Continues from last week
In another breadth,my Lords at the supreme court willfully ignored the evidence in a manner inconsistent with the records before the court and proceeded to make another finding when it held in paragraph 8 of the lead judgement that: “This suit was filed by appellant on 9/2/12. That is,it took the appellant over two months to complain about an election he did not take part in…”
With much respect to their Lordships,Suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/807/2011 – UMAR LAWAL & ALHAJI JIBRIN ISAH V. INEC, PDP & CAPTAIN IDRIS WADA before the Honourable Justice B.B Aliyu of the Federal High Court, Abuja was filed before the illegal primary election in September,2011. So,how did my Lords arrive at the mathematics of appellant filing the suit 2 months after the election?
Permit me to also pointedly state that, their Lordships decision to uphold the lower courts decision on the issue of jurisdiction conflicts with the decision of the apex court in ORHENA ADUGU GBILEVE & ANOR v. MRS. NGUNAN ADDINGI & ANOR (SC.193/2012) ,where, his brothers Justices, declared in that case that, Addigi as one of the aspirants in the primary election, had acquired the right to approach the Federal high Court, Makurdi as she did in her originating summons to seek redress in that court which was vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of section 87 (4)(c) (i) (ii) and (9) of the Electoral Act 2010, the federal high court, Makurdi had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the case as it was determined by it in favour of Addigi on the 31st of January,2014. Are they now different rules for different classes of people?
Finally, let us assume without conceding that the Supreme court was tangentially right in restricting itself to the purported election that produced Idris Wada on 3rd December 2011,the Supreme Court is duty bound by the Nigerian Constitution and the statutes to let Nigerians and the international community know what section of the constitution or under which provision of the electoral act, was the said election conducted.
INEC would not have deliberately acted to overreach an appeal it filed by taking a pre-judicial step during the pendency of that appeal. Put more pointedly, it was because INEC was convinced that the provisions of the Sections 180(2) and (2a) of the Constitution were clear and unambiguous that it filed an appeal in SC/357/2011. The Supreme Court agreed with INEC as per INEC’s appreciation of the clear and unambiguous provisions of these Sections.
To be Continued