By NNAMDI NWOKOCHA-AHAIWE

THE first thing that struck me as I perused the interview with  the Hon. Justice Francis Shoremi of the Court of Appeal in Vanguard Newspapers of Sunday October 4, 2009 was the absolute lack of conviction clearly apparent in his own words when the Honourable Justice took it upon himself to explain to the public the perverse decision of February 11, 2009 in which the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal, Umuahia which had upheld the petitions of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and their candidates over the April 2007 elections.

I asked myself why the judge felt the public required an explanation for their decisions in the “handwritten” judgment. Was it a case of attack of conscience? It seemed that way to me especially considering the judge’s choice of words such as when, in answer to the question of the perception that the judiciary is not immune to corruption, he failed to mount an explicit defence and denial, instead quipping that “being corrupt is a personal thing and most of these allegations are made by people who do not really know whether the money was delivered to where it should go or not. I always believe in one thing, bribery taking is between you and God…” Pray, what does that mean?

Is corruption, whether or not in the judiciary, not a crime to be disapproved of and frowned upon by all well-meaning members of our society and the public and instead now a “personal thing” between a corrupt judge and God? What does the judge want us to understand by his remarks about people not knowing whether or not bribe “money was delivered to where it should go or not? Is he affirming that bribe money was indeed offered but that we, the public, are unable to confirm whether or not it was taken? Why not tell us straight up whether it was taken or not? I leave the reader to arrive at his own conclusions.

The Sunday Vanguard interview was headlined, “How we resolved Gov. Orji and Okija Shrine case, by Justice Shoremi, Appeal Court Judge”. Naturally, I was curious and my appetite whetted, as I am sure many other people were, to find out just how the honorable justices came about their decisions in that judgment, but, alas, the honourable judge did not tell us how they in fact resolved the salient issues. Instead, he deliberately twisted and misrepresented the case put forth by the parties in order to justify their decisions. To understand the issues, I will in précis, recap what was before the lower tribunal and subsequently on appeal as regards the issues of resignation from public office and membership of the Okija Secret Society, so the public can juxtapose with Justice Shoremi’s explanations and reach their own conclusions.

At the tribunal, the PDP and its candidates had raised as one of the several grounds of their petition the fact that the PPA governorship candidate, Chief T. A. Orji, was an initiate and member of the Okija Secret Society as at the time of the election and was,  along with his deputy, public servants, who did not resign from office as stipulated by the constitution. That being the case, they were not qualified, ab initio, to have contested the election. In the petition, the petitioners pleaded the issue of non-qualification of the 1st and 2nd respondents thus at paragraph B (1): “The 1st and 2nd respondents were as at the date of the election each not qualified to contest as candidates for the election to the office of governor/deputy governor of Abia State and the petitioners so informed the electorate during their campaign for that election”. At paragraph C (1) of the petition, the petitioners pleaded detailed facts which support that ground of their petition.

To paraphrase, the petitioners     pleaded that the 1st and 2nd         respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”) did not resign their appointments in the public service of Abia State at least 30 days to the date of the contested election and indeed within that period still earned salaries and allowances from Abia State Government, still retained their official cars and accommodations, etc. It was also pleaded that the 1st respondent, Chief T. A. Orji,  was an initiate and member of the Okija Secret Society and facts of his initiation and membership were pleaded, etc. At the tribunal, all parties were in agreement that the respondents were in the public service of Abia State prior to the contested election:

Chief T.A. Orji as chief of staff, Government House, Umuahia/permanent secretary in the Abia State Public Service, and his deputy, Comrade Chris Akomas,  as a commissioner in the same government of Abia State. For emphasis, Orji and his deputy expressly admitted in their pleadings that they held the aforesaid offices/positions in the public service of Abia State prior to the election as alleged but claimed as their defence that they resigned the said appointments on or before 30 days to the date of the election as required by law.

The problem with this defence was that it was raised for the first time in their counsel’s final address to the tribunal. They did not plead that they resigned. They did not testify that they resigned and even if they did, it would have gone to no issue because evidence not pleaded is inadmissible. In fact, Orji did not testify at all before the tribunal. They merely tendered purported letters of resignation along with hundreds of other exhibits, mainly election results, through a witness who did not lay any foundation or say anything on resignation and then at final address stage, their counsel’s urged the tribunal to hold that the respondents indeed resigned their said positions in the public service of Abia State as prescribed by law.