The Supreme Court will on Monday decide whether or not to strike out the appeals? by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and President Goodluck Jonathan over a ruling delivered by the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal on July 14.
The tribunal had held that the petition filed on a Sunday by the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) seeking to upturn President Goodluck Jonathan’s election was? competent and proper in law.
But the INEC, the PDP and Jonathan had challenged the verdict of the tribunal and filed separate appeals before the Supreme Court.
A panel of the apex court headed by Justice Walter Onnoghen had earlier on October 20, 2011 consolidated the three appeals, paving way for the hearing of the appeals yesterday .
But before going to the business of the day, Justice Onnoghen? said the relevant question to be determined first,? “Is whether? this appeal is alive which has stayed more than 60 days contrary to Section 285 (7) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. If it is dead,? there is no need to adjourn for further hearing. We have drawn your attentions to section 285 (7) that mandated this appeal to be determined within 60 days”.
Addressing the court on whether the appeal was still alive, lawyer to the PDP, Chief Joe- Kyari Gadzama (SAN), submitted that the 60 days should exclude the vacation period and all the Saturdays and Sundays, arguing that? by his calculation, the development was tantamount? to allowing the appeal to remain alive till December 10.
Buttressing his point on why the Supreme Court should go ahead and hear his appeal, Gadzama said,? “We filed within time asked for accelerated hearing but the Supreme Court went on six weeks holidays which fell under the period within which the appeal might have been heard and determined”.
Lawyer Jonathan and Vice President Namadi Sambo, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), told the court to treat the appeal as a constitutional matter, saying that in? interpreting constitutional matters, the court should find out why it was put in place.
Citing the constitution, he noted that section 285 (7) was inserted because of delay in determining election petitions in the past adding that the Supreme Court is created by the constitution and it cannot go beyond the provisions of that same constitution.
He said, “Section 1 (3) states that any law which runs contrary to the provisions of the constitution shall give way for the constitution. This is a constitutional imperative and we have to be dispassionate about it because our brief was filed within time and we have not been negligent.
On the other hand, lawyer to the CPC, Mr. Oladipo Okpeseyi (SAN), said all that were cited by Gadzama “are Acts of National Assembly and not constitutional provisions and may not be too helpful in this appeal”.
In addition, he said, “section 285 (7) is a specific provision and in all situation we prevail. When community reading is given to sections 1 (1), 1 (3) and 6 (6), shall not help now because section 285 (7) is a specific provision and therefore I thank Olanipekun for giving up. These appeals are incompetent; they are dead and better taken off the list of the Supreme Court”.
The suspended President of the Court of Appeal, Justice? Isa Salami had on July 14, 2011 held that section 150(1) of the evidence act provides for presumption of regularities as such filing of the petition on Sunday? did not vitiate it particularly as it was filed within the stipulated deadline.