By Ise-Oluwa Ige
ABUJA—Can the Supreme Court, for any reason, exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a post-election dispute on gubernatorial matter pending before a Court of Appeal in the country?

This, yesterday, was one of the fundamental questions posed by gubernatorial candidate of the Democratic Peoples Party, DPP, Alhaji Maigari Dingyadi, forcing a full panel of the Supreme Court to adjourn till November 26, this year, for a ruling.

The apex court is also expected to pronounce on the adjourned date on yet another request by Alhaji Dingyadi to withdraw an appeal he filed on pre-election issues touching on qualification of the incumbent state governor for the 2007 Sokoto State Governorship re-run election.

The position of the court on Dingyadi’s request for withdrawal of his appeal is crucial because it will pave the way for the Court of Appeal in Sokoto to deliver judgment in an appeal filed by the party challenging the election of the state governor, Alhaji Aliyu Magatagrda Wamakko.

The judgment to be delivered is widely believed to be against Wamakko.
Dingyadi’s lawyer, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, said his client wanted the appeal dismissed because he was no longer interested in pursuing it.

But Wamakko, his party, the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission opposed the application to withdraw the appeal.

They argued that there were outstanding matters to be resolved before the appeal could be withdrawn.
They also argued that there were two similar appeals pending before the Abuja Court of Appeal and the Sokoto Court of Appeal on the same issue.

According to them, it was an abuse of court process for Dingyadi to file two appeals in respect of the same subject matter at two different courts of same hierarchy.

They said that it was trite  when an abuse of court process is established,  that the penalty is the dismissal of such suit.

They, therefore, argued that Dingyadi could not withdraw his appeal voluntarily.
They, however, said that should the apex court be willing to allow Dingyadi to withdraw his appeal, they asked the apex court to make an order dismissing not only the appeal before it but also the appeal pending before the Sokoto Court of Appeal in order not to subject the judiciary to ridicule.

They invited the law lords to hold that even though the case before the Sokoto Court of Appeal was started as a post election matter but that the issues therein flowed from the issues in the appeal before it.

Replying them, Fagbemi said that the Supreme Court’s rules of procedure allowed his client to withdraw the suit voluntarily.

He also told the apex court that the appeal sought to be withdrawn was an interlocutory appeal and was not against the final judgment of the Court of Appeal.

On the first poser which touches on the powers of the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction on post election dispute on gubernatorial poll, both p[arties yesterday also locked horns on the correct interpretation of Order 8, Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Supreme Court rules.

They also urged the justices of the court to give a community interpretation of the provisions of sections 232, 233 and 246 of the 1999 constitution as they affect the apex court’s constitutional powers to exercise subject_matter jurisdiction on the appeal before the Sokoto Court of Appeal.

After taking arguments from all the parties, yesterday, the court adjourned ruling till November 26.
The circumstances surrounding the re_run governorship election which produced the incumbent governor, Wamako had caused serious ripples within the judiciary.

The electoral dispute had pitched the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal.

While the leadership of the Court of Appeal under Justice Ayo Salami is bent on reviewing the case perhaps with the aim of disqualifying Wamako, the Supreme Court under Justice Iyorger Katsina Alu is of the view that the sleeping dog should be allowed to lie.

In fact, the proceedings in the case at the two apex courts have assumed the coloration of politics of the election.

For instance, the Supreme Court had on March 15, this year ordered the Court of Appeal sitting in Sokoto not to deliver a judgment in an appeal challenging the re_election of the Sokoto State Governor, Alhaji Aliyu Magatakarda Wamako.

The court made the order after the counsel to the governor, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN told the court that the Appeal Court in Sokoto had issued a notice to deliver judgment in the case on March 16.

Efforts by the counsel to the Democratic Peoples Party, Mr. Rickey Tarfa SAN to stop the apex court from stopping the justices of the Court of Appeal from delivering the judgment was abortive.

Tarfa had explained to the Supreme Court’s justices that the appeal before the Supreme Court had been withdrawn and that it had nothing to do with the judgment to be delivered in Sokoto.
But the Justices disagreed as they held that the appeal before them would be rendered nugatory if the Court of Appeal delivered judgment on the matter.

It was that order that tied the hands of the justices at the Sokoto Court of Appeal.
Earlier, Wamako had filed an application for an order to compel the Court of Appeal in Sokoto to suspend judgment in the appeal filed by Dingyadi.

The application was filed and argued on behalf of the PDP by Dr. Alex Izinyon SAN.
But counsel to Dingyadi, Mr. Ricky Tarfa had argued that there was no appeal before the apex court since his cleint who filed the appeal had already withdrawn same.

Wamako had also written a letter to the President of the Court of Appeal,  Justice Salami protesting the plans by the Sokoto State Governorship Appeal Panel to deliver a judgment on March 16th despite a notice from the National Judicial Council directing the panel to stop sitting.

The letter was signed by Mr. Alfred Agu, a lawyer to Wamako

In the letter, which was copied the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Iyorgher Katsina_Alu, he drew the attention of the President of the Court of Appeal to a notice issued by the panel to the effect that a judgment would be delivered on 16th March, 2010.

The letter reads: “You no doubt would recall that this same Court of Appeal, Sokoto had earlier scheduled judgment for February 24, 2010 but was barred from going ahead by instructions from the Chairman of the National Judicial Council and Chief Justice of Nigeria citing petitions before the Council which substantially challenged the judicial propriety of the Court’s manifest intention to deliver judgment, that is already leaked and it has come to the  knowledge of the general public  which questioned the integrity of  the Justices on the panel.

“ In acceding to the orders of the Chairman of the National Judicial Council, the Court of Appeal, Sokoto gave a ruling after been addressed by counsel that it could not deliver judgment without allowing the Council to look into the petitions and reach a decision on their veracity or otherwise and as well after taking the outstanding motion which seeks for reference to the Supreme Court pursuant to Sec 295(3) of the Constitution.

“The Court also conceded that obeying the Council’s instructions would protect the integrity of the Justices. It therefore adjourned the hearing of the Motion before them and the judgment sine die.”

The lawyer also noted that there were pending motions which ought to be taken before a judgment could be delivered in the said appeal.

Already petitions had been written to the National Judicial Council alleging shady deals by some of the Appeal Court’s Justices. It was on the basis of these petitions that the NJC wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal asking him to discontinue for the time being all appeals on the Sokoto governorship election.

The lawyer described as brazen contempt, the issuance of another notice of judgment by the Court of Appeal, Sokoto scheduling March 16, 2010, without any further correspondence from the National Judicial Council to the Court of Appeal, Sokoto and other parties in the matter, either conveying the outcome of its investigations or expressly lifting its stay action order.

He accused the Court of Appeal of disrespecting the National Judicial Council.

The petitioner said, “With due respect to your office, we wish to submit that as President of the Court of Appeal and a subject of the petitions before the National Judicial Council on this matter, you must be fully aware of the facts and issues raised in this letter, particularly the effrontery of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto towards clear and subsisting directives of the National Judicial Council which were in any case copied to you.

“Without prejudice to the petitions still before the Council and its on_going investigations into same, this latest instance of unwarranted intransigence on the part of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto discredits its earlier avowed respect for the National Judicial Council’s lawful orders and purported concern for the protection of the integrity of the judiciary, on the basis of which it adjourned judgment SINE DIE.

“Indeed, widespread suspicion of the motives of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto in exhibiting a frantic haste to deliver a judgment that had been surreptitiously leaked to and publicly celebrated by the appellants far in advance of the date which they also had exclusive foreknowledge of, has  only been strengthened, if not vindicated.”

The petitioner reminded the President of the Court of Appeal that the Court of Appeal in its entirety could not constitute a law unto itself against.

“As President of the Court of Appeal, these are certainly not the best of times, but it is not too late to avert the worst case scenario that looms large on the horizon,” the petitioner added.