Excellent write-up! Under normal circumstances, I would have waited for the judgment before passing a comment. Unfortunately, these are difficult times. In recent times, some judges have issued ridiculous verdicts that stood logic on its head. The stakes this time are high and go beyond who occupies the Anambra government house next year. Two questions are of paramount importance in this case. 1). Can any court in the land directly or indirectly over-turn and rubbish the decision of the apex court? 2). Does the judiciary have the right to subvert the constitution?
Lawrence has traced the history of the dispute. I must add that the initial verdict of the appeal court was at best highly contentious. The apex court did mention that since Obi's tenure does not end until 2010, gubernatorial election should not have been held in 2007. The election tribunal rightly took notice of this ruling and dismissed all the gubernatorial cases before it. Surprisingly, the appeal court held that, despite the apex court ruling, the lower court should have heard the case on its merit. Granting, without conceding, that the appeal court was right on this, one would have expected that a court interested in justice would have returned the case to the lower court for proper determination. Rather than do this, the appeal court issued a verdict on a case that has not been duly heard and canvassed. The question then arises, how did the court arrive at its verdict? Many of us have been made to believe that appeals are based on points of law. I stand to be corrected on this. Unfortunately, the other contestants did not appeal partly because all gubernatorial cases end at the appeal court and partly because they probably believed that verdict to all intents and purposes was not of practical importance. Chief Uba’s counsel and supporters have been quoted as saying that no court has declared the election null and void. According to his counsel the apex court only alluded to the fact that the election should not have been held. I must confess that I am neither a SAN nor an ordinary lawyer (apologies to Mrs. Okonjo-Iweala), but does one need to go to law school to interpret the Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling? Was anybody expecting the SC to make a declaration on a matter that was not before it? For avoidance of doubt the matter before the SC was intepretation of the constitution as regards Obi’s tenure as governor of Anambra and not the validity of 2007 election. Irrespective of our views, all verdicts by the SC are regarded as final. As a corollary to the determination of Obi's tenure, it follows that an election should be held as stipulated by the constitution. To do otherwise, would be tantamount to subverting the constitution and a SAN should not directly or indirectly encourage such action. National interest must at all times over-ride personal interests. In the final analysis, judicial anarchy must be avoided as it is an uncharted journey with an unpredictable destination.
[Comment]Andy Uba`s Judicial Adventurism 
Linear Mode
RSS Feeds |
Podcasts
