Last week’s warning by the Supreme Court to those criticising its judgments was obviously an attempt to gag the public from subjecting its judgments that are related to political processes and good governance to public scrutiny, Alex Enumah writes

The Supreme Court last week came down hard on some Nigerians who had been criticising its recent judgments, particularly those which affirmed a former Governor of the Akwa Ibom State, Senator Godswill Akpabio, and the Senate President, Dr. Ahmad Lawan, as senatorial candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the February 25 elections.

It also warned purveyors of such attacks on the judiciary and Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, to desist and channel such energies to political parties which “fail to organise themselves well.”

The Director of Press and Information at the Supreme Court, Dr. Festus Akande, who issued the warning in a statement titled, ‘Be mindful of unwarranted attacks on judicial officers’, said over 600 cases have so far gone to court from just party primaries, which were conducted by political parties without any encumbrance or interference from any external bodies.

It noted that if political parties conduct themselves well and orderly, the courts will handle fewer cases, and the political atmosphere would be much healthier than it is currently.

The apex court singled out a United States-based Professor, Farooq Kperogi and a group, which identified itself as the Progressive Minds Forum as the purveyors of such attacks.

“In an ineptly scripted toxic article, one Farooq Adamu Kperogi, who described himself as a Nigerian-American Professor, decided to plunge into an abysmal pit of irredeemable ignorance by venting convoluted anger on Supreme Court Justices with a view to pleasing his paymasters.

“Certainly, every Nigerian citizen has an inalienable right to express his or her opinion without any encumbrance; but even in the course of expressing such fundamental right, we should be circumspect enough to observe the caution gate of self-control in order not to infringe on another person’s right.

“Even in a state of emotional disequilibrium, we should be reasonable enough to make a good choice of decent words, as every word employed by the pen-happy Kperogi only succeeded in portraying the kind of vacuum that sign-posts all that he has as academic accomplishment,” the statement explained.

But in a swift response, Kperogi said he had never heard of the Supreme Court of any country responding to the criticism of its judgment by singling out a private individual who called them out.

“Well, the fact that they had a need to isolate my criticism and pour such venom on me shows that I hit them at the right spot, that I exposed an uncomfortable truth about them that they’d thought had been hidden from public knowledge, which is basically that most of them are rapacious, unprincipled, conscienceless, and cash-and-carry judges who sell ‘justice” to the highest bidder.’” 

Many other Nigerians have also faulted the court for attempting to gag the media and the public from subjecting its judgments to public scrutiny, adding that judgments, especially those that impact on public policy, political processes and good governance are supposed to be analysed on how they affect the people, organisations and society.

Those who spoke to THISDAY anonymously blamed the apex court for being responsible for the angry reactions from Nigerians, describing its verdicts as incongruous and inconsistent with set precedents. They also expressed reservations over the court’s decision to publicly respond to criticisms of its judgments.

The apex court had come under attacks over its recent judgments. The one that led the pack was the Bashir Machina and Senator Lawan’s case.

Trouble started when on May 28, 2022, APC conducted a primary election to determine the senatorial candidate for Yobe North Senatorial District and Machina participated. Lawan did not because he contested for the party’s presidential ticket and lost to Senator Bola Tinubu.

After the primary, Machina was declared the winner. But surprisingly, APC later cancelled the primary on the alleged grounds that the person that conducted/monitored the primary election was not nominated by the National Working Committee (NWC).

On June 9, 2022, APC’s NWC conducted another primary election. This time around, Machina did not participate. But Lawan participated and was declared the winner.

Thereafter, Machina dragged both his party and INEC to court, asking the court to declare him as the authentic senatorial candidate.  In September 2022, a Federal High Court in Damaturu, the Yobe State capital, declared him as the winner and ordered both the APC and INEC to recognise him as the candidate.

When Lawan appealed the judgment, the Court of Appeal in Abuja affirmed Machina as the authentic candidate.

Machina had gone to court by way of originating summons because a Practice Direction by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court in July 2022 required that. But the Supreme Court ruled that he ought not to have used originating summons since he was alleging fraud against his party.

Many had faulted the Supreme Court judgment for ignoring the merits of the case and using technicality to arrive at its decision. Even if he participated in another primary and won, was the said primary ordered by a court as required by the law? How can Lawan be allowed to flagrantly abuse the Electoral Act, which he enacted?” a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), queried.

They also faulted the apex court when in its reaction to the criticism that trailed the judgment put the blame at the door steps of political parties which it said “failed to organise themselves well by managing their internal wrangling maturely and now choose to bring themselves to the court.”

They noted that since politicians and political parties can never organise themselves or manage their internal wrangling maturely, Nigerians expect the courts whip them into line by teaching them a lesson.

The senior lawyer referred to the unprecedented audacious judgment of the Supreme Court in the Rotimi Amaechi vs INEC case, which was aimed at teaching politicians and political parties a lesson.

In the case, the Supreme Court on October 25, 2007, sacked Celestine Omehia from office, affirming Amaechi as the winner in which he did not campaign. In the reasons issued on January 18, 2008 by Justice George Oguntade, who delivered the lead judgment with which all six other justices on the panel concurred, said: “the sum total of the recent decisions of this court is that the court must move away from the era when adjudicatory power of the court was hindered by a constraining adherence to technicalities. This often results in the loser in a civil case taking home all the laurels while the supposed winner goes home in a worse situation than when he approached the court.”

Another Justice on the panel, Olayiwola Aderemi,  added: “The judgments of this court must not be final only in name, but must be seen to be really final in the sense that they have legal bite that makes the judgments truly conclusive. All issues that will make its judgments reasonable and conclusive must be clearly addressed by the Supreme Court. This court has a standing and rigid invitation to do substantial justice to all matters brought before it. Justice to be dispensed by this court must not be allowed to be inhibited by any paraphernalia of technicalities.”

Another senior lawyer, who commented, wondered why the apex court relied on technicalities in the Lawan’s case. He insisted that the public would only stop to criticise Supreme Court’s judgments when such judgments are generally perceived as faultless.

Whichever way it is viewed, last week’s warning by the Supreme Court to those criticising its judgments is an attempt to gag and intimidate the media and public from subjecting its judgements related to public policy, political processes and good governance to public scrutiny, …. writes

For many Nigerians, there is no better way to reflect on last week’s reaction by the Supreme Court to the criticisms that have trailed its recent judgments than to remember the famous words of the late Major General Mamman Vatsa who was sentenced to death for allegedly planning a coup against his bosom friend, General Ibrahim Babangida in 1986.

After the judgment that condemned the accused coupists to death by the chairman of the military tribunal, Major General Charles B. Ndiomu, Vatsa made a brief statement. “…if you throw stones at yourself, people will join you.” His reaction was a coded message to his friend, Babangida: “We came from the same town, we grew up together, went to school together; we are more like brothers, watching each other’s back; by harming me, you will ultimately harm yourself because when the sharks come visiting, I wouldn’t be there for you.”

Whatever his reaction meant, throwing stones at oneself could imply lack of confidence, disdain for self, absence of self worth, despondency, inferiority complex and all words that define someone who sees himself as scum and the wretched of the earth. People will accept you for what you present yourself to be.

When applied to the reaction of the Supreme Court last week, many can say that the apex court and some of its justices keep throwing an avalanche of stones at discerning Nigerians, thinking that they are fools.

The Supreme Court last week came hard on some Nigerians who had been criticising its recent judgments, particularly those which affirmed a former Governor of the Akwa Ibom State, Godswill Akpabio, and Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, senatorial candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the February 25. elections.

It also warned purveyors of such attacks on the judiciary and Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, to desist and channel such energies to political parties which “fail to organise themselves well.”

The Director of Press and Information at the Supreme Court, Dr. Festus Akande, who issued the warning in a statement titled, ‘Be mindful of unwarranted attacks on judicial officers’, said over 600 cases have so far gone to court from just party primaries which were conducted by political parties without any encumbrance or interference from any external bodies.

The apex court added that if political parties fail to organise themselves well by managing their internal wrangling maturely and now choose to bring themselves to the court, it is duty-bound to adjudicate in accordance with the provisions of the law and not the dictates of any individual or deity. 

It noted that if political parties conduct themselves well and orderly, the courts will handle fewer cases, and the political atmosphere would be much healthier than it is currently.

But many Nigerians are not convinced with the explanation of the court. They faulted the court for attempting to gag the media and public from subjecting its judgments to public scrutiny, adding that judgements especially those that impart on public policy, political processes and good governance are supposed to be analysed on how they affect the people, organisations and society.

Those who spoke to THISDAY on account of anonymity, blamed the court for being responsible for the angry reactions it is getting from Nigerians, describing its verdicts as incongruous and inconsistent with reality. They also expressed reservations over the court’s decision to publicly respond to criticisms of its judgement. They noted that sometimes, the judgments help to fuel impunity instead of eradicating it.

The apex court had come under attacks over its judgments lately. The one that led to the pack is the Bashir Machina and Ahmad Lawan case.

Recall that during the APC primary election held on May 28, 2022, Machina emerged winner while Lawan contested and lost the party’s presidential ticket to Senator Bola Tinubu.

Weeks after, Machina was reportedly asked to step down for Lawan but he insisted that he was the rightful candidate. He later cried out that the Senate president and some forces were trying to clinch the ticket from him.

Amid the outburst, the APC submitted Lawan’s name to the INEC as its candidate, leaving the confused electoral body with no choice but to leave the senatorial district candidacy empty when it released the full list of candidates across the country

Thereafter, Machina dragged both his party and INEC to court, asking the court to declare him as the authentic senatorial candidate.  In September 2022, a Federal High Court in Damaturu, the Yobe State capital, declared him as the winner and ordered both the APC and INEC to recognise him as the candidate.

When Lawan appealed the judgement, the Court of Appeal in Abuja affirmed Machina as the authentic candidate.

Talking about the originating summons upon which the Supreme Court dismissed Machina’s case, he sued based on originating summons because a Practice Direction by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court in July 2022 required that. If he failed to comply, the court and Court of Appeal would have declined his case. But the Supreme Court punished him for complying with the rules of court applicable when he sued. To achieve that, a five-person panel of the court effectively overruled the long-established precedent which only a seven-person panel can.

Many had faulted the Supreme Court judgement because they could not understand how Lawan who did not participate or win the primary could be declared the authentic candidate. Even if he participated in another primary and won, was the said primary ordered by a court? How can Lawan be allowed to flagrantly abuse the Electoral Act which he superintended its enactment? The Electoral Act specifically forbids that nobody can participate in two different positions in same election and the Supreme Court glossed over all that and decided the way it did.“

They also faulted the apex court when in its reaction to the criticism that trailed the judgement put the blame at the door steps of political parties which it said “failed to organise themselves well by managing their internal wrangling maturely and now choose to bring themselves to the court.”

They noted that since politicians and political parties can never organise themselves or manage their internal wrangling maturely, Nigerians expect the courts come down hard on them by teaching them a lesson.

They referred to the unprecedented audacious judgement of the Supreme Court in the Rotimi Amaechi vs INEC case, which has still not taught politicians and political parties any lesson.

In the case, the Supreme Court on October 25, 2007, sacked Celestine Omehia from office, affirming Amaechi as the winner in which he did not campaign. In the reasons issued on January 18, 2008 by Justice George Oguntade, who delivered the lead judgement with which all six other justices on the panel concurred, said: “the sum total of the recent decisions of this court is that the court must move away from the era when adjudicatory power of the court was hindered by a constraining adherence to technicalities. This often results in the loser in a civil case taking home all the laurels while the supposed winner goes home in a worse situation than when he approached the court.”

Olayiwola Aderemi, another Justice on the panel, added: “The judgements of this court must not be final only in name, but must be seen to be really final in the sense that they have legal bite that makes the judgments truly conclusive. All issues that will make its judgements reasonable and conclusive must be clearly addressed by the Supreme Court. This court has a standing and rigid invitation to do substantial justice to all matters brought before it. Justice to be dispensed by this court must not be allowed to be inhibited by any paraphernalia of technicalities.”

“So why did the court not move away from the era when adjudicatory power of the court was hindered by a constraining adherence to technicalities in the Lawan’s case? Why did the court not address all the issues that will make its judgements reasonable and conclusive in the case? Why did the court not deploy its standing and rigid invitation to do substantial justice to the case?. Why did it allow itself to be inhibited by the paraphernalia of technicalities to dispense justice in the case?”, asked one of the many analysts who spoke to THISDAY.

THISDAY