On February 13, 2020 the Apex Court entertained the appeal that upturned the decision of the Court of Appeal over a Judgment of a Beyelsa High Court which nullified the candidature of Lyon David Pereworimin due to the non-qualification of his running mate. Sections 142(1) and 187(1) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended (subsequently referred to as “Nigerian Constitution”) require a Presidential or Governorship candidate, upon victory at a Party’s primary election, to select a running mate.
The ticket that such candidate and the running mate bear under their Party is joint1 as the Nigerian Constitution has not made provisions on a distinct and separate procedure for determining the Vice Presidential or Deputy Gubernatorial candidates of political parties in Nigeria. A further implication of this is that the qualification requirements applicable to a Presidential or Gubernatorial candidate equally apply to such candidate’s running mate2.
A more fascinating implication is that a Presidential and Gubernatorial Candidate, after submitting the name of his running mate, cannot exercise any further prerogative of substituting such deputy before, during or after the election3 and will automatically be disqualified if such running mates were not qualified to vie for the office for which they were nominated. This was the premise upon which the trial court in Bayelsa disqualified the APC flag bearer for the 2019 Governorship Election. That decision is firmly and rightly anchored on the provision of Section 187 (2) of the Nigerian Constitution.
So this Court is not authorized and lacks jurisdiction to review its Judgment except in the circumstances spelt out in the said Order 8 rule 16 of the Rules of this Court. The two sets of Applicants have not shown this Court any clerical mistakes that need to be corrected in its Judgment delivered on 13/2/2020…The decision of this Court in Appeal No. SC. 1/2020 is final for all ages; it is final in the real sense of the word – FINAL; and no force on Earth can get this Court to shift from its decision regarding the Bayelsa State Pre-Election Appeal No. SC.1/2020…
As it is, I cannot believe, and I say this with tears in my eyes, I cannot believe that in my lifetime I would see very senior members of the Bar bring Applications of this nature to this Court, which are aimed at desecrating the sanctity of this Court; violating the well-known principle that the decisions of this Court are final; destroying the esteem, with which this Court is held. Amina Adamu Augie, JSC (PDP & 2 Ors. vs Biobarakuma & 3 Ors. [Unreported] SC.1/2020)
It will be recalled that of late, there have been spates of applications to the Supreme Court of Nigeria calling for a review of the Court’s recent decisions on election cases. The first of these applications was filed by Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha and PDP against the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in SC.1462/2019 – Sen. Hope Uzodinma & Anor. v. Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha & 2 Ors. and SC.1470/2019 – Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha v. Sen. Hope Uzodinma & 3 Ors.
The general rule4 is that the Apex Court shall not review any of its judgments once given and delivered. The exception is that it could do so to correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission. It could also vary its decision so as to give effect to its meaning or intention5.
Over the years, and taken into cognizance Section 6(6) of the Nigerian Constitution, the Apex Court have by case law, expounded this rule to envisage circumstances under which it could review its decisions and such circumstances are encapsulated in the recent decision of Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v L. G. C. Ltd (2020)2 NWLR (Pt. 1707) 1. In effect, a judgment proven to be a nullity, reached per incuriam (in error), procured by fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, decided against public policy, given without jurisdiction or determined in defiance of the rule of fair hearing, can be revisited upon an application by the aggrieved party.
The foregoing is not a leeway for frivolous applications and does not open a floodgate for political gladiators and, sadly, some senior members of one of the most revered profession in Nigeria to inundate the Apex court with request for review of its decisions, as has been the case recently. The Supreme Court has begun the process of sanitizing its system and redeeming its integrity with the decision in SC.1/2020(R) – PDP & 2 Ors. v. Biobarakuma & 3 Ors. It is hope that this decision shall not be treated misguidedly as a yardstick for throwing out, willy-nilly, the other applications seeking review. The Apex Court has a duty to treat each case for its own peculiar facts and circumstances.
As we draw closer to March 2, 2020, the Apex Court must fix it gaze on the raison d’être of its powers of review under Order 8 Rule 16 of its Rules and Section 6(6) of the Nigerian Constitution. It is saddled with the responsibility to restore certainty and precision of the law. As rightly observed in the case of Enterprises Bank Ltd v. Aroso & Ors (2015), “[I]nherent powers of a court are a product of the Constitution and the court itself in its quest for substantial justice thereby ensuring that the streams of justice remain pure”.
Join us in the coming week as we shall be discussing the outcome of the pending applications for review adjourned by the Supreme Court to March 2, 2020. Please feel free to leave your comments on all or any of our stories. This blog was contributed by Jude Akpevweoghene Daniel-Odi, an election-related cases expert, a co-counsel in the Enterprises Bank Ltd. v. Aroso’s case and Partner at Oceanic LP.
__________________________________
- Sections 142 and 187, CFRN 1999 respectively for Presidential and Gubernatorial elections.
- Abubakar v. I.N.E.C [2004] 1 NWLR (Pt.854); (2003) LPELR-7294(CA)
- Abubakar v. A-G.,Federation (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt.1031) 626; (2007) 4 S.C (Pt II) 62
- The Supreme Court Rules, Order 8 Rule 16
- Enterprises Bank Ltd v. Aroso & Ors (2015) LPELR-24720(SC).