Dangers Of Undermining The Supreme Court – TheNigerialawyer

It is not in doubt that the Supreme Court is highest court in
the land and that its decisions are binding on all persons and
authorities, including courts with subordinate jurisdiction. But
this legal propriety is being challenged lately in the Court of
Appeal, reports Davidson Iriekpen.

One elementary rule of Nigeria’s judiciary is that the decisions
of the Supreme Court are binding on all persons and authorities
including all courts with subordinate jurisdiction. But observers
are presently worried about a recent decision of the Court of
Appeal, where the court upturned the decision of the apex court in
sacking a member of the House of Representatives representing Lere
Federal Constituency, Suleiman Aliyu Lere.

They feel that superiority as enshrined in the principle of
stare decisis, one of the most sacred pillars in the administration
of justice, is being eroded. The case started when Lere, on October
7, 2018 participated in the primary election conducted by the All
Progressives Congress (APC) for the Lere Federal Constituency in
Kaduna State and emerged the winner.

However, the APC submitted the name of one Ahmed Mohammed Munir
to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as its
candidate for the federal constituency. Dissatisfied, Lere went to
the Kaduna State High Court, where he filed a suit to challenge the
APC and INEC’s decision. The state High Court declined jurisdiction
on the grounds that the dispute was an internal party affair. Not
satisfied, the lawmaker proceeded to the Court of Appeal which
first assumed jurisdiction.

Two days to the 2019 general election, precisely on February 21,
2019, the appellate court in a unanimous judgment, ordered INEC to
recognise, accept and treat him as the candidate of the APC for
Lere Federal Constituency in the election. The court added that it
was not lawful for the APC to recognise and forward the name of any
candidate other than the appellant (Lere) to INEC as its candidate
for Lere Federal Constituency. It further held that it was unlawful
for the APC to change the result of the primary election in which
the appellantm emerged winner and was so declared by the party. It
equally restrained the 2nd respondent in the appeal, Ahmed M.
Munir, from parading himself as the candidate of the party for the
federal constituency in the 2019 general election, and awarded a
cost of N500,000 each against the APC and Munir in favour of the
appellant.

At the end of the general election, which held on February 23,
2019, the APC scored 64,442 votes to emerge victorious while PDP
came second with 29,709 votes. Meanwhile, Ahmed Munir and the APC
appealed the decision at the Supreme Court. On May 10, 2019, the
apex court in its judgment, upheld the decision of the Court of
Appeal that Suleiman Lere was the candidate of the APC.

The court concurred with the order of the Court of Appeal asking
INEC to recognise, accept Suleiman Lere as the candidate of the APC
for Lere Federal Constituency at the 2019 general election cannot
be faulted. Consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court, the
INEC issued a certificate of return, which was hitherto withheld
pending the judgment of the Supreme Court dated May 14, 2019 to
Suleiman Lere.

While the pre-election dispute was being resolved at the Supreme
Court, the PDP and its candidate, Lawal Muhammed Rabi’ufiled, filed
a petition before the National and State Houses of Assembly
Tribunal in Kaduna, challenging the outcome of the general
election. They, however, did not join the lawful candidate of the
APC, Suleiman Aliyu Lere as a respondent in the petition, instead
they joined Ahmed Munir, who as at the time of filing the petition,
was not only a disqualified candidate, but was also restrained by
the courts from parading himself as the APC candidate.

Even though the main grounds of the petition before the tribunal
was premised on nomination and candidature of Ahmed Munir vis-à-vis
his disqualification by the Court of Appeal, the petitioners
vehemently opposed a motion filed before the tribunal seeking to
join Suleiman Lere, who was recognised by the electorate and
presumed by law to be the APC candidate, as a necessary party in
the petition.

In its ruling delivered on June 1, 2019, the tribunal agreed
with the petitioners and rejected the application seeking to join
Suleiman Lere as the 4th respondent and a necessary party to
the
petition.

Upon Lere’s interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal, a full
panel of the court presided over by Justice Hussein Mukhtar, with
Justices Obietonbara O. Daniel Kalio, Saidu Tanko Hussaini,
Oludotun A. Adefope-Okojie and James Gambo Abundaga, gave a
unanimous judgment and held that Suleiman Lere was a necessary
party and his joinder application in the petition was essential to
the proper adjudication of the matter before the tribunal. On pages
19 to 20 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on July
26, 2019 in Appeal No: CA/K/EPT/NA/4/2019 between Suleiman Lere Vs.
Rabiu Muhammad Lawal, the Appeal

Court according to Justice Hussaini held thus: “It is important
to note that the judgment of the Court of Appeal under reference
was delivered a day or two before the general election took place.
The general election was held on February 23, 2019. The Court of
Appeal judgment was delivered on February 21, 2019. It goes without
saying, flowing from the ndecision above that as at the 23rd
February 2019, when the general election was held or took
place.

“The 3rd respondent that is (Ahmed Muhammed Munir) was not the
candidate of the APC rather the appellant, Suleiman Lere, was that
candidate. The 5th respondent (INEC) was, by the reason of the
judgment of this court put on notice to accept, recognise and treat
the appellant herein as the candidate of the APC.” The court
concluded that based on the reasons above, Suleiman Lere
participated in the general election of 2019 and contested for Lere
Federal Constituency.”

The court further held: “Like the plaintiff in the case of
Amaechi Vs. INEC (Supra), the appellant herein was an aspirant in
the primary election organised by his party, where he secured the
highest number of votes, but unlike in the case of Amaechi Vs. INEC
(Supra) the appellant herein was a candidate in the general
election held on the February 23, 2019, where the APC and indeed,
it was the appellant that won in that election, for the seat of
Lere

Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives. “By reason
of the appellant being the candidate, he participated in the
general election held on the February 23, 2019 and thus had
fulfilled all the requirements set by section 285 (13) of the
Constitution (as amended) in terms of his participation.”

The same Court of Appeal in Appeal No: CA/K/EPT/ NA/12/2019
between Mohammed Shamsuddeen Bello Vs. Suraja Idris Kanawa presided
over by the same Justice Hussein Mukhtar and comprising of Saidu
Tanko Hussaini and Oludotun A. Adefope-Okojie delivered a judgment
on October 25, 2019, relied on the judgment of the full penal of
the court in Appeal No: CA/K/EPT/NA/4/2019 between Suleiman Lere
Vs. Hon. Rabiu Muhammad Lawal & Others in holding that Mohammed
Shamsuddeen Bello participated and won the election into Takai/
Sumaila Federal Constituency.

The court in the judgment held that, “This court had earlier in
the judgment delivered on 19th June 2019, which affirmed the
decision of the Federal High Court, held that the appellant herein
is indeed the candidate of the APC in the general election. I take
judicial notice of all those decisions.
“The appellant has by reason of one decision of the apex court in
appeal No SC 813/2019 been the candidate, who participated and
contested in the general election, had met the requirements set out
in section 285 (13) of the electoral act. See the decision of this
court in Engr. Suleiman Aliyu Lere vs Rabi’u Muhammad Lawal and 4
others. (Unreported) appeal no CA/K/EPT/NA/4/2019) delivered on the
20th July 2019.

“Victory secured by the appellant at the Supreme Court Vide SC
812/2019 and SC 813/2019 (supra) cannot be wished away as empty or
barren victory rather, the victory by him is substantial and
tangible and the Court, including this court have a duty under
section 287 (1) (2) of the constitution of Federal

Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), to enforce the judgment
of the Apex Court.” However, in a dramatic somersault, the same
Court of Appeal presided over by the same Justice Hussein Mukhtar
in CA/K/EPT/NA/19/2019 set aside the decision of the Supreme Court
on the basis of which the APC issued a Certificate of Return to
Suleiman Lere and also set aside the decision of the full court of
the Court of Appeal in Appeal No: CA/K/EPT/NA/4/2019.

The court in Appeal No: CA/K/EPT/NA/19/2019 with the same panel,
reversed itself, saying that the APC which it hitherto adjudged to
have sponsored a candidate and won the election for Lere Federal
Constituency, did not now have a valid candidate in the February
23, 2019 general election. It consequently sacked Lere from House.
The decision has therefore raised many eyebrows. In the Nigerian
judicial system, the principle of stare decisis, which provides the
necessary certainty in the administration of justice, has long been
established and entrenched.

By the provision of section 287 (1) of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the decisions of
the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of Nigeria by all
authorities and persons and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction
to the Supreme Court.

Observers are therefore wondering that the Supreme Court, having
determined that Suleiman Lere was the candidate of the APC for Lere
Federal Constituency and the Court of Appeal endorsing the
decision, how did the same panel arrive at the decision that the
APC did not have a candidate in the election?
They are confused that the same court with the same justices would
deliver conflicting decisions on the same subject matter, wondering
if the decisions of the Court of Appeal in CA/K/40/2019,
CA/K/EPT/NA/4/2019, CA/K/EPT/ NA/12/2019 and CA/K/EPT/NA/19/2019
could be justified?

Culled from THISDAY