Supreme Court Refuses To Hear 14 Pre-Election Cases

* Says they are caught by 4th Alteration to
Constitution

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to hear about 14
pre-election appeals on the grounds that they were caught by the
amendment to Section 285 of the Constitution which came into effect
on June 7, 2018.

The amendment to Section 285 of the Constitution required the
trial court to determine pre-election cases within 180 days and
gives the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court 60 days each to
determine such cases. It also provides that such appeals are filed
with 14 days of the delivery of the judgment to be appealed.

In the about 14 different rulings on Wednesday, two panels of
the Supreme Court, headed by Justices Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed and
Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, asked all the appellant lawyers, including
Alex Iziyon (SAN) to withdraw their appeals.

The court proceeded to strike out each of the appeals and
refrained from making any consequential order. It said, since the
appeals were caught by the alteration, the court no longer has
jurisdiction to act on them or look into them, except striking them
out of its list of case.

The court said the effect of the 4th Alteration Act Number 21
was that all pre-election appeals that were not determined within
the stipulated 60 days have become spent (no longer valid).

The two panels, that sat on Wednesday, were assigned to conduct
“special court sitting” to clear the courts list of all pending
pre-election appeals relating to the 2015 elections, that were
still pending before the court.

Justice Tanko Mohammed, who headed the first panel, explained
that the Supreme Court had, in its judgments on January 18 this
year, in two pre-election appeals, dealt with all issues and
questions relating the effect of the 4th Alteration Act and when it
became effective.

He said the judgments, which were in appeals: SC/307/2018 and
SC/308/2018 formed the position of the court in all pre-election
appeals and the question as regard when the amendment took
effect.

Justice Tanko Mohammed said “As it was the position of the court
in the two judgments delivered last Friday, the Supreme Court
lacked the jurisdiction to hear any pre-election appeal that has
stayed unheard at the expiration of the constitutional stipulated
60 days.”

On whether the 4th Alteration Act, which was assented to by the
President on June 7, 2018 could have retrospective effect, Justice
Tanko Mohammed said the new law, being a procedural law, assumes
immediate effect, a position Justice Rhodes-Vivour also echoed when
he presided over the second panel.

On what happens to the decisions of the lawyer courts, which
formed the subject of the appeals, Justice Rhodes-Vivour said said
the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appeals.

He added: “We do not have the power to pronounce on what happen
at the lower courts since we lacked the jurisdiction to hear your
appeal.”

Almost all lawyers to the appellants in the appeals expressed
discomfort about the court’s position. They all also said they have
not read the court’s judgments in SC/307/2018 and SC/308/2028,
which the Supreme Court said contains its position and the current
position of the law on the issue.

Lazarus Undi, who appeared for the appellant, Hon. Benjamin B.
Nungwa in the appeal marked: SC/112/2018 was particularly unhappy
about the court’s position.

He said his case was different because his client had
anticipated the effect of the new amendment, filed the appeal with
14 days and wrote to the court’s registry that the appeals falls
among cases that must be decided within 60 days.

He said the delay in determining the appeal with the 60 days was
on the part of the court and not the appellant, who acted within
the stipulated days and took further step to write the court on the
need to hear the appeal within 60 days.

Izinyon (SAN) who represented the appellant in one of the
appeals that was struck out, commended the court for “taking the
bull by the horn in dealing with that issue (as it relates to the
effect of the 4th Alteration Act on pre-election cases filed before
it was assented to) at once”

He noted that the court’s position may affect some litigants and
lawyers negatively, but expressed optimism that it would benefit
all in the long run.

Some of the affected appeals included the one by Senator Atai
Ali Aidoko against Air Marshal Isaac Alfa, marked: SC/1058/18, in
relation to the dispute over who was the actual candidate of the
People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2015 election in Kogi East
Senatorial District.

The court also struck out a similar appeal filed in the name of
the PDP against the Court of Appeal judgment, which upheld the
judgment of the Federal High Court, upholding Alfa as the actual
candidate of the party.

Also affected was the appeal by Senator Umaru Dahiru and another
against All Progressives Congress (APC) and others, marked:
SC/92/2018 in which the appellant is challenging the candidacy of
Governor Waziri Tambuwal of Sokoto State in the 2015 election.

The court also struck out the appeal marked: SC/429/2018 filed
by Wahab Abiodun and four others against Senator Monsurat Jumoke
Aduke Sunmonu and another.

Other appeals struck our are: SC/693/2017 filed by Sir Friday
Nwanozia Nwosu against PDP and three others; SC/910/2017 by Rivers
State Independent Electoral Commission and another against Hon.
Augustine N. NGO and others and SC/112/2018 by Hon. Benjamin B.
Nungwa and APC against Hon. Joseph Hemen Boko and the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Also struck out are: SC/536/2018 by Barrister Ikenna Cyprian
Uzokwelu against PDP, and SC/1291/2018 by Anthony Itayi and another
against Alhaji Abubakar Atiku Bagudu and two others.