Hon. Farah Dagogo was a former governorship aspirant within the 2023 Rivers State election. He was at totally different instances a member of the Nationwide Meeting (Home of Representatives) and State Home of Meeting.
On this interview with DAILY POST, he offers perception into the current Supreme Courtroom judgement on Rivers State political crises, steps that the Governor and the Home of Meeting must take for lasting peace. He additionally suggested towards tenure elongation of Native Authorities chairmen simply as he gave cases on how the judgement on stoppage of allocations may be challenged. Excerpts!
Is the Supreme Courtroom order on seizure of allocations to Rivers State justified?
The precept {that a} smaller panel of judges can not overrule a bigger panel throughout the similar court docket is prime to sustaining judicial consistency and stability. Within the context of the Nigerian Supreme Courtroom, this doctrine ensures that authorized precedents are revered except reconsidered by an equal or bigger bench.
In Nigeria, the doctrine of stare decisis mandates that choices of upper courts bind decrease courts, and courts of equal standing ought to observe established precedents. Particularly, a smaller panel, akin to a five-justice bench, mustn’t overrule the choice of a bigger panel, like a seven-justice bench. This hierarchy preserves the integrity and predictability of the authorized system. For example, in Sodeinde Bros. Ltd v. ACB Ltd, the Supreme Courtroom emphasised {that a} five-person panel can not overrule or depart from the choice of a panel of equal or bigger quantity.
The current occasions in Rivers State have introduced this precept into sharp focus.
The disaster started when 27 members of the Rivers State Home of Meeting allegedly defected from the Peoples Democratic Get together (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Underneath Nigerian regulation, particularly the 1999 Structure (as amended) lawmakers are anticipated to vacate their seats upon defection except their unique social gathering is factionalized. Nonetheless, the Supreme Courtroom discovered no proof supporting the declare that these lawmakers had defected, thereby rejecting the assertion that that they had misplaced their seats.
You recall {that a} five-justice panel of the Supreme Courtroom dominated that there was no proof of defection by the 27 lawmakers, successfully restoring their positions within the Home. This resolution raises issues about adherence to judicial hierarchy, because it seems to battle with the established precedent {that a} smaller panel can not overrule a bigger one. The ruling additionally ordered the Central Financial institution of Nigeria to withhold federal allocations to Rivers State till the funds was handed by the reinstated lawmakers, a transfer that has been criticized as punitive in the direction of the state’s populace.
This brings to bear evaluation of Judicial Authority and Case Legislation. The Supreme Courtroom’s resolution to have a five-justice panel tackle a difficulty beforehand settled by a seven-justice panel contradicts the established judicial follow of panel hierarchy and overruling precedents. Such actions can undermine the consistency and reliability of authorized precedents. As famous in authorized analyses, the current panel dimension weakens the institutional voice of the Supreme Courtroom and is doubtlessly dangerous to its integrity.
The 1999 Structure (as amended) stipulates that lawmakers who defect from their political events with out justifiable causes, akin to a division throughout the social gathering, should vacate their seats. On this case, the Supreme Courtroom discovered no proof of defection, thereby permitting the lawmakers to retain their positions. This interpretation aligns with the constitutional mandate however raises questions in regards to the court docket’s consistency in making use of these provisions. I’m giving all these backgrounds so you’ve got an concept of how the regulation works or operates.
To your query on withholding of Federal Allocations to the state, the Supreme Courtroom’s directive to withhold federal allocations to Rivers State introduces a posh constitutional challenge. Whereas the court docket goals to implement legislative compliance, such monetary sanctions could possibly be seen as overreach, doubtlessly violating the ideas of federalism and the monetary autonomy of state governments.
To surmise it, the Supreme Courtroom’s dealing with of the Rivers State legislative disaster highlights vital points regarding judicial hierarchy, adherence to constitutional provisions, and the stability of powers inside Nigeria’s federal construction. Departing from established precedents with out convening an applicable panel dimension undermines the judiciary’s credibility and the doctrine of stare decisis. Furthermore, punitive measures affecting state funds could set a regarding precedent for federal-state relations. It’s crucial for the judiciary to uphold its foundational ideas to take care of public belief and make sure the rule of regulation.
Moreover, addressing the judicial controversy in Rivers State requires a nuanced understanding of the treatments out there inside Nigeria’s authorized framework. These treatments intention to uphold judicial consistency, respect constitutional mandates, and make sure the correct functioning of the state’s governance buildings. Among the judicial treatments embody upholding precedent and panel hierarchy. The precept {that a} smaller panel can not overrule a bigger panel throughout the similar court docket ensures stability in authorized precedents.
In Nigeria, this doctrine is significant for sustaining judicial integrity. For example, in Orubu v. Nationwide Electoral Fee & 13 Ors (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt.94) 323, the Supreme Courtroom overruled its earlier resolution in Esewe v. Gbe (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt.93) 134, demonstrating the court docket’s potential to appropriate its stance when convened as a full bench. The sensible benefit of this ensures that solely a full bench or a bigger panel can overrule a earlier resolution, forestall arbitrary authorized shifts, thereby sustaining consistency and public confidence within the judiciary.
One other is Monetary Autonomy of States. The Nigerian Structure ensures the monetary autonomy of states, guaranteeing they obtain federal allocations with out undue interference. Whereas the Structure gives for the distribution of public income, it doesn’t explicitly grant the judiciary the facility to withhold funds as a punitive measure. In Lawyer-Basic of the Federation v. Lawyer-Basic of Abia State & 35 Ors (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt.764) 542, the Supreme Courtroom affirmed the ideas of federalism and the monetary autonomy of states. The sensible benefit of that is it upholds monetary autonomy, prevents the misuse of fiscal management as a political instrument, guaranteeing that state capabilities and public companies stay uninterrupted. There are additionally legislative safeguards that tackle defections since that’s the progenitor of the entire crises.
The 1999 Structure (as amended) addresses the difficulty of political defections. Part 68(1)(g) stipulates {that a} member of the legislative home shall vacate their seat in the event that they grow to be a member of one other political social gathering earlier than the expiration of their time period, besides if the change is because of a division of their earlier social gathering. In Abe v. Unilorin (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt. 834) 1, the Supreme Courtroom held that such defections with out legitimate justification result in the forfeiture of legislative seats. Because it pertains to sensible benefit, strict enforcement of anti-defection legal guidelines ensures political stability and respect for the citizens’s mandate, discouraging opportunistic social gathering switching. There may be additionally Judicial Accountability that ensures impartiality. The independence and impartiality of the judiciary are cornerstones of democracy. Mechanisms such because the Nationwide Judicial Council (NJC) oversee the conduct of judges, guaranteeing they adhere to moral requirements. In Elelu-Habeeb v. Lawyer-Basic of the Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1318) 423, the Supreme Courtroom emphasised the NJC’s function in sustaining judicial self-discipline. Its sensible benefit is that it offers sturdy judicial oversight that fosters public belief and deters judicial misconduct, guaranteeing that court docket choices are based mostly on regulation and never exterior influences.
Subsequently, implementing these treatments ensures that Nigeria’s authorized system operates with integrity, consistency, and respect for constitutional ideas. Such measures not solely resolve present disputes but in addition strengthen the inspiration of the nation’s democracy.
Are you suggesting that there are probabilities of reversing the Supreme Courtroom’s ruling on Rivers State allocation?
In Nigeria, the Supreme Courtroom is the best court docket of the land. As such, its choices are ultimate and binding underneath Part 235 of the 1999 Structure of Nigeria (as amended), which states:
“With out prejudice to the powers of the President or Governor with respect to the prerogative of mercy, no enchantment shall misinform some other physique or individual from any willpower of the Supreme Courtroom.” Which means that ordinarily, there is no such thing as a enchantment from a Supreme Courtroom resolution. Nonetheless, there are restricted choices for difficult such a call.
One in every of such is an Software for Evaluation Underneath Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Courtroom Guidelines. This rule permits the Supreme Courtroom to evaluation its personal resolution in distinctive circumstances. Within the case of l Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250, the court docket held that it’s going to solely evaluation its judgment in circumstances of; a clerical errors or unintended slips, fraud or misrepresentation and the absence of jurisdiction. In Ekwunife v. Wayne West Africa Ltd (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422, the Supreme Courtroom reaffirmed that it has no energy to take a seat on enchantment over its personal choices besides in very uncommon circumstances. These circumstances embody; new proof or a elementary jurisdictional error, a movement for evaluation may be filed, Constitutional Modification, the Nationwide Meeting can enact a regulation to reverse the results of the judgment, offered it doesn’t contradict the Structure. In Lawyer-Basic of Lagos State v. Lawyer-Basic of the Federation (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt.833) 1, the court docket held that the place laws is enacted after a judicial resolution, the brand new regulation can alter the authorized place.
One other angle is Worldwide Human Rights Petitions. If the choice violates elementary human rights, a petition could also be filed earlier than the ECOWAS Courtroom of Justice or the African Fee on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
If the Rivers State Authorities needs to enchantment the Supreme Courtroom resolution on stoppage of allocation, it would begin by drafting an motion plan for Difficult the Supreme Courtroom Resolution. Step one shall be to Submitting a Movement for Evaluation. The grounds needs to be to Establish clear jurisdictional errors or miscarriage of justice within the judgment. I’ve already addressed a few of it earlier. One other is to assemble a workforce of Senior Advocates specializing in constitutional regulation. They might be tasked with offering proof that’s if there may be new proof, akin to judicial bias, procedural irregularity, and fix it to the movement, after which a Movement on Discover underneath Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Courtroom Guidelines may be filed.
The second step could be to mobilize the Nationwide Meeting for Legislative Intervention. It will contain drafting a invoice to strengthen the constitutional provision on legislative defections and state monetary autonomy. As a former Lawmaker, I can let you know free of charge that it will require lobbying and fascinating lawmakers to fast-track the legislative course of. The third step is the Worldwide Human Rights Petition, if relevant. It will additionally require submitting a petition earlier than the ECOWAS Courtroom of Justice or the African Fee on Human and Peoples’ Rights if the ruling impacts elementary rights.
So, comprehensively, difficult a Supreme Courtroom resolution is tough however not unimaginable underneath the appropriate authorized circumstances. A well-drafted Movement for Evaluation, mixed with legislative motion, gives the perfect probability of reversing the influence of the ruling.
What’s your tackle the Supreme Courtroom judgement that invalidated the Rivers State Native Authorities Elections?
The nice Malcolm as soon as stated: “Our lives start to finish the day we grow to be silent about issues that matter. Additionally, Magie Kuhn inspired us to talk the reality even when our voices shake! Sure, it’s a very delicate query, however once we don’t permit feelings becloud our reasoning, we’ll come to phrases that the Supreme Courtroom of Nigeria acted inside its constitutional mandate in nullifying the October 5, 2024, Native Authorities Elections in Rivers State. This may be an unpopular view, relying on the views, expectations and needs of some for the pendulum to swing in any other case. Nonetheless, the Courtroom’s resolution was based mostly on info and the Rivers State Unbiased Electoral Fee’s (RSIEC) failure to adjust to these necessary authorized necessities, helped in rendering the election invalid.
There was the violation of Part 150 of the Electoral Act 2022 whereby the Supreme Courtroom recognized that RSIEC performed the elections with out adhering to Part 150 of the Electoral Act 2022. Particularly, the court docket stated RSIEC didn’t challenge the necessary 90-day discover earlier than the election date, a prerequisite designed to make sure transparency and enough preparation for all stakeholders. That was why in delivering the lead judgement, the important thing level emphasised by Justice Jamilu Tukur, was the clear absence of proof by RSIEC exhibiting compliance with Part 150(3) of the Electoral Act 2010 (now 2022) earlier than conducting the elections and that, of their estimation, rendered the method invalid.
There was additionally the order by the Federal Excessive Courtroom in Abuja that had issued an order on September 30, 2024, restraining the Unbiased Nationwide Electoral Fee (INEC) from releasing the voter register to RSIEC. Moreover, the court docket barred safety companies from offering assist for the elections on account of RSIEC’s non-compliance with electoral legal guidelines. RSIEC willfully disobeyed these orders and proceeded with the elections. In fact, the court docket frowns at these clear disobedience to judicial directives that undermines the rule of regulation from their perspective.
Whenever you dutifully learn the ruling, you’ll observe the place the Courtroom emphasised the need for electoral our bodies to stick strictly to authorized provisions governing elections. It equally famous that RSIEC’s actions, in bypassing important authorized steps, compromised the legitimacy of the electoral course of.
There are a number of determined circumstances buttressing the Courtroom’s place. Within the All Progressives Congress v. Unbiased Nationwide Electoral Fee & Ors (2020): the Supreme Courtroom nullified elections performed with out adherence to the statutory discover interval, reinforcing the precept that electoral our bodies should adjust to all authorized necessities to make sure legitimate elections. Additionally, in Motion Congress v. Unbiased Nationwide Electoral Fee (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 220: The Courtroom held that failure to adjust to necessary provisions of the Electoral Act, akin to voter register updates and correct notices, might invalidate an election.
In a nutshell, the apex court docket ruling on this subject material was a rightful enforcement of electoral legal guidelines, guaranteeing that statutory necessities are met to uphold the integrity of the electoral course of. That call underscores the Judiciary’s function in sustaining constitutional order and the rule of regulation in Nigeria’s democratic processes.
You could have responded with authorized authority, deciphering with determined circumstances as to the rationale for the ruling, however due to the charged political reactions within the state, it already appears responses are categorised into both assist for the camp of Governor Siminalayi Fubara or that of the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike. The place does yours tilt?
Bryant McGill stated painful fact is healthier than a nice lie. That very same sentiment had been expressed by Thomas Jefferson who stated honesty is the primary chapter within the e-book of knowledge. In your query you acknowledged it, I’m talking from an unbiased angle. I’m strictly and foremost for Rivers State and what is going to higher and profit its heaps. My allegiance is to not any particular person however to Rivers State and the generality of its individuals. As Glennon Doyle rightly stated, ‘Each fact is a kindness even when it makes others uncomfortable. Each untruth is unkindness, even when it makes others comfy’, for individuals who want to intentionally misconstrue my place, the passage of time will open their eyes and expose them to the reality I’m saying. I’m at all times on the facet of Justice.
Do you foresee a peaceable finish to this political logjam between the manager and legislative arms and what steps would you advocate on the way in which ahead for governance on the grassroots and the state at giant?
The curiosity of the populace, particularly these on the grassroots needs to be paramount and with that in thoughts, and with an extra understanding that governance is all in regards to the individuals, the camp that views the ruling as ‘victory’ and the opposite that appears aggrieved in your ‘classification of camps within the State’, ought to work in the direction of a compromise for the advantages of the individuals they so professed to like.
And that is the place the necessity for each the Govt and Legislature to sheath their swords not simply because the bastion of democracy that they’re, but in addition because the fulcrum! The judiciary comes into play solely when there are irreconcilable variations that threaten to blow the very essence of democracy to the smithereens. The actual political crises in Rivers State is between the Govt and the Legislature, the Judiciary is simply there to adjudicate. There could be a peaceable finish if each can harmonize on their variations as a result of the reality is that the first cause for this brouhaha is all about safety of their pursuits. That of the populace is secondary, that is an opinion that will not be welcomed by the protagonists on each divides in addition to their prime movers. However, I’ve stated mine the way in which I’ve noticed the entire state of affairs.
Thus far, the State governor stated publicly that he would obey the Supreme Courtroom judgement. He has adopted it up with an invite to the lawmakers for a gathering on how the contentious points, together with a illustration of the 2025 Appropriation invoice shall be resolved. So, I count on the opposite divide to be magnanimous and meet him at a degree. If all these are resolved amicably, it will likely be to the good thing about the individuals of the state.
To your query, proposing a treatment, in fact, from the purpose of regulation, for the nullification of the Rivers State Native Authorities elections, I’ll strongly advocate strict adherence to authorized and procedural steps based mostly on the ruling of the Apex Courtroom. The conduct of a contemporary election in compliance with the Legislation is sacrosanct. The Rivers State Unbiased Electoral Fee (RSIEC) has already fastened an election for August, mainly fulfilling the necessary 90-day discover earlier than the election, as required by Part 150 of the Electoral Act 2022. It then behooves RSIEC to make sure compliance with all different authorized and constitutional necessities, together with correct voter registration and conformity to election pointers. There may be additionally the necessity to search crucial collaboration with the Unbiased Nationwide Electoral Fee (INEC) to make sure credibility.
An unpopular name, within the estimation of some, could be to name for the reconstitution of RSIEC for credibility because the court docket mainly questioned it. The onus is on the Rivers State Authorities to make that change so as to restore public confidence. This new RSIEC should be Unbiased and neutral in organizing Native Authorities Elections within the true sense and that means of the phrases. Members ought to compose of competent and certified individuals legally, with unblemished data who will guarantee truthful and clear elections. RSIEC ought to keep away from the pitfall of non-conformance to Judicial Precedents and Electoral Legal guidelines that was dominated towards it by the court docket.
Very inviolable is for the State Authorities and notably, the Home of Meeting, to each chorus from additional unconstitutional tenure extensions of native Authorities Chairmen and Councilors. The state governor has already jettisoned the concept of Caretaker Chairmen, the lawmakers ought to equally perish ideas of tenure elongation for Chairmen whose tenures had lengthy elapsed.
Any new regulation or modification trying to increase the tenure of Native Authorities officers should align with constitutional provisions and Supreme Courtroom rulings akin to: within the case of Ajuwon v. Governor of Oyo State (2021) LPELR-55339(SC) and that of the Governor of Ekiti State v. Olubunmi (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1551) 7. This compliance with Supreme Courtroom choices ensures the rule of regulation is upheld and prevents additional authorized challenges.
The Federal Authorities, by the Lawyer Basic of the Federation, may also help by monitoring and rushing up compliance with Sections 7 and 162 of the 1999 Structure, which assure Native Authorities autonomy.
The Nationwide Meeting members, notably these from the state, can champion and take into account amendments to the Electoral Act or the Structure to shut loopholes exploited by State Governments to control Native Authorities Elections.
It’s crucial for the political gladiators to think about political dialogue and consensus constructing. The Rivers State Governor, Home of Meeting, and different political stakeholders ought to interact in enduring dialogue to stop additional disputes over native authorities administration.
It’s trite at this juncture for all divides to hunt political options to keep away from additional authorized battles and political instability within the state. This may be performed amicably because the main actors have been a ‘ household’ earlier than and instantly after elections. If actually their fights are associated to the products, wellbeing and growth of the state and its individuals, assembly at a degree and making compromises needs to be a non-issue.
The final perception has been that the perpetual injunction because it pertains to Rivers State Authorities monetary dealings permitting for scrutiny of presidency accounts can’t be vacated and as such governors and authorities officers from 1999 to this point can’t be questioned on monetary issues by related companies. As a regulation scholar, what’s your tackle this?
A perpetual injunction or any injunction may be vacated, however solely underneath particular circumstances. Whereas a perpetual injunction is supposed to be ultimate and indefinite, it isn’t absolute, irreversible or immutable, courts retain the facility to set it apart, modify, or discharge it in sure conditions.
Let me cite a notable Nigerian case on vacating a perpetual injunction in: Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko Nigeria Ltd (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 167) 270. On this case, a perpetual injunction was granted towards the appellant, restraining him from interfering with sure land. Nonetheless, the appellant later utilized to have the injunction put aside, arguing that the factual circumstances had modified. In its judgement, the Courtroom of Enchantment held that whereas a perpetual injunction is supposed to be ultimate, a court docket has the facility to differ, discharge, or set it apart if there’s a materials change in circumstances that makes the injunction pointless or oppressive, the injunction was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation, public coverage or justice requires its discharge.
The importance of this case reaffirmed that perpetual injunctions should not completely irreversible and may be vacated when fairness and justice demand it. Whereas injunctions are supposed to supply indefinite safety, they are often contested if there are vital modifications in circumstances or if new proof emerges.
Counting on the rule of error, the EFCC or any companies saddled with that accountability can method the Courtroom of Enchantment or Supreme Courtroom to evaluation and overturn the ruling. The EFCC can argue that the Federal Excessive Courtroom lacks the facility to grant such an absolute injunction that restricts a statutory company from performing its duties. In A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. Federation (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt. 833) 1, the Supreme Courtroom emphasised {that a} court docket order should not hinder statutory powers of an company except there may be clear constitutional authority to take action.
One other argument could be that the Injunction violates public coverage. Courts typically disfavor injunctions that forestall regulation enforcement companies from investigating crimes. In that stead, the EFCC can argue that the injunction is towards public curiosity because it obstructs its statutory responsibility to research and prosecute corruption circumstances. This was exemplified in Fawehinmi v. I.G.P. (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 606, the Supreme Courtroom held that no particular person might completely defend themselves from investigation by regulation enforcement companies.
One other floor is what we name Vital Change in Circumstances. The appellant can argue that new info or proof have emerged, which weren’t out there on the time the injunction was granted. If new allegations or contemporary monetary irregularities floor, a court docket could rethink its earlier ruling. If funds allegedly misappropriated at the moment are linked to new monetary transactions, the EFCC can argue that contemporary proof warrants a evaluation of the injunction.
Additionally, if the EFCC can show that the injunction was obtained by misrepresentation of info or concealment of fabric data, the court docket has the facility to set it apart. As Within the case of Olu Ibukun v. Olu Ibukun (1974) 2 SC 41, the Supreme Courtroom held {that a} judgment or order obtained by fraud or suppression of fabric info is liable to be put aside.
A legislative intervention from the Nationwide Meeting may be sought by passing a regulation limiting the usage of perpetual injunctions towards investigative companies just like the EFCC. The Fee can foyer for legislative reform to ban courts from granting absolute immunity towards investigations.
There are circumstances reaffirming that courts have the facility to vacate a perpetual injunction when implementing it will result in injustice or contradict public coverage.
Ladunni v. Kukoyi (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 13. On this Nigerian case, the Supreme Courtroom emphasised {that a} perpetual injunction is ultimate however may be put aside if there’s a elementary change in circumstances or if it was granted based mostly on an error.
Cooper v. Reynolds, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 308 (1870) This U.S. case established may be cited as nicely as a result of as a constitutional matter, obtained English Legal guidelines are additionally relevant in our nation. This case famous that an injunction may be vacated if the premise for its issuance ceases to exist. The court docket dominated that an injunction should not proceed indefinitely if the explanations for its existence are now not legitimate.
Within the case of Board of Schooling v. Dickey, 76 W. Va. 51, 84 S.E. 953 (1915) the court docket held {that a} perpetual injunction just isn’t actually “perpetual” if fairness calls for its modification on account of vital modifications in circumstances.
Additionally in that of R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 2) [1991] 1 AC 603, whereas primarily about interim injunctions, this UK case reaffirmed that injunctions (together with perpetual ones) could also be modified or lifted if authorized ideas change.
