By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
Tension is high as anxiety remains palpable. The question that continues to concentrate the minds of Imolites is when will the Supreme Court of Nigeria deliver justice to them, since to borrow a common legal dictum, ‘Justice delayed is Justice denied.’
The agitation stems from the seeming unending governorship election debacle in Imo State. Though the election that was conducted two years ago has produced two governors – one voted by the people and endorsed by the Independent national Electoral Commission (INEC) but subsequently sacked by the Supreme Court that went ahead to install another – the state is yet to get political closure from the saga.
Hence, a case is still pending at the Supreme Court, a fallout of its December 20, 2019 and January 14, 2020 judgments.
The case filed on July 9, 2020 by a lawyer, Philip Ezebuilo Umeadi Jnr, is seeking the order of the Supreme Court to enforce or otherwise direct the enforcement of its judgement on Appeal No. SC/1384/2019 delivered on December 20, 2019.
The anxiety stems from the fact that the case was scheduled for hearing on January 11, 2021 but the day came and passed without any mention. And there is no indication that it has been rescheduled any time soon. And the question is: Why?
The Appeal is the case of Ugwumba Uche Nwosu Vs Action Peoples Party and others, wherein the Supreme Court, per Honourable Justice Amina Adamu Augie, made pronouncement/orders to the effect that both the Action Alliance (AA) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) did not sponsor or field any candidate for the governorship election held in Imo State on March 9, 2019 in view of the double nomination of the appellant.
Despite this judgement of the Apex Court on December 20, 2019, it went ahead to declare Senator Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State under the platform of APC, a party it held had no gubernatorial candidate.
Feeling concerned and dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s back pedalling on its judgement of December 20, 2019, a lawyer in order to redeem the eroded integrity and confidence of the Apex Court, brought an application before the court, dated July 9, 2020.
The application is seeking the enforcement of its judgement of December 20, 2019, following the unpopular decision of the Apex Court on January 14, 2020 wherein it declared Senator Hope Uzodimma who contested and came 4th position on March 9, 2019 election as the governor-elect of Imo State.
In his Motion on Notice, supported by 20 paragraphed affidavit, Philip Umeadi is seeking an order of the court making these consequential orders to wit:
An order that both the Action Alliance (AA) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) did not sponsor or field any candidate for the governorship election held in Imo State on March 9, 2019, in view of the double nomination of the appellant Uche Nwosu, (respondent in this application) by the two political parties aforementioned and his subsequent disqualification as their gubernatorial candidate as found by this honourable court in the judgement delivered on December 20, 2019 (Exhibit PDP3).
An order sequel to the paragraph above supra, that Senator Hope Uzodimma was not a candidate by himself or of any party at the Imo governorship election held on March 9, 2019.
An order directing the 4th respondent (INEC) to withdraw the certificate of return issued to Senator Hope Uzodimma.
An order further directing the 4th respondent INEC to issue a certificate of return to the gubernatorial candidate of the 3rd respondent/applicant (PDP), RT. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha in the Imo State governorship election held in March 9, 2019 as the duly elected Governor of Imo State, having scored the 2nd highest number of votes in the said election, sequel to the judgement of this court in an Appeal No SC/1462/2019 between Senator Hope Uzodimma and Another Vs RT. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha and others delivered on January 14, 2020.
The judgement is annexed and marked as exhibit PDP4.
An order sequel to above paragraph directing that the said gubernatorial candidate of the 3rd respondent/applicant in the Imo State governorship election held on March 9, 2019, RT. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha be immediately sworn in as the governor of Imo State.
And for such further or other orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this application and in the overriding interest of justice.
In his written brief of arguement, Umeadi submitted that the 3rd respondent/applicant has made out a case warranting the grant of the reliefs sought. Arguing further, he submitted that “exhibit PDP3 found conclusively that the appellant/respondent Uche Nwosu was both candidate of the AA and APC respectively; the appellant was disqualified for double nomination and at the time of the disqualification of the appellant, the 45 days before the date of election window for withdrawal of candidate has lapsed.”
Umeadi argued that sequel to above submissions, “the APC and AA had no candidate and were thereby not parties in the election of March 9, 2019 to the benefit of the 3rd respondent/Applicant (PDP) who intended by instituting the action, to protect the chances of her candidate in any post election challenge.”
“The candidate of the 3rd respondent/applicant who was adjudged in exhibit PDP4 as having scored the second highest number of lawful votes cast at the election of March 9, 2019 ought therefore to be returned as the winner in view of paragraphs A to D.”
“Exhibit PDP4 dealt with the issue of who as between Senator Hope Uzodimma, the purported ‘candidate of APC’ and RT. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha, the candidate of the 3rd respondent/applicant (PDP) had the highest number of lawful votes cast in the election.
Besides, Umeadi averred that the in-depth and exhaustive examination of the notorious fact of absence of candidate for both AA and APC is to assist the court in coming to a conclusion that the only consequential relief that will meet the justice of this case is one which will occupy the vacuum created by the disqualification of the appellant.
“I therefore most humbly urge the honourable court to grant the reliefs sought as contained in the motion paper in the overriding interest of justice” the lawyer submitted.
However, since the filing of the application, some intrigues have played out, thereby suppressing hearing on the application filed since July 9, 2020. The application was slated for hearing sometime last January but it was not heard. The reason adduced is that the court did not sit.
It is believed that forces from some quarters are suppressing hearing of the application seen as a solid case which the Supreme Court may not have any leeway to wriggle out of.
The application filed since July 9, 2020 ought to have been dispensed with but up till date, not much has happened on the hearing of the application.
Umeadi has presented an opportunity for the Supreme Court, to remedy its eroded image, but unfortunately, it seems they are reluctant to make Nigerians see them in a different light.
“The seeming deliberate refusal to hear the suit filed by Umeadi, seems to confirm the belief/insinuation that there is something some persons have on the Supreme Court, that allows them control how things are done there.
“There have been accusations of bribery and money changing hands, as reasons for the delay, and these accusations seem to gain credence with the continued refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the matter, and remedy itself,” said a senior lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity.
TheNiche sought the views of lawyers, Civil Society executives and political analysts on the delay in hearing and determining the application filed since July 9, 2020.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria and constitutional lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome said that the lawyer who filed the application should know what to do as a lawyer.
In such delays, he should go to the Court registrar, file an application asking that his case be listed for hearing, Ozekhome siad, insisting that if the lawyer makes such a move, his case will be listed for hearing.
“I have had such delay in some cases and I filed an application asking that my case be listed and it was granted,” Ozekhome said.
But many lawyers, particularly those that have political aspirations, are reluctant to comment on the matter.
Emeka Etiaba, another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, when asked to comment simply said, “No comment. Thanks.”
Another lawyer who did not want his name mentioned said the was very sensitive and would rather not comment in order not to offend the sensibilities of the powers that be at the Supreme Court.
“I cannot comment on the issue because I am eyeing the position of Senior Advocate of Nigeria,” he said, adding, “Any comment on the issue may work against me in my ambition to become a SAN, because it involves the Supreme Court justices. I do not want to comment on your questions.”
But an Abuja based lawyer, Mr. H. Ebere, blamed the backlog of cases at the Supreme Court for the delay.
“You must realise that ultimately most cases end up at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Therefore, the docket of this court, which is only one in Nigeria is full hence the delay which in some cases could take up to three years to get a mention. Yes, that is how bad it can be.
“However, that is not to say that the Nigerian way of doing things has not caught up with them on the matter.”
But there is a school of thought that believes that seemingly refusal or delay by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in hearing the suit filed by Umeadi, is a deliberate attempt to upend justice.
The Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, strongly holds this position.
He told TheNiche that there is a popular belief of a deliberate plot to keep the Supreme Court from hearing the suit filed by Chief Philip Umeadi over the legitimacy of Hope Uzodimma’s governorship of Imo State. Rafsanjani said the suspicion of a possible conspiracy stems from not only the long delay in hearing the matter but, indeed, the failure to hear it on the scheduled date of January 11, 2021.
Rafsanjani insisted that Umeadi’s request is valid to merit an explanation from the Apex Court
He contends that given the fact that the same Supreme Court which removed Ihedioha based on the records made available to the court that the APC scored more votes in the election, and subsequently returned Hope Uzodinma as governor of Imo State, also ruled that the selfsame Uzodinma did not even participate in the election, since he was not the candidate of the APC, must do the needful.
“Given the growing rate of mutual distrust between the people and their government and the instrumentality of public trust in promoting social justice and stability by extension, it is imperative to allay the apprehension and anticipation of Imo State indigenes on these contradictory rulings,” he told TheNiche.
“The maxim brought into common parlance by Lord Chief Justice Hewart nearly 100 years ago that “Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done,” sustains an ethical requirement that judges and decision-makers more widely cannot hear a case if, from the perspective of a reasonable and informed observer, their impartiality might reasonably appear to be compromised.
“Chief Phillip Umeadi is not challenging the Supreme Court judgement, but asking the Apex Court to enforce her own judgement and I believe this presents a rare opportunity for the Supreme Court to redeem its deteriorating image.”
On whether some powerful forces are prevailing on the Supreme Court not to hear the case expeditiously, the CISLAC Executive Director said: “It is important to lay the elementary expectation that the Supreme Court comprises a select part of an honourable profession, entrusted, day after day, with the exercise of considerable power, which has dramatic effects upon the lives and fortunes of those who come before them.
“The public allegations of external influence over administration of justice by the Apex Court, have even been made by the court itself. In 2016, two of the most senior among the seven judges of the Supreme Court, Justice Inyang Okoro and Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, accused the Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi, of seeking to manipulate a court judgement.
“Just last year, the Judicial watchdog, Access to Justice, alleged that the President’s interference with appointments into the Supreme Court undermines the integrity and independence of the court, and politicizes membership of a court that ought to be a neutral, impartial, non-partisan and non-political institution, when it took the President about 11 months to send the first list of justices recommended to him by the National Judicial Council to the Senate for confirmation, and only two weeks to send the second list sent by the NJC to the upper legislative chamber.
“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not done enough to counter or quell these allegations and by extension, rebuild the trust of the citizenry. The Apex Court for this reason and more has reduced itself to a position of relative political obscurity and institutional vulnerability as opposed to being the prominent and independent adjudicator in our society and a distinct branch of the federal government as constitutionally delegated.
“Needless to say, a bastion of impartiality is independence – independence not only from the executive arm of government but from other centres of power and the responsibility falls on the court to uphold the importance of their service to the community and present themselves as an arm of government who desire to give and to receive the respect which their office demands and which their efforts merit by administering justice according to law,” Musa Rafsanjani submitted.
As Imo people get increasingly agitated, the question on the lips of many is: When will the Supreme Court eventually hear the case which it slated for January 11, 2021?
Those who raise this poser predicate their agitation on their conviction that time is of the essence in this matter.
