The Supreme Court Judgment And Consequential Orders

By

Wilson Anosike

lordwills@email.com

Introduction

The learned judges have decided and so it is. Rotimi Amaechi is the substantive governor of River State. This decision ended the three months legal tussle on who was the lawful candidate of the PDP in the April governorship elections. However, many theorists have started questioning the judgement, their argument is that even though the judgement is right that Celestine Omehia is not the lawful candidate of the PDP, that the learned judges erred in insisting that Amaechi be sworn in as the governor of River State. Some writers have called this a case of judicial supremacy, “which essentially means that the Court feels superior and therefore, inclined to believe that it has the statutory role and authority above the other branches of government in the interpretation of the Constitution”[1]  

These theorists and writers argue that the supreme court judges would have cancelled the election totally and called for a fresh election since Rotimi Amaechi did not contest the election,  Rotimi Amaechi, also, did not pray for such orders, namely swearing him in as the governor, in his case. If he had contested the election, perhaps he would not have won the election.

In this writing, I wish to argue that all those arguing that the learned judges decision amounts to judicial supremacy are wrong, and giving the present situation that Rotimi Amechi consequentially and logically asked for such relief. I will also further argue that at this time, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to nullify the governorship  election of River State.

Political Parties and Candidates.

In an article titled “Our Gani Got It All Wrong” published by Kwenu.com and Amanaonline.com, I pointed out the reason for political parties and their candidates. I pointed out that, given the context of democracy; the reason for political parties arises from the need to break the bulk of the population into groups for scrutiny since all cannot be a governor or any other elective candidate at the same time. These parties after scrutinizing their candidates provide them with a manifesto which they will henceforth embody. Therefore each candidate embodies the manifesto of such a party. I also argued that these scrutinies are not outside the law; therefore, political parties should not be run like cults. The selection of candidates should be done openly and within the law. It is on this note that any misapplication of the law should be rectified by the courts. This was done in Ararume vs. PDP, and now in Amaechi vs. PDP. What the Supreme Court did was to reinstate Amaechi, following the law, as the authentic candidate of the PDP in the April elections.

However, giving the time when this justice was done, the gubernatorial election has been conducted and the unlawful candidate of the PDP namely Celestine Omehia has been sworn in as the governor of River State. Therefore, logically it follows that if Amaechi is the rightful candidate of the PDP, he should be in that position which the unlawful person has been holding. Thus insofar as the PDP candidate   was declared the winner of the gubernatorial election, then rightful PDP candid date should be the governor, hence the learned judges decision. This decision, it should be reiterated does not in any way mean that the PDP lawfully won the River state gubernatorial elections. It is the election petition tribunals that are still seating have the jurisdiction to pronounce whether PDP lawfully won the election or not. What the judges did is not to adjudicate on the lawful winner of the River State gubernatorial elections rather on the lawful candidate of the PDP. If then that the PDP won the elections as declared by INEC, then Amaechi is the winner.

The learned judges in their wise judgement pointed this consequential and logical conclusion of their judgement when they said:

  This court has wide jurisdiction to give reliefs and make consequential orders. The justice of this case demands that this court do substantial justice. The only way to redress his right, which was violated by the illegal substitution, is to declare him the winner of the April 14 governorship election in Rivers State. The law deemed him to have won the said election.[2]

Many writers have misunderstood this particular statement. Hank Eso holds that by using the word substantive justice, that the Supreme Court arrogates a kind of supremacy to itself in the interpretation of the constitution above the other arms of government. However, I wish to point out that the operative word in the quotation above is not substantive rather consequential.  The substantive justice which the learned judges refer to is first and fore most a procedural justice before culminating in the substantial one. Therefore, the justice is a procedural justice which has a substantive outcome. It was the Legal Philosopher and jurist Lon Fuller, who held that for any law to be just, it must first be procedurally just, that is posses an inner morality. It is only when there is this procedural justice can any substantial justice emanate.

I wish to say that if the PDP was not declared the winner of  the Rivers State election, the substantive justice mentioned by the Supreme court will no less be substantive. Rather, it would have been of a different content. At the moment the content is being the governor of River State. However, if PDP had lost the election, the substantive justice would have taken the form of a cost against the PDP and INEC. The Supreme Court would have awarded Amechi a substantial reward be it financially or otherwise to compensate for the damages he has incurred all these while being in court.

A CASE FOR THE AC AND TONYE PRINCEWILL

The whole judgement and drama that played themselves out at the Supreme Court is now at the favour of the AC and their candidate namely Tonye Princewill. The AC which still has a case at the tribunal now has substantial evidence at hand. The AC should argue in court that the PDP deceived the people by associating an unlawful candidate with their manifesto in the elections. And as it stands now that the present PDP candidate namely Rotimi Amaechi was not associated with the PDP manifesto and was not voted for in the elections. However, at present, he is the governor of River State. This deception AC must argue should not stand. Therefore, the tribunal should declare their candidate namely Tonye Princewill as the lawful winner of the April gubernatorial election. This evidence on its own, not to count other evidence of malpractice is good and solid enough to upturn the election result in their favour. Therefore, the AC should act and we hope they do. The tribunal also should cash in on the ruling of the Supreme Court to do justice to the case before them.

AN OPTION FOR AMECHI

Rotimi Amaechi who was declared the PDP candidate of the April election and consequentially the governor of River State at the moment has only one alternative. This alternative is an urgent and peaceful dialogue with the AC and other parties involved in the governorship election. Maybe, there would be a compromise and he will continue as the governor. However, I wish to sound a note of warning. If such a compromise is actually reached, it is not justice. Compromise is not justice. It is a conclusion based on pragmatism, mutual interests and benefits. Amaechi may decide to appoint the AC members as his cabinets or may decide to dump the PDP for AC after some time, since he has already been thrown out by the PDP before the elections. All these options are left to him. And these options in turn rests on  his ability to negotiate a compromise and how it plays itself out.

CONCLUSION

I am grateful to the Supreme Court judges for their role in the whole Amaechi and PDP case. They judges have once more shown that the Supreme Court is supreme and they are really learned men. We hope to see more of their unflinching courage as they decide other cases. They have set a precedent for the lower courts and the tribunals. It is now clear in Nigeria that the EFCC indictment or any purported indictment by a governmental agency or parastatal is alien to the law. The rule of law is the grounding force of any true democracy, and it must be maintained at all times and at all cost.

Anosike Wilson is a PhD student  in Philosophy at the National University of Singapore.