By Femi Macaulay
FINALITY may not always be final. Nigeria’s Supreme Court needs to reflect on the idea of flexible finality, particularly in the light of the controversies that diminished its decisions in two recent cases.
Indeed, in one of the cases, a dissenting judgement by a dissenting justice showed the need for a review of the court’s position that its decisions are inflexibly final.
Importantly, Justice Centus Nweze said the apex court had the power to overrule itself “and has done so in the past.” According to him, “This court has powers to overrule itself and can revisit any decision not in accordance with justice.”
It is noteworthy that Justice Nweze said he was of the view that the request for a reversal of the court’s judgement in the particular case “should succeed.”
If the justices of the Supreme Court are not on the same page concerning the limits of the finality of its judgements, then it’s necessary to re-examine the question.
On February 26, the Supreme Court dismissed an application filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) asking it to reverse a judgement that removed David Lyon as governor-elect of Bayelsa State. It was a unanimous judgement by a seven-member panel of the court.
“No force on earth can force the court to change its decision,” the court said. In the lead judgement, Justice Amina Augie said: “The court shall not review any judgement once given and delivered by it.”
According to her, “A judgement or order shall not be varied when the correct ruling presents what the court decided…This court is not authorised and lacks jurisdiction to review its judgment except on the circumstances spelt out in order 8 rule 16 of the rules of this court.
It is settled that the decision of this court is final. This is final court and its decisions are final for all ages.”
The court had been asked to review its judgement delivered on February 13, which nullified Lyon’s election on the grounds that his running mate, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, had presented false information to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), based on which he had contested the November 16 governorship election in the state.
The court ordered INEC to withdraw the certificate of return issued to Lyon and Degi-Eremienyo. In addition, the court ordered that INEC should declare the party with the highest number of lawful votes and geographical spread the winner of the election. As a result, Duoye Diri of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) became governor of Bayelsa State.
On March 3, the Supreme Court again invoked the finality of its judgements in dismissing an application filed by Emeka Ihedioha of the PDP, asking it to set aside a judgement that declared Hope Uzodinma of APC the Imo State governor.
The court had been asked to review its judgement delivered on January 14, which removed Ihedioha as governor of Imo State and gave the position to Uzodinma. It was a curious judgement.
According to Prof Francis Otonta, the returning officer of INEC, who announced the result of the Imo governorship election on March 12, 2019, Ihedioha of the PDP, a former deputy speaker of the Federal House of Representatives, won in 11 of the 27 local government areas, polling a total 273,404 votes to defeat Uche Nwosu of the Action Alliance (AA) who won in 10 LGAs and scored 190,364 votes.
Ifeanyi Araraume of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), a former senator, had 114,676 votes and won in four LGAs. Fourth was Hope Uzodinma of the APC, a serving senator representing Imo West senatorial district, who polled 96,458 votes and won in two LGAs.
Otonta had declared that Ihedioha, “having satisfied all the requirements of the law and scored the highest number of votes” “won the election and is hereby returned.”
The governorship tribunal and the Appeal Court upheld Ihedioha’s election. Ihedioha’s expected victory at the Supreme Court didn’t happen. It was incredible that Uzodinma, who was fourth in the election, became governor by the Supreme Court’s judgement.
On the issue of a review, the Supreme Court restated in its majority judgement, “it is settled law that this court has no power to change or alter its own judgement or sit as an appellate court over its own judgement.”
The court explained: “Inherent powers of the court can only be invoked if there is a missing link in the main body of the judgment and some steps must be taken to fill in the gaps or ambiguity so that the justice of the issues would be clear.”
But one of the seven justices, Justice Nweze, disagreed with the majority judgement. The judge held that “Mr Uzodinma mischievously misled the court into unjust conclusion with the unverified votes credited to himself in the disputed 388 polling units.”
“In my intimate reading of the January 14 judgment, the meat and substance of Ihedioha’s matter were lost to time frame. This court once set aside its own earlier judgement and therefore cannot use the time frame to extinguish the right of any person.”
According to Justice Nweze, “the decision of the Supreme Court in the instant matter will continue to haunt our electoral jurisprudence for a long time to come,” adding that “the court misled itself into declaring Mr Uzodinma as governor.”
He said the APC and Uzodinma misled the court to accept the allegedly excluded results in 388 polling units without indicating the votes polled by other political parties.
He also faulted the results from the said polling units without indicating the number of accredited voters in the polling units.
He highlighted how Uzodinma , at the election tribunal, admitted that he seized the result sheets from the electoral officials and completed the result sheets by himself. He said such results could not be valid without indicating the number of accredited voters.
Justice Nweze declared: “This court has a duty of redeeming its image; it is against this background that the finality of the court cannot extinguish the right of any person.”
The dissenting judgement by Justice Nweze is food for thought, and the Supreme Court should reflect on it. The court can’t continue to argue that it can only review its judgements when they are distorted or unclear. What about the question of justice, which should be the court’s ultimate purpose?
