Unpopular Mission to Empower Appeal Court

Despite the controversial judgements delivered by the Court of Appeal on governorship and National Assembly election cases, the House of Representatives has embarked on a mission to amend the constitution to grant the court final authority to adjudicate on governorship election petitions, Davidson Iriekpen writes

A bill seeking to amend the 1999 Constitution to make the Court of Appeal the final arbiter for the determination of governorship election petitions last week scaled second reading at the House of Representatives.

Sponsored by the lawmaker representing the Ndokwa East/Ndokwa West/Ukwuani federal constituency of Delta State, Nnamdi Elechi, the bill seeks to alter Section 246 of the 1999 Constitution.

Currently, the section states that the decisions of the Court of Appeal in respect of litigations arising from the National and state Houses of Assembly election petitions shall be final. But the bill intends to alter that provision of the constitution to include governorship elections.

Taking the House through the general principles of the bill, Ezechi said the proposed legislation seeks to alter the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 246 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

According to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lawmaker, “this would enable the final winner of a governorship election to be known without delay. If the person declared as winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) wins in the Court of Appeal, it would allow him to settle down and face the business of governance without distraction.”

He also noted that terminating election disputes at the appellate court would save costs, stressing that, “if such petitions end in the Court of Appeal, it would reduce the financial resources being wasted by the parties in prosecuting such cases to the Supreme Court.”

The bill, following its adoption, was referred to the House Committee on Constitution Review, chaired by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, for further legislative actions. 

If enacted, the law will prevent gubernatorial election disputes from reaching the Supreme Court – a departure from the current practice.

It is not clear if the members of the House remembered that from 1999 when the Fourth Republic was enthroned to 2013, the Court of Appeal was still the final court in disputes involving governorship elections in the country.

However,  the constitution was later amended for the Supreme Court to hear the governorship petition cases due to the controversial  and embarrassing judgments delivered by the Court of Appeal.

To prove those who amended the constitution right, there were cases in recent time where the appellate court nullified governorship election results, but the Supreme Court overturned its decision.

For instance, in 2023, the tribunal and Court of Appeal voided the election of Caleb Mutfwang of the PDP as governor of Plateau State. However, in January 2024, the Supreme Court faulted the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirmed Mutfwang’s election.

In restoring the governor’s mandate, Justice Emmanuel Agim who delivered the lead judgement, lambasted the Court of Appeal, saying: “We have held in a plethora of cases that the sponsorship of a candidate for election is an internal affair of a political party.”

In his consenting opinion, Justice Inyang Okoro who headed the five-member panel, almost emotional, captured how the Appeal Court unjustifiably sacked all the PDP lawmakers in the state House of Assembly and National Assembly thus: “My only worry is that a lot of people have suffered as a result of the Court of Appeal’s decision. It was absolutely wrong.”

Also consenting, Justice Helen Ogunwunmiju, while reprimanding the court, said: “It was very wrong for the Court of Appeal to go into the issue of party congresses. To make matters worse, the party challenging the issue is another political party.”

Similarly, the tribunal and the Court of Appeal sacked Abba Yusuf of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) as governor of Kano State but the judgment was later nullified by the apex court.

Until the amendments of the Electoral Act 2010, it was only the presidential election petition that got to the Supreme Court.

 It was the perceived injustice some of the governorship petitions suffered at the Appeal Court that led to the amendments that empowered the apex court to be the final arbiter in the governorship election dispute.

The Appeal Court had delivered what many -at best- termed conflicting judgments in some of the National Assembly and governorship election petitions brought before them, thereby robbing people of justice.

The expectation that as cases went up the ladder of adjudication, whatever errors of law, evaluation and facts that were committed at the lower courts would be corrected by the Appeal Court did not come to play.

Another area where the Court of Appeal failed most Nigerians was the area of the subversion of the judgements of the Supreme Court.

One elementary rule of Nigeria’s judiciary is that the decisions of the apex court are binding on all persons and authorities, including all courts with subordinate jurisdiction.

However, many analysts are worried over a disturbing recurrence in the justice sector where the Court of Appeal subverted the principle of stare decisis, one of the most sacred pillars in the administration of justice.

For example, on many occasions, justices of the Supreme Court upbraided those of the Court of Appeal for delivering judgments that are contradictory and sometimes defy logic and common sense on matters that are similar in law and in fact. 

Also, at one point, the apex court threatened to deal with any judge of the court if his or her act of judicial impertinence was repeated as it portends a big threat to the administration of justice.

Recall that due to Appeal Court’s penchant to deny Nigerians of justice, Justice Niki Tobi while still at the Supreme Court, had in 2008 upbraided the justices of the court for churning conflicting judgments and ridiculing the judiciary.

Before then, many Nigerians were not happy with the way various divisions of the Court of Appeal in the country handled litigations arising from the 2007 elections. They wondered if the court was serving other ends than ensuring that litigants obtained justice. 

It was common to see the decisions of the Appeal Court contradicting the judgments of the Supreme Court.

This is why many Nigerians are shocked that the National Assembly is considering making the same Court of Appeal the final arbiter for the determination of governorship election petitions in the country.