Functus officio: Between Lyon and Ihedioha
Today, the Justices of the Supreme Court led by Sylvester Ngwuta looked at the review sought by dismissed Bayelsa APC governorship candidate and his deputy. The court reaffirmed its earlier decision and chided the appellants for daring to seek for such.
That the decision of the Supreme Court is functus officio, does it suggest that the Supreme Court cannot in whatever guise review and if possibly reverse itself?
The Supreme Court should be final to the extent that it gives an unbiased and a clear judgement, which is basic in giving finality and certainty to legal litigation. This is the rightful place of the Supreme Court: that its judgement settles every litigation with such a value that indeed could be trusted.
What could be understood from the statement that seems to have become a legal dictum- that's that the Supreme Court is not final because it's infallible, it's infallible because it is final? Does it mean that even in the face of clerical error, the finality confers an infallibility on such error?
The statement by the lead judgement more or less focused on the functus officio and the irreversibility of any decision of the apex court and how it needs to sustain this principle by upholding the true tenets of justice to avoid a careless bastardization of the sanctity of the court and its decisions. Was that a clear warning to those contemplating such step for review?
What view can today's total rejection of Bayelsa's Lyon/APC request for review gives as it concerns other demands for selfsame step, especially that of the ouster of Imo's Emeka Ihedioha? What clearly does it suggest?
The final stamping by the Supreme Court of the gubernatorial tussle in Bayelsa state by the rejection of the appeal for review of the 13th February judgement of the apex court that disqualified Lyon and his deputy, what indication does it gives of future reviews? I'm forced to look beyond it, and ask.
That the decision of the Supreme Court is functus officio, does it suggest that the Supreme Court cannot in whatever guise review and if possibly reverse itself?
The Supreme Court should be final to the extent that it gives an unbiased and a clear judgement, which is basic in giving finality and certainty to legal litigation. This is the rightful place of the Supreme Court: that its judgement settles every litigation with such a value that indeed could be trusted.
What could be understood from the statement that seems to have become a legal dictum- that's that the Supreme Court is not final because it's infallible, it's infallible because it is final? Does it mean that even in the face of clerical error, the finality confers an infallibility on such error?
The statement by the lead judgement more or less focused on the functus officio and the irreversibility of any decision of the apex court and how it needs to sustain this principle by upholding the true tenets of justice to avoid a careless bastardization of the sanctity of the court and its decisions. Was that a clear warning to those contemplating such step for review?
What view can today's total rejection of Bayelsa's Lyon/APC request for review gives as it concerns other demands for selfsame step, especially that of the ouster of Imo's Emeka Ihedioha? What clearly does it suggest?
Comments
Post a Comment