13022020

Vanguard, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2020 — 29
Precedents: When S-Court is asked to reverse itself
Continued from page 28
the apex court has a right to
make a mistake. They insisted
that Amaechi remained the
legitimate governor and that
the decision was final
regardless of whether it was
rightly or wrongly entered.
Ubah v INEC
After he was sacked by the
Supreme Court as the
Governor of Anambra State,
Senator Andy Uba twice
approached the apex court to
reverse its judgment. On the
first occasion, Uba filed his
application alongside INEC
and the governorship
candidate of the Nigeria
Advanced Party, NAP, in 2007,
Mr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo,
seeking to set aside its earlier
judgment delivered on June
14, 2007 which declared Mr.
Peter Obi as the legal
occupant of the Anambra State
Government House.
Reasoning that it was an
effrontery to ask it to reverse
itself in a case it had
determined, the apex court
descended heavily on the
plaintiffs with vituperations. In
a unanimous judgment, the
court did not only dismiss the
applications filed by the trio,
but the panel of justices
presided over by Justice
De-registration of political parties: Is it constitutional?
Continued from page 28
application notify the
Association in writing stating
the reasons for nonregistration.
4. Any political association
that meets the conditions
stipulated in the Constitution
and this Act shall be registered
by the Commission as a
political party within 30 days
from the date of receipt of the
application and if after the 30
days such Association is not
registered by the commission
unless the commission informs
the Association to the contrary
it shall be deemed to have
been registered.
5. Any association which
through the submission of
false or misleading
information pursuant to the
provisions of this section
procures a certificate of
registration shall have such
certificate cancelled.
6. No application for
registration as a political party
shall be processed unless there
is evidence of payment of
administrative fee as may be
fixed from time to time by the
Commission.
7.The Commission shall
have power to de-register
EDITORIAL
Innocent Anaba
( Editor)
Ikechukwu Nnochiri
Henry Ojelu
Onozure Dania
Jane Ochewendoo
Iyorgher Katsina-Alu
concluded that hearing the
applications would amount to
chasing shadows or
“embarking on a wild goose
chase.”The second time Uba
attempted to push his luck
again at the apex court was
through his lawyer, Mr.
Joseph Daudu, SAN, who
was then the President of the
Nigerian Bar Association,
NBA. Of course, he received
some serious bashing.
INEC v Zamfara APC
In a more recent case,
involving candidates of the
All Progressives Congress,
APC in Zamfara and the
Independent National
Electoral Commission,
INEC, the Supreme Court
was again asked to reverse
its earlier decision nullifying
the election of all candidates
of the party. Precisely on May
24, 2019, the Supreme Court
in a unanimous judgment of
the five-man panel led by
then Acting CJN, Justice
Tanko Muhammad, declared
the first runners-up in the
2019 general elections in the
state as the winners of all the
posts earlier declared to have
been won by the APC and its
candidates.
Justice Paul Galinje, who
read the lead judgment,
political parties on the
following grounds:- i) breach
of any of the requirements for
registration; and ii) for
failure to win Presidential or
Governorship election or a
seat in the National or State
Assembly election.
A breach of S 78 supra
attracts de-registration of the
offending party. Thus
submission of false or
misleading information
which led to the registration
of a party, whenever the false
or misleading information
later becomes known can lead
to de-registration of that
party S 78 (5) supra.
The second ground for deregistering
a party is when a
political party fails to win
even a single seat in
Presidential, Governorship,
National or State elections.
Once a party fails to win even
a single seat in all the
elections it shall be deregistered.
Failure for a party
to win a single seat in any
election seals the party’s fate,
it shall be de-registered. In
legal parlance shall means
mandatory or compulsory
Gen Muhammadu Buhari vs
INEC 2009 All FWLR (Pt 459)
427 at 6610 as opposed to
upheld the decision of the
Sokoto Division of the Court of
Appeal to the effect that the
APC did not conduct any valid
primary election and as such
had no candidate for any of the
elections in the state.
He described the votes polled
by the APC candidates in the
elections as wasted. He then
ordered that the party and the
candidates with the second
highest votes and the spread in
the various elections were the
valid winners. With that, the
APC lost the 36 elective
positions comprising the
governorship, deputy
Reasoning that it
was an
effrontery to ask
it to reverse
itself in a case it
had determined,
the apex court
descended
heavily on the
plaintiffs with
vituperations
grammatical meaning of
futurism. The usage of shall in
section 78 (7) supra makes its
compliance mandatory by
INEC.
When a political party fails to
win a single seat in any election
of President, Governorship,
National and State elections
INEC has only one duty that is
to de-register that party. Failure
to de-register such a party can
invite somebody to ask for
mandamus to compel INEC to
perform its public duty by the
de-registering that party. As
INEC has been given powers
to register a political party, it has
been given also powers to deregister
a party both on
sufficient grounds.
The recent de-registration of
some parties was not only
proper and valid the action was
backed by the constitution and
the Electoral Act section 78
supra. It also highlights INEC
as living up to its duty by
discharging its constitutional
responsibility. Once a party is
de-registered it ceases to be a
legal party or entity and can no
longer carry out any function or
contest any election. The deregistered
party is a dead party
which cannot perform or take
part in any activity of any type.
governorship, three
senatorial, seven House of
Representatives and 24 House
of Assembly seats to the PDP.
Still not satisfied with
decision of the court, the party
filed an application asking the
Supreme Court to review the
judgment. But the Court
threw away the appeal. Justice
Rhodes-Vivour in his lead
judgment held that the
application was incompetent
and time-barred, adding that
the court had no jurisdiction
in the matter. Justice Rhodes-
Vivour further held that the
consequential orders made
were part and parcel of the
pre-election matter and it was
an abuse asking the apex
court to review its judgment
or orders. “We don’t seat on
appeal over our own decision.
We have no jurisdiction over
this matter,” he said.
Ogboru v Uduaghan
The court also made it clear
that no amount of antics and
trickery by counsel and their
clients will ever make it revisit
a case it had earlier decided
in May 2014 when it ruled on
an application filed by Dr.
Dickson Osuala, the counsel
to the governorship candidate
of the DPP, in Delta State,
Chief Great Ogboru, against
the election of Governor
Emmanuel Uduaghan of the
PDP. It used the opportunity
also to send a very strong
signal to lawyers that it would
Mr Olumide Akpata, a
Senior Partner at
Templars and immediate past
Chairman of the Nigerian Bar
Association, NBA, Section on
Business Law, SBL, has
condemned the attack on a
no longer tolerate abuse of
court processes.
In the matter, which had
twice been dismissed by the
court and refiled by Osuala, he
premised his action on Section
285 (7) of the Constitution
which he claimed was
fraudulently inserted by the
National Assembly. He
argued further that since due
process was not followed by
the National Assembly in
enacting section 285 (7) into
law, it was wrong for the apex
court to have relied on it to
dismiss his client’s case.
Justice Onnoghen who
presided over the matter,
talked down on Osuala and
advised him not to ever come
to the apex court with any
application in respect of the
case. He blamed the counsel
for not properly guiding his
client and embarking on a
clear case of gross abuse of the
courtý process. The judge told
counsel to advise his client to
take his case to heaven if he
was not satisfied with the
court’s ruling.
Dingyadi v Wamakko
Another instance where the
apex court refused to review
its verdict was in the case
between Muhammadu
Dingyadi of the Democratic
Peoples Party,DPP and Aliyu
Wamakko of the PDP over the
Sokoto State governorship
tussle.
Akpata condemns police brutality
*Mr Olumide Akpata (left) with Augustine Alegeh, SAN
(right) at the opening of the 17th division of the Court of
Appeal in Asaba, Delta State.
lawyer, Ibangah Goodness, by
policemen in Enugu.
He said, “It is quite a
disheartening occurrence
and one indeed which should
cause all concerned to cover
their faces
in shame. I
r e a d
through a
r e p o r t
made by
Prof. J. N.
Ezeilo,
regarding
the horrible
a n d
inhumane
a b u s e
exhibited
on of our
d e a r
colleague
in the Bar,
Ibangah
Goodness. “The report stated
that the victim was rascally
abused and beaten to a critical
condition where she nearly
lost consciousness. The report
also depicts that this ill act
was done to the victim while
she was on official duty for
WACOL, a non-government
organisation in Enugu, by
some men who are believed
to be officers of the Nigerian
Police Force.
“It is said that the police is
meant to protect lives and
properties but it seems that
the reverse has been the case
considering the facts of the
abuse heralded by these
police officers on our dear
female colleague. Lawyers are
ministers in the temple of
justice, lawyers are
stakeholders in the justice
system of our country. On no
account should acts of this
nature or acts in any kind be
done to dissuade lawyers or
intimidate lawyers from
performing their parts in
attaining justice in our
society. "