An Obstinate Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on March 3 finally sat to hear the plea for a review of the judgment it delivered on the 14th of January that robbed the former deputy speaker of the Federal House of Representatives, Rt Hon. Emeka Ihedioha of his hitherto position as the governor of Imo state. In reviewing itself, the apex court remained unshaken, maintaining its earlier decision that brought in Hope Uzodinma.
A dissatisfied Ihedioha had approached the court praying it to consciously take a second look at its decision, which according to him was based on some grave mathematical and technical errors that simply do not make any commonsense. It strongly contended with the outright award of the results from over 380 polling units presented by his opponent without carefully calculating and looking into their consequential effect on the overall voting dynamics.
The whole world perused at this dissatisfaction and found out that it beats the imagination and condemned the outcome of such a verdict based on clearly mathematical and logical incoherences, wondering what precedence the Justices of the Supreme Court had had to set with such pronouncement. It was bewildering to many of how someone who came distant fourth and could not secure victory in at least four local government areas of the entire 27 in the state could finally be said to be winner.
That judgment was roundly adjudged as erroneous both by Nigerians and other global observers of interest. However, both the Supreme Court or rather the 7-member panel that sat over this judgment and the beneficiary of it, had in the finality of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court to hold and bask in euphoria over this widely acclaimed miscarriage of justice. It was then no wonder that Damian Dodo, the lead counsel to Hope Uzodinma, when acknowledging the reasonableness of the review, however asked that it be dismissed for having to challenge the finality of the apex court.
Being the highest court in the land, the decisions of the Supreme Court is seen to be final, unchallengeable and infallible. So, the attempt to have sought for a review of its judgment by Ihedioha, ab initio, was seen as an effort to challenge the decision of the court and hence ridicule its cloak of supremacy, finality and infallibility. It was very obvious in most discerning quarters that the brilliance and rightly the rationale of the applicant to seek for review regardless, the obvious technical restriction in the supremacy of any decision from this court places a burden on it. And so there was no surprise at all when ultimately the application was struck out.
But the need to closely take a second look at its judgment for the purpose of discovering the possible human error that could impinge upon its credibility and set a disastrous precedence, I personally think, far outweighed this maniacal claim to a finality or principle of functus officio. And to have come from the Supreme Court, it was a concern that went beyond just accepting it and reeling in invective; it was one that required a boldness to seek for a reconsideration. Thus, the review application was one opportunity the Supreme Court, in accepting to review, would have employed to prove that the act seen as affront to constitutional democracy wasn't an entirely deliberate act.
Looking at one of the reasons it gave to have had the application thrown out, supreme court anchored on the finality of its judgment and how it cannot sit on appeal over its case. Finality in an erroneous verdict? Who else should have sat over an appeal of the Supreme Court that's erroneous? Indeed this is an obstinate court, in having to be adamant and unwilling to accept wrong and retract. Another reason it adduced was to stem the tide of a chaotic play-out, where every Tom, Dick and Harry seeks for review. Rightly though as such could be, wouldn't a review be appropriate if the apex makes an error that could set a wrongful precedence?
In denying the obvious need to reverse itself, the concurring Justices who sat over the application for review and upheld the judgement of 14th January 2020 gave a final and an immortal stamp to that cantakerous verdict that robbed democracy of its essence in Imo state. They empowered and gave legal backing to that electoral shenanigan wherein one could become duly elected in total aberration of extant electoral guidelines; of a ludicrous situation where valid votes overwhelms the number of accredited voters. That indeed is the 8th wonder!
If everything could be totally given to truth, the Supreme Court erred in their earlier decision. But it beats the senses to wonder if the Justices never made this error knowing, for it's in the inability of the court to reverse itself after it has been called to realize its error that finally made that unfortunate decision a fatal error. The inability of this court to eat the humble pie after it has been called to a grave mistake it has caused to democratic wisdom shows how obstinate this court could be, holding onto its garment of finality as a bay.
The Supreme Court is the apex court and is so positioned primarily for the purpose of bringing defining closure to any litigation and to avoid legal chaos. It is this finality that confers on it the claim of infallibility. Nevertheless, its supremacy and finality, to a greater extent derives from its eagle eye and lion heart in the discharge of justice and the upholding of the constitutional mandate.
It is this hold of finality that the apex court judges should have realized and endeavored to muse a verdict that can pass unwaveringly the test of time. The supremacy of the court should have defined their decision, knowing fully that when it is taken, it becomes irrevocable. A truly infallible verdict would not be challenged, not to talk of attempting to seek for a review, simply because it would be obvious. It is only when its judgment is flawed that the infallibility and subsequently the finality of the apex court is held in doubt.
According to a Nigerian proverb, when a snake fails to show its stuff, the children takes it for a ride. And that was the case with the Imo judgment.
To be taken for what it is, the Supreme Court must endeavour to restore the confidence of the masses- litigants and observers alike in its capacity as the last arbiter where justice no matter how miscarried could be restored. It must uphold this tenet that even when the storms are raised and calmness prevails its impeccabilty in truth, impartiality and justice remains. These attributes confer on it a supremacy and an infallibility that's acceptable, unchallenged and gracefully respected by all.
As far as the Ihedioha v Uzodinma case is, with all due respect, the Supreme Court failed to use the opportunity provided by the application to correct itself and instead chose, in the zeal of a positioned finality, to remain obdurate to a miscarriage of justice. And by this obduracy in its error, the court showed how that miscarriage of justice was just seemed to be deliberate. Something very unfortunate!
A dissatisfied Ihedioha had approached the court praying it to consciously take a second look at its decision, which according to him was based on some grave mathematical and technical errors that simply do not make any commonsense. It strongly contended with the outright award of the results from over 380 polling units presented by his opponent without carefully calculating and looking into their consequential effect on the overall voting dynamics.
The whole world perused at this dissatisfaction and found out that it beats the imagination and condemned the outcome of such a verdict based on clearly mathematical and logical incoherences, wondering what precedence the Justices of the Supreme Court had had to set with such pronouncement. It was bewildering to many of how someone who came distant fourth and could not secure victory in at least four local government areas of the entire 27 in the state could finally be said to be winner.
That judgment was roundly adjudged as erroneous both by Nigerians and other global observers of interest. However, both the Supreme Court or rather the 7-member panel that sat over this judgment and the beneficiary of it, had in the finality of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court to hold and bask in euphoria over this widely acclaimed miscarriage of justice. It was then no wonder that Damian Dodo, the lead counsel to Hope Uzodinma, when acknowledging the reasonableness of the review, however asked that it be dismissed for having to challenge the finality of the apex court.
Being the highest court in the land, the decisions of the Supreme Court is seen to be final, unchallengeable and infallible. So, the attempt to have sought for a review of its judgment by Ihedioha, ab initio, was seen as an effort to challenge the decision of the court and hence ridicule its cloak of supremacy, finality and infallibility. It was very obvious in most discerning quarters that the brilliance and rightly the rationale of the applicant to seek for review regardless, the obvious technical restriction in the supremacy of any decision from this court places a burden on it. And so there was no surprise at all when ultimately the application was struck out.
But the need to closely take a second look at its judgment for the purpose of discovering the possible human error that could impinge upon its credibility and set a disastrous precedence, I personally think, far outweighed this maniacal claim to a finality or principle of functus officio. And to have come from the Supreme Court, it was a concern that went beyond just accepting it and reeling in invective; it was one that required a boldness to seek for a reconsideration. Thus, the review application was one opportunity the Supreme Court, in accepting to review, would have employed to prove that the act seen as affront to constitutional democracy wasn't an entirely deliberate act.
Looking at one of the reasons it gave to have had the application thrown out, supreme court anchored on the finality of its judgment and how it cannot sit on appeal over its case. Finality in an erroneous verdict? Who else should have sat over an appeal of the Supreme Court that's erroneous? Indeed this is an obstinate court, in having to be adamant and unwilling to accept wrong and retract. Another reason it adduced was to stem the tide of a chaotic play-out, where every Tom, Dick and Harry seeks for review. Rightly though as such could be, wouldn't a review be appropriate if the apex makes an error that could set a wrongful precedence?
In denying the obvious need to reverse itself, the concurring Justices who sat over the application for review and upheld the judgement of 14th January 2020 gave a final and an immortal stamp to that cantakerous verdict that robbed democracy of its essence in Imo state. They empowered and gave legal backing to that electoral shenanigan wherein one could become duly elected in total aberration of extant electoral guidelines; of a ludicrous situation where valid votes overwhelms the number of accredited voters. That indeed is the 8th wonder!
If everything could be totally given to truth, the Supreme Court erred in their earlier decision. But it beats the senses to wonder if the Justices never made this error knowing, for it's in the inability of the court to reverse itself after it has been called to realize its error that finally made that unfortunate decision a fatal error. The inability of this court to eat the humble pie after it has been called to a grave mistake it has caused to democratic wisdom shows how obstinate this court could be, holding onto its garment of finality as a bay.
The Supreme Court is the apex court and is so positioned primarily for the purpose of bringing defining closure to any litigation and to avoid legal chaos. It is this finality that confers on it the claim of infallibility. Nevertheless, its supremacy and finality, to a greater extent derives from its eagle eye and lion heart in the discharge of justice and the upholding of the constitutional mandate.
It is this hold of finality that the apex court judges should have realized and endeavored to muse a verdict that can pass unwaveringly the test of time. The supremacy of the court should have defined their decision, knowing fully that when it is taken, it becomes irrevocable. A truly infallible verdict would not be challenged, not to talk of attempting to seek for a review, simply because it would be obvious. It is only when its judgment is flawed that the infallibility and subsequently the finality of the apex court is held in doubt.
According to a Nigerian proverb, when a snake fails to show its stuff, the children takes it for a ride. And that was the case with the Imo judgment.
To be taken for what it is, the Supreme Court must endeavour to restore the confidence of the masses- litigants and observers alike in its capacity as the last arbiter where justice no matter how miscarried could be restored. It must uphold this tenet that even when the storms are raised and calmness prevails its impeccabilty in truth, impartiality and justice remains. These attributes confer on it a supremacy and an infallibility that's acceptable, unchallenged and gracefully respected by all.
As far as the Ihedioha v Uzodinma case is, with all due respect, the Supreme Court failed to use the opportunity provided by the application to correct itself and instead chose, in the zeal of a positioned finality, to remain obdurate to a miscarriage of justice. And by this obduracy in its error, the court showed how that miscarriage of justice was just seemed to be deliberate. Something very unfortunate!
Comments
Post a Comment