In August, the National Judicial Council (NJC) set up three committees to wade into the arrested judgement in the Sokoto Court of Appeal and the feud between the immediate past Chief Justice of Nigeria Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu and the suspended President of Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami. It culminated in the controversial suspension of Justice Salami for alleged perjury. But the NJC was silent on the fate of Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi, the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) governorship candidate that approached the appellate court for justice. Francis Ottah Agbo, Group Political Editor x-rays the implication of the NJC decision on the judiciary and democracy.
The judiciary in Nigeria stinks. From the Area Court and Customary Court to the Supreme Court, there are iron cast evidence that show clearly that the bench is stewing in sleaze.
Observers believe the stench oozing out of the handling of the Court of Appeal sitting in Sokoto by the National Judicial Council (NJC) headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) is likely to erode the goodwill of the very few men of integrity in the crooked bench.
After the 2007 elections, Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi, the Sokoto State Governorship Candidate of Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) challenged the election of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Governor Aliyu Magatakada Wamakko at the Sokoto State Governorship/ House of Assemblies Elections Petitions tribunal. He lost. He appealed the judgement at the Court of Appeal, Sokoto division. Judgement was ready for delivery only for the then CJN, Justice Aloysius Katsina- Alu to arrest the judgement to the consternation of judiciary analysts who have at various times described Justice Katsina- Alu’s action as weird and lawless.
The suspended President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Ayo Salami accused the CJN of having interest in the Sokoto matter arguing that Justice Katsina- Alu had asked him to persuade the panel to deliver judgement in favour of Governor Wamakko or constitute a new panel.
The NJC considered Justice Salami’s outburst as judicial sacrilege and set up three committees that culminated in his suspension for alleged perjury against Justice Katsina- Alu. Of course President Jonathan hurriedly approved of it and replaced him with Justice Dalhatu Adamu as acting PCA.
His removal was welcome by PDP. They believe any panel headed by the suspended PCA is likely to be bias because of his alleged robust relationship with a top opposition politician. They contend that leaving the radical jurist on the panel would amount to President Jonathan entrusting his destiny in the hands of his enemy. But the oppositions believe his removal was the triumph of the ruse of law over rule of law! The National Publicity Secretary of Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) Chief Lai Mohammed said the NJC acted in error by removing Justice Salami as only a two-third majority of the National Assembly can effect such removal. He also believes the action was also subjudice as the case was already in court.
But the PDP National Publicity Secretary, Professor Rufai Ahmed Alkali believes Nigerians should allow the Judiciary to solve its internal problems adding that the bench would come out of the crisis stronger. He said the Executive and the Legislative Arms of Government had had their fair share of crises without splitting the country and wondered why the opposition is making a mountain out of an anthill!
The implication of his removal however, is that he would no longer preside over the presidential petition. Though he is in court to challenge his removal but those who know the workings of the Judiciary believe Justice Salami can only return to his exalted office if only the head of a camel can pass through the eye of the needle.
Though the committees held that it was illegal for the CJN to stop a verdict that was to be delivered by a distinct court but was silent on the injury the illegality had caused to the people of the Sokoto Caliphate who have waited to no avail for a long time to know who their legitimate governor is. The Sokoto State DPP chairman, Alhaji Umaru Kobo told Leadership that the judiciary does not care about the injustice done to Sokoto people and the losses and pains Alhaji Dingyadi, DPP and the supporters are going through. ‘‘If the bench could shamelessly take side in election petition to undermine the people and democracy then it means that the soul of democracy in Nigeria is perished. May God help Nigeria,’’ the veteran politician prayed. Renowned Constitutional lawyer,
Professor Itsay Sagay, said the Sokoto state Governorship Election Petition has exposed the Katsina –Alu led Supreme Court as temple of Supreme injustice.
According to Abuja based legal luminary, Suleiman Usman, ‘‘the danger with the Sokoto matter is that if Nigerians allow this Sokoto miscarriage of justice to subsist, it automatically becomes a precedence that could be easily exploited by desperate money bag – politicians.’’ Political observers, civil society groups and opposition parties who spoke with Leadership contend that if the panel is not empowered to deliver the judgement, it could eclipse Nigeria’s fledgling democracy because according to them democracy can not survive without a virile and respected judiciary.
Leadership investigations show that the people of Sokoto are still crying for justice. They opine that democracy offers citizens the right to know their legitimate governor but according to them that right is perpetually put in limbo by the machinations of their lordships. While harping on the popular words of Malcom X: ‘‘injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere’’ some of them advised the new CJN, Justice Dahiru Musdapha to lift the ban on the Sokoto panel since the three panels set up by the NJC stated clearly that the former CJN had no power under any law to arrest a judgement. DPP chieftain who craved for anonymity threatened that the country risk further insecurity if it fails to reverse the injustice visited on the Sokoto people. In this period where bombings have made life brutish in the country, can government allow avoidable insecurity to rear its ugly head? The National Publicity Secretary of Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) said the NJC acted in error by undertaking the said decision as only a two-third majority of the National Assembly can effect such removal stressing that the sack of Justice Salami was also subjudice as the case was already in court before he was given the boot.
But the PDP National Publicity Secretary, Professor Rufai Ahmed Alkali believes Nigerians should allow the Judiciary to solve its internal problems adding that the bench would come out of the crisis stronger. He said the Executive and the Legislative Arms of government had had their fair share of crises without splitting the country and wondered why the opposition is making a mountain out of an anthill!
The Genesis of the Controversy
Election held in Sokoto state on April 14, 2007. The PDP featured Wamakko, who at the time was the candidate of All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), with Senator Bello Gada as his running mate in the same election.
Ultimately, Wamakko stood for the election in PDP without a validly nominated running mate. Alhaji Mukhtari Shagari, Wamakko’s Deputy, allegedly filed his nomination papers (INEC Form CFOO1) on the 27th April, 2007, 13 days after the polls. Shagari travelled all the way to a High Court sitting in Mararaban Garku in Nasarawa state to swear to affidavit and allegedly backdated the affidavit to 12th February, 2007.
Lagos radical lawyer, Festus Keyamo condemned what he described as PDP abracadabra. He sued Shagari and PDP to court for forgery but Keyamo’s suit seems to have been ‘‘arrested’’ as well.
The DPP fielded Dingyadi. INEC returned PDP prompting DPP to challenge the result at the Sokoto Governorship / Legislative House of Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal and lost. They appealed it to the appellate court sitting in Kaduna and got victory. The justices led by Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa unanimously upheld that Wamakko and Shagari were not qualified ab initio, to stand for the April 2007, election because they were not validly nominated.
The appellate court declared on pages 57 and 58 thus:
‘‘…The 1st &2nd Respondents (Wamakko & Shagari) have been guilty of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the Constitution and no Court of law or reasonable tribunal will close its eye to such flagrant abuse of privileges as arrogantly exhibited by the Respondents in this case. I hold that the issue of double nominations touches on the qualification of a candidate to contest an election under the Electoral Act and it is justifiable before an election tribunal. I also hold that the nomination of the 1st Respondent is in clear violation of Section 187 (1) of the constitution…’’ On pages 64 and 66, the Appeal Court held that ‘‘The documents attached to the said reply also established beyond peradventure that the Form CF001 purportedly filled by Mukhtari Shehu Shagari and deposed to on the 12th day of February 2007 was manufactured purposely to meet the challenge of the election petition. Exhibit P3, the certified true copy of the duplicate of the revenue collectors receipt no: 002187251, upon which Form CF001 was deposed, showed clearly that Mukhtari Shehu Shagari paid for the form on the 27th day of April, 2007… The 1st Respondent (Wamakko) had nominated one Senator Bello Gada as his running mate to occupy the office of Deputy Governor but one Mukhtari Shehu Shagari was returned as Deputy Governor…It is a flagrant rape of democracy and an arrogant and irresponsible disregard for the Constitution of this country.…’’.
The Appeal Court therefore, annulled the election and ordered for a re-run election which was fixed on May 24, 2008 by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The civil society and the press condemned the charade to the roof top. The late Human Rights activist, Chief Gani Fawehinmi and eminent Constitutional Lawyer, Professor Itsay Sagay faulted part of the judgement. They said having correctly adjudged Wamakko and Shagari as ineligible for the poll, the justices should have issued a consequential order banning the PDP and its candidate from participating in the re-run polls. According to the legal luminaries, if Wamakko and Shagari were not qualified to stand for election on April 14, they couldn’t have been eligible for the re-run on May 24 because the appellate court did not call for fresh nomination.
Similarly, the Electoral Act 2006 does not provide for fresh nomination before the re-run of an election that is cancelled.
An internal memo generated from the Legal Department of the commission was allegedly written to Professor Maurice Iwu advising him to stop Wamakko and PDP from participating in the re-run but Professor Iwu a source at the commission said would not budge!
The election was re-conducted and Wamakko was again returned by INEC as winner! Before the re-run, DPP approached the Federal High Court, Abuja to stop Wammako from contesting and INEC from allowing him to contest. The Court declined jurisdiction on ground that doing so would amount to interpreting the judgement. The Appeal Court gave the same ruling on the matter.
But the courts were blind to Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution which empowers lower courts to enforce the decision of superior courts including the apex court! Having whimsically turned down the appeal, the DPP approached the Supreme Court for interlocutory appeal, seeking to amend the appeal before the Abuja appellate court. While the legal fireworks on the pre election matter was going on, re-run elections were held on the 24th May 2008 and Wamakko was again declared the winner despite being adjudged not qualified to have contested the 14 April 2007 Governorship Election in Sokoto State.
Dingyadi and DPP, yet challenged the return of Wamakko at the reconstituted Governorship and Legislative House of Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal. The Tribunal declined jurisdiction in a split decision on February 18, 2009. The majority judgement of Honourable Justices A.M. Haliru, B.E Agbatah and G.K Kaigama dismissed DPP’S petition on grounds that it was an abuse of court process since there is a pre – election matter filed at the Federal High Court before the re-run election was held while the other two Honourable Justices, N. Okoronkwo and E.O. Ahamioje upheld the DPP petition and directed the swearing of Dingyadi as the duly elected Governor of Sokoto State. Dingyadi and his party appealed against the majority judgement to the Court of Appeal in the Kaduna Division and when the new division of the Court of Appeal in Sokoto was opened, the appeal was sent there for determination.
The then President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, refused to constitute a panel to hear the matter until late 2009, when his successor, Justice Ayo Salami set up a five-man panel led by Justice Musa Mohammed Dattijo.
On January 18, 2010, the panel heard the appeal and fixed 24th February 2010 for the delivery of judgement. At this point, the DPP applied to the Supreme Court for the withdrawal of the appeal.
Curiously, INEC through its lawyer, Yahaya Mahmood Esq. who was supposed to be neutral in the matter petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC) accusing the Justice Dattijo –led panel of leaking the verdict and asked the NJC to wade into the matter. It was on the basis of this petition that the CJN wrote to the Appeal Court in the Sokoto Division asking it not to deliver the judgement until it finished investigation of the petitioner. Having investigated the matter and saw no substance in the allegation, the NJC permitted the Sokoto appellate court to fix a new date and Tuesday, March 16 was rescheduled for the delivery of judgement in Sokoto before the apex court capitalised on Chief Wole Olanipekun’s oral application to ‘’kidnap’’ the verdict. The DPP, and its candidate, Alhaji Dingyadi, had applied for the withdrawal and the apex court which constituted a panel led by Justice Niki Tobi, sat in chambers and upheld the withdrawal on 10th March, 2011. But in a twist of events, Chief Olanipekun, SAN, lead counsel to PDP and Sokoto State Governor, Alhaji Aliyu Wamakko on Monday, March, 12, filed a motion asking the apex court to arrest the Appeal Court verdict in Sokoto as well as set aside the withdrawal of the interlocutory appeal by DPP. Hearing was fixed for Monday, March 15 and Justice Dahiru Musdapha was named the presiding justice.
Justice Musdapha granted Olanipekun’s plea by stopping Sokoto Appeal Court from delivering judgement on the petition of which hearing has since been concluded and judgement slated for 16th March, 2010. Justice Musdapha, adjourned the motion from March to June 4, 2010 and withdrew from the matter on grounds that he had interest in the case having discussed it with the Justices Katsina-Alu and Salami.
On June 4, the Supreme Court reversed itself to the utter disappointment of keen watchers of the Sokoto election petition brouhaha, by ruling that the DPP did not properly withdraw the appeal. Again, DPP filed a fresh motion withdrawing the appeal. Curiously, instead of giving it expeditious hearing, the matter was adjourned to 14th October, 2010. This further pointed to the general belief by most Nigerians that the Supreme Court had interest in the dispute other that dispensing justice. The Nigeria Bar Association, (NBA), late Chief Gani Fawenhinmi, Professors Ben Nwabueze, Itsay Sagay, retired justices such as Justice Mustapha Akanbi, Justice Kayode Eso, Justice Ilori and still counting have all condemned the meddlesomeness of the CJN in the matter and the perpetual arrest of the Sokoto Judgement.
The question on the lips of many Nigerians is where do the NJC and Supreme Court derive the power to arrest a judgement from? In the cases of Governor Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State and his Anambra State counterpart, Mr. Peter Obi, the Supreme Court heard the motions the same day that they were filed. When Professor Charles Soludo was disqualified from contesting the Anambra Governorship Election in 2010, the former Central Bank Governor approached the judiciary to quash his disqualification.
Irrespective of all the landmines put on his way by INEC and some aggrieved aspirants, the matter was finally decided in his favour at the apex court just between January and February, 2010. The justices made Nigerians to believe that they took that decision to save time considering the fact that pre-election matters and election petitions are time bound!
But in the case of Sokoto, the apex court adjourned hearing on a motion from June to October. Why is the case of Sokoto different? Is Nigeria operating two different sets of laws in the land – one for Sokoto and the other for the rest of Nigeria? Nigerians are watching.
?