|
Still On Andy Ubah’s Removal: The Imperative Of Reversal By Emeka Oraetoka
With the realization by many Nigerians that Governor Peter Obi was wrongly restored back to office on the 14th of June, 2007, self-styled constitutional lawyers have abandoned the question of rule of law, for rule of sentiment and emotion over Andy Ubah’s application for the reversal of his case, which he is constitutionally entitled to, abinitio.
So far, reports on reactions of lawyers from National dailies, lend credence to the view that rule of law as constitutionally provided, has totally been abandoned by the loquacious but tiny Lagos axis lawyers, in pursuit of their narrow minded support of a judgment that has the potentials of destroying Nigeria democracy, if allowed to stand. Fred Agbaje, has this to say on Ubah’s attempt at righting the wrong done to him, “if they are now saying that one of those eminent Jurists who decided the case had earlier sat on Ngige Vs Obi matter, why did they not raise that before the matter was decided”…. Sound as his argument may look, it is still not admissible in law, because Ubah could not have questioned the integrity of the “eminent jurist” in the first instance, but since he [the eminent jurist], adopted narrow view of section 180(2) of the 1999 Constitution, in reading the lead judgment, the alternative is exactly what Andy is exploring through the instrumentality of the law. For instance, the eminent jurist clearly forgot that the interpretation of section 180[2] of the 1999 Constitution with respect to Anambra situation is in the first instance; as Dr. Nwabueze Ngige was dully sworn in as the Governor of the State on May 29, 2003. Further, in Nigeria legal system, an accused is assumed innocent, until proved otherwise; equally, Dr. Ngige was declared winner of the election by INEC until the court said otherwise. Before the decision of the court, Ngige was legally performing his function as the dully elected governor of Anambra State, which was the position of the law. The question here is: Was there a transfer of power from Ngige to Peter Obi, upon the appeal court judgement? If the answer is in the affirmative, the “eminent jurist” should tell Nigerians the position of the law as regards Dr. Ngige as the governor of Anambra State, before his judgement; Fred Agbaje too, as a well known constitutional lawyer, may help the eminent jurist in enlightening Nigerians on this.
The view of Professor Itse Sagay (SAN) on Andy’s move, can only lead to one conclusion, “hate theory”, in his perception of how judgement could be reviewed. Sagay said: “it is a settled principle in law that you cannot go to the supreme Court to review its judgment, except a similar case comes up in future on the basis of which you can now ask the court to review the earlier case”. Professor Sagay evidently forgot that the principle of judgment review applies to a case that ran full course, that is, from the High Court to the Apex Court. In any case, for a matter to be deemed as qualified for review, from the point of view of law, it must either be civil or criminal in nature, not political. The judgement earlier obtained, must be with jurisdiction to start with. It must also satisfy legal due process. These vital elements could not be seen in Obi’s case. The mistake the likes of Professor Sagay and Co, are making is seeing Ubah’s case as “review”. Here, Ubah’s case is for reversal and then, expunging of it from the records of the Supreme Court, because it poses a great threat to Nigeria democracy in general. For non reversal means staggered elections without Constitutional regulation, it is plainly anarchy in action. Sagay’s warning that lawyers should not support judicial anarchy is pure blackmail and nothing more. In continuation of his cajoling efforts he said …”If Supreme Court allows this mockery to stand; it will mean that there will be no end to litigations as Obi can apply for another review if Ubah wins”. How on earth can this type of threat from Professor Sagay move anybody, when the constitution is very clear on the issue of tenure of governors and the extent of litigation.
The reactions from these lawyers on Ubah’s application for review of his case has clearly shown that we are indeed, in a terrible situation which calls for serious sober reflection on the overall implication of not correcting the injustices done to Andy on the 14th of June 2007, to the stability of the polity. The most dangerous implication of the vexed judgement and its non revision is the possibility of political connivance between two parties in any state of the federation. For instance, two leading parties in any state could arrange for one to win governorship election and the other goes to tribunal to challenge the election as in Anambra State. At the end of say, Three and half [31/2] years of legal challenge, the person in power would be defeated for the second party to start a fresh mandate. Rivers State appears to be heading along this sad direction.
How else can one view the emotional outbursts of narrow minded Lagos axis lawyers, who inspite of overwhelming facts pointing in the direction of reversal of the case, have chosen to flatter the Supreme Court into maintaining its earlier stand on the matter. But for the fact that Supreme Court is a court of law, based on fact, not Court of sentiment and emotion, Andy Ubah’s case would have ended in the trash can, because Peter Obi’s supporters are professional in emotional blackmail. Consider this comment from one Barrister Emeka Okpoko, another Lagos axis lawyer: “first, everybody has the constitutional right to appeal. If Andy feels aggrieved, he can go to Court. However, the recent case at the Supreme Court is nothing short of judicial suicide. The panel that decided Obi’s case was made up of seven seasoned justices, who settled the issue of jurisdiction before even going into the case, the Uba camp even started kicking against the judgment when the justices had given their reason, showing that they chose to be blind to the wonderful job done by this eminent jurists. As far as I am concerned, this will be an opportunity for the justices of the Supreme Court to take them to the drycleaners, because what they are doing is provocative enough, they will fail”. If Emeka Okpoko is not an emotional blackmailer per excellence, he should have known that the 1999 Constitution clearly barred the Supreme Court from entertaining the case in the first instance.
Even if allowance is made for benefit of doubt, that Peter Obi merely went to Court to seek the constitutional interpretation of section 180(2) of the constitution, two dilemma sprout from here. In the first place, every body knows that on the 29th of May 2003, somebody took Oath of Office in deference to section 180(2) of the 1999 constitution in Anambra State. Effectively, there was functional government in Anambra State from this date. All what that administration did before change of baton remained valid. In-fact, there was official hand over from Ngige to Peter Obi, indicating that all what Dr. Ngige did while in office was valid and official. If Dr. Ngige administration was not valid and official, while was EFCC on his trail on account of official corruption after leaving office? Why was Dr. Ngige indicted and disqualified from contesting Anambra State government election? Why should Dr. Ngige be asked to give account of an administration that was adjudged illegal and probably non existent, from the point of view of Supreme Court judgement on the 14th of June 2007. These are posers for opponents of Andy Ubah's move for review of his case.
In the second place, a critical look at the claim of one Ifeanyi Okonkwo in his petition at the same Supreme Court, that he was induced by governor Peter Obi into abandoning his case at the court of appeal, and Peter Obi’s counter claim that he has immunity and so Okonkwo could not sue him at the Supreme Court, shows the simple fact that the claim of mere interpretation of section 180(2) of 1999 constitution, was procedurally flowed and compromised. The question Peter Obi and his lawyer should answer in the affirmative is, whether it amounted to abuse of legal due process for them to continue from that point of Ifeanyi Okonkwo’s disengagement, since the case had automatically taken a new dimension? If their answer is yes, they should tell Nigerians the type of punishment due for them, considering the implication of their action to the political stability of Nigeria. This comment from the same Barrister Emeka Okpoko according to Daily Sun, of October 5, 2007, said it all: “Okpoko described it a “joke of the year. He said he did not have the right to raise any issue on a litigation he voluntarily abandons.-- “Does Ifeanyi think that the Supreme Court is a Customary Court... The thrust of Ifeanyi’s petition at the Supreme Court is corruption and lack of due process in pursuit of the case by Peter Obi. Ifeanyi Okonkwo said that Obi should have started the case afresh after he had been paid off, which is a sound position in law; but Obi rather continued the case from the appeal court. The issue here is not about voluntary abandonment, but allegation of corruption and lack of due process in pursuit of justices, simple.
Clearly, the ovation of the gullible had since died down, what remains now is the desperation of Peter Obi to sustain himself in office, with the help of narrow minded legal practitioners, mostly in the Lagos axis. Nigerian Bar Association [NBA] appeared to have joined these few confused lawyers in defending absurdity. Only on 7th of November, many Nigerian Newspapers reported NBA as saying that Supreme Court verdict is final and should not be reopened. They went a step further to say that the Supreme Court judges are infallible. If these men are perfect, why do we have National Judicial Council [NJC], and what are its functions as spelt out in the Constitution? Olisa Agbakoba [SAN], led leadership should tell Nigerians more about NJC with respect to the infallibility of Supreme Court judges. Clearly, it has become obvious that these few lawyers and probably NBA leadership are ignorant of the fact that law itself, is a function of political decisions, and that any judgement that is in conflict with laid down political decision, is a recipe for disaster. This is the point in Andy Ubah’s case. It must be reversed.
Emeka Oraetoka Information Management Consultant and Political Researcher. Wrote in from Garki-Abuja. e-mail:oramekllis@lycos.com.
|