgment is final and
finality: and whatever Supreme Court says in the interpretation of the law is
the law”, he said.
His submissions were
subsequently adopted by other respondents in the matter.
Citing section 22 of the
Supreme Court act, Mr Oyetibo said “the court has wide powers to make any order
including the order asking INEC to withdraw the certificate issued to David
Lyon. The order made by the court was not out of order.”
He explained that the facts
and justice of the case warranted the decision of the court and there is no
error in it whatsoever.
He added that if any error
is felt, it can only be addressed in a future case.
He urged the court to
dismiss the application and not to disturb the status quo.
Yunus Ustaz Usman who
represented Governor Douye Diri aligned himself with the submissions of Mr
Oyetibo, insisting that the court cannot make any order outside the judgment,
especially after a full-blown trial.
He reaffirmed the finality
of the court as the highest of the land, urging the court to dismiss the
application in the interest of the overall survival of the country.
Chris Uche, counsel to
Bayelsa Deputy Governor, Mr Lawrence Ewhrudjakpo vehemently opposed the
application for a review of the judgment of the apex court and urged the court
to dismiss the applications filed by Mr Lyon and the APC for totally lacking in
merit.
Uche argued that the
Supreme court lacks the power to sit on appeal over any judgment delivered by
the court.
He added that it is a case
of outright abuse of court process, stating that the court must ‘jealously’
guard its judgments otherwise, there will be a floodgate of applications for
review which will lead to a bastardization of the judicial process.
He urged the court to
resist the dangerous invitation to violate the nation’s constitution.
The apex court had in
February held that the nomination form Degi-Eremieoyo submitted to INEC for the
purpose of the Nov. 16, 2019 governorship election in the state, contained
false information of fundamental nature.
However not satisfied with
the decision of the apex court, the APC, Lyon and Degi-Eremienyo applied to the
court for a review and setting aside of its judgment that disqualified them
from the November 16 poll.
The applicants specifically
wanted the Supreme Court to set aside the “wrong” interpretation given to its
judgment of February 13, 2020 and the subsequent execution by INEC.
Among others, APC contended
that the Supreme Court, in its judgment, misinterpreted the November 12, 2019
judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja which it affirmed.
The party argued that the
Supreme Court acted without jurisdiction and denied it fair hearing when it
proceeded to disqualify its governorship candidate even though the Federal High
Court, in the judgment by Justice Inyang Ekwo, which the apex court affirmed,
refused the prayer to disqualify Lyon.
APC also faulted the
interpretation given to the Supreme Court judgment by the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) in deciding to issue certificate of return to the
candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
It stated: “After
reinstating the judgment of the trial court, this honourable court proceeded to
disqualify the governorship candidate of the appellant (Lyon David Pereworimin)
in spite of the fact that the trial refused to grant the reliefs for his
disqualification and there was no appeal against same.
“In this honourable court’s
judgment of February 13, the court erroneously and inadvertently stated that
the trial court consequentially disqualified the applicant‘s governorship
candidate even though the trial court made no such order.
” Rather, the trial court
indeed refused to grant the express orders sought by the plaintiffs therein for
his disqualification”.
The APC wanted the Supreme
Court to set aside portions of its judgment where it held that the Federal High
Court, in disqualifying its Deputy Governorship candidate, proceeded to
disqualify its governorship candidate.
It further prayed the
Supreme Court to set aside the portion of the judgment where it ordered INEC to
declare as winner of the governorship election, candidates with the highest
number of lawful votes.
The APC argued that it was
wrong for the Supreme Court to have voided its candidates’ participation in the
election, when, the judgment by the Federal High Court, disqualifying its
deputy governorship candidate, was stayed as at when the election was conducted.
“By an originating summons
dated 12th September, 2019, in Suit NO: PHC/ABJ/CS/ 1101/2019 between Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP) & 2 Ors. v. Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo & three
others., the respondents approached the Federal High Court for a total of 10
reliefs.
In the judgment of the
Federal High Court, delivered on November 12, 2019, the said court granted only
six of the reliefs.
“In the drawn up order of
the Federal High Court duly signed by the trial judge the six reliefs granted
are clearly encapsulated therein.
“In specific reference to
the reliefs for the disqualification of the governorship candidate of the
applicant (Lyon David Pereworimin), the trial court refused to grant the
plaintiffs’ prayers to disqualify him.
“It was only the Deputy
Governorship candidate of the applicant (Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo) that the
trial High Court made an order of disqualification against.
“Applicant and its
governorship and deputy governorship candidates timely appealed the judgment of
the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal, and also applied for a stay of
execution of the said judgment pending appeal.
“The Court of Appeal, Abuja
division, stayed the execution of the judgment of the trial High Court.
“As at the time the
governorship election in Bayelsa was conducted on Nov. 16, 2019 the order for
stay of execution granted by the Court of Appeal was subsisting and there was
no appeal against it.
“The judgment of the Court
of Appeal was delivered on Dec. 23, 2019 whereby the Court of Appeal set aside
the decision of the trial High Court delivered on Nov. 12, 2019.
“There was no cross-appeal
to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the trial High Court refusing to
make an order disqualifying the governorship candidate of the applicant (David
Lyon)”.
APC said the apex court
acted without jurisdiction and also breached applicant’s right to fair hearing.
“With respect, the portions
of the judgement of this honourable court highlighted in the body of this
application constitute a nullity.
“With respect, the decision
of this honourable court of Feb. 13, was premised on and vitiated by a
fundamental error and is contrary to public policy.
“By a press statement made
on Feb. 14, the Chairman of the 4th respondent (INEC), reviewed the judgment of
this honourable court, gave it a different interpretation and came to a wrong
conclusion, thus declaring the 2nd and 3rd respondents as the Governor and
Deputy Governor elect of Bayelsa, respectively
No comments:
Post a Comment