For an open display of “egregious and preposterous act,” the Supreme
Court, yesterday slammed the All Progressives Congress for going ahead
with its ward, local government and state congresses on May 19, 20 and
21, 2018 respectively in Rivers state, despite a subsisting court
order.
Similarly, it also descended on the Port Harcourt Division of the
Court of Appeal for pandering to the whims and caprices of the APC and
favouring the party, without due regard to subsisting judgement of the
apex court.
Specifically, the Supreme Court was bitter with the lower court’s
handling of the processes leading to the conduct of the party
congresses.
These were the highlights of the ruling of a five-man panel of
Justices of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter
Onnoghen, which held that the party’s decision to go ahead with the
exercise was “condemnable, egregious and preposterous.”
The judgment followed an appeal on the outcome of the congresses, by
aggrieved 23 APC members, including Ibrahim Umar, David Ndah, Prince
Morris, Kudem Bale, and Otokim Jack.
Reading the lead judgement, Justice Chima Centus Nweze, ruled that the
appellate court erred by engaging in “a sacrilegious exercise of
discretion” and also ignoring the doctrine of stare decisis in its
June 21, 2018 ruling, which favoured the APC.
Justice Nweze upheld the appeal and proceeded to set aside the order
of the appellate court, with which it stayed the execution orders of
May 11 and 30 of the Rivers state High Court, halting the conduct of
the congresses.
Upon a review of the position of the court of appeal, Justice Nweze
said, “regrettably, the lower court condoned the condemnations,
egregious and preposterous approach of the respondent herein (APC).”
“Well, this court (Supreme Court) has a duty to resist this attempt to
achieve forensic victory through jiggery-pokery. True to its
constitutional mandate, this court cannot lend its weight to this
unhealthy approach.
“Therefore, I have a duty to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I hereby
enter an order setting aside the ruling of the lower court delivered
on June 21, 2018,” Justice Nweze ruled.
The apex court further granted the appellants’ prayers that the Appeal
Court ought not to have granted the order of stay of execution in
favour of APC, as the party was still in disobedience of the order of
a lower court.
On May 11, 2018, Justice Nweze said, “not minding the invasion of the
court by hoodlums, an invasion that was characterised by the
destruction of items of the court, the court was still able to deliver
its ruling and issued an interlocutory injunctive orders restraining
the respondents from conducting its congresses.
“As if that was not enough, on May 19 and May 20, and May 21,
respectively, notwithstanding the pendency of the injunctive orders,
the respondent (APC) went ahead to conduct the ward, local government
and state congresses.
“This defiance has prompted the high court’s order of mandatory
injunction of May 30. The restraining order cancels state congresses
of May 12, 19, 20 and 21.
“Despite the subsisting orders of the court, orders of May 11 and 30,
the respondent in the most impudent manner, then besieged the Court of
Appeal, Port Harcourt Division for an entreaty to favour it with an
order of stay of proceedings and order of stay of execution.
“The lower court sitting on both, favoured the respondent, that is,
the applicant before it, with an order staying the execution of the
‘order of injunction made by the High Court of Rivers State, Port H in
the ruling delivered by Nwogu J, on Friday, May 11, 2018.’
“The simple truth therefore, is that, when the respondent applied for
stay of execution before the lower court, it was in gross disobedience
of the positive order of the trial court.
“From all indications, notwithstanding this unfortunate development,
the lower court still found it legitimate to favour the respondent
with a positive of order of stay of execution. This was wrong.”
Citing Supreme Court’s judgement on the Military Governor of Lagos
State Vs Ojukwu’s case, the panel faulted the Appeal Court’s failure
to abide by the doctrine of stares decisis, noting that by its
conduct, the Appeal Court “embarked on a journey of self-immolation
and the Japanese harakiri.
“Indeed, nothing could be a more sacrilegious judicial exercise of
discretion than the lower court’s ill-advised embarkation on this
ill-fated journey of self-immolation, or what the Japanese call the
harakiri, that means suicide, all in an attempt to circumvent the
authority of this court,” they further contended.
Continuing, Justice Nweze said, “this court (the Supreme Court) is the
highest court in Nigeria; its decisions bind every court, authority or
person in Nigeria.
“By the doctrine of stares decisis, the courts below are bound to
follow the decision of the Supreme Court. The doctrine is a sine qua
non for certainty in the practice and the application of law.
“The refusal, therefore, by a judge of the court below to refuse to be
bound by this court’s decision is gross insubordination.”
On effort by the APC’s lawyer, Hakeem Afolabi, SAN, to distinguish
the case from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Military Governor of
Lagos State vs. Ojukwu, and Odogu vs. Odogu, he described it as
superficially attractive, but feeble.
While expressing his angst at what he called APC’s lawyer’s “advocacy
style” on the matter, Justice Nweze urged lawyers to always endeavour
to draw a distinction between their role and status as a lawyer, and
their political interests.
Appellants’ lawyer reacts
In his reaction, Henry Bello, counsel to the appellants loyal to the
Senator Magnus Abe-led faction, Henry Bello, described the Supreme
Court’s ruling as “a warning to politicians to always be obedient to
court orders ahead of 2019 elections.”
How it started
The appellants, all members of the APC, headed to the court to stop
the conduct of party congresses in the state.
And following the plaintiffs’ application, Justice Chiwendu Nwogu of
the Port Harcourt Division of the High Court, granted an interlocutory
injunction restraining the APC from conducting the congresses.
Notwithstanding the court order, the party proceeded to conduct the
congresses on May 19, 20 and 21, with Justice Nwogu nullifying the
congresses in his May 30 ruling.
And dissatisfied with the ruling, the APC proceeded to the Port
Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal, asking for an order of stay
of execution of both the May 11 and May 30 orders.
Consequent upon these prayers, the Court of Appeal granted the APC’s
request, a development that forced the aggrieved parties to head to
the Supreme Court for redress.
