This happened as 20 members of Rivers State House of Assembly whose election was nullified by the state legislative election petition tribunal, appealed against the judgment.
Wike had gone before the apex court to challenge the jurisdiction and competence of the tribunal to conduct hearing on the petition filed against his election by the All Progressives Congress, APC, and its governorship candidate in the state, Dr. Dakuku Peterside, outside Rivers State where the said election held.
He contended that the action of the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, in relocating the tribunal to Abuja without due consultation with either the Chief Judge of the state or President of the Customary Court of Appeal, was in breach of Section 285(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the Electoral Act, 2010.
Wike urged the apex court to hold that former chairman of the tribunal, Justice Muazu Pindiga, was wrong to have dismissed the preliminary objection he filed against the jurisdiction of the panel to continue further hearing on the petition, outside Rivers State.
Besides, he wanted the Supreme Court to set aside the verdict of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal which had on September 5, upheld the decision of the tribunal.
Aside the APC and Peterside, also joined as 3rd and 4th respondents in the appeal marked SC/718/2015, were the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.
Though both INEC and PDP did not file any process in support of Wike’s appeal, however, the two respondents, made oral submissions through their counsel, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, and Mr. Gordy Uche, SAN, urging the apex court to rule that the tribunal lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition against the appellant.
Meantime, delivering judgment on the matter, yesterday, a seven-man panel of justices of the apex court led by Justice John Fabiyi, affirmed the verdicts of the two lower courts.
Dismissing Wike’s appeal as lacking in merit, the Supreme Court maintained that the tribunal was validly constituted and entitled to sit in Abuja to exercise its jurisdiction.
The court, yesterday, faulted Wike for placing reliance on the decided case law in Ibori vs Ogboru, saying the case was distinguishable from his own matter.
According to Justice Amiru Sanusi who read the lead judgment, “I have considered the submission of parties and provisions of the law and arrived at the conclusion that the facts in the case of Ibori vs Ogboru which was relied upon by the appellant, are distinguishable from the facts in this case.
“On the former case, it was the tribunal that on its own volition, decided to relocate to Abuja while in the instant case, there were security challenges in Rivers State before the tribunal was relocated.
“More importantly, evidence abound that there were serious security challenges prevailing in Rivers State that called for a doctrine of necessity to be adopted.
“Based on ground of doctrine of necessity, the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA) deemed it proper and expedient to relocate the tribunal to Abuja and that was to safeguard the lives of the chairman and members of the tribunal.
“I am therefore in agreement with the lower court. Similarly, the case of Ogboru vs PCA and Dalhatu vs Turaki are irrelevant and inapplicable to the instant appeal in view of the disparity with the facts in the case at hand.
“I hold that the tribunal was properly constituted by the PCA even without consultation with the Chief Judge or President of the Customary Court of Appeal in Rivers State.
“The PCA has the power to relocate the tribunal to Abuja to hear and determine the petition in view of security challenges prevalent in Rivers state then. Therefore the tribunal was properly constituted.
No merit in the appeal — S-Court
“I am unable to see any merit in this appeal and I hereby dismiss it without any order as to cost”, Justice Sanusi held.
While concurring with the lead verdict, Justice Fabiyi who presided over the apex court panel, noted that at the time the tribunal was relocated to Abuja, there was no sitting Chief Judge or President of the Customary Court of Appeal in the state that the PCA would have consulted as prescribed in Section 285(2) of the Constitution.
“That in effect made the use of the word shall’ in the constitution not feasible. The doctrine of necessity that was adopted by the PCA was on point. Like they said in natural sciences, prevention is better than cure. The PCA took preemptive measures to safeguard the lives of the tribunal chairman and members”, he added.
Other members of the apex court panel who agreed that Wike’s appeal was devoid of merit were Justices Mary Peter-Odili, Joseph Ariwola, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, Suleiman Galadima and Inyang Okoro .
Meanwhile, Wike has gone before the Court of Appeal in Abuja to challenge the nullification of his election by the Justice Suleiman Ambursa-led tribunal.
Wike is contending that the judgment of the tribunal was against the weight of evidence adduced before it.
He specifically faulted the tribunal for placing reliance on a mere election guideline that INEC issued prior to the April 11 gubernatorial poll in the state, rather than the Electoral Act itself.
Wike further argued that the tribunal failed to revert itself to an earlier decision by another governorship panel that sat in Lagos State in the case between Jimi Agbaje and Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, where the issue of Card Reader was also decided.
It will be recalled that the Justice Ambursa-led panel had in its judgment on Saturday, upheld the petition against Wike, stressing that the petitioners were able to successfully prove that the governorship poll was characterised by violence and malpractices.
“We are satisfied with evidence of the petitioners to the effect that substantial number of electorates in Rivers State were disenfranchised as a result of massive and widespread irregularities.
“We are further convinced that the election was characterised by corrupt practices. Consequently, we hold that the 2nd Respondent (Wike) was not validly elected. We hereby order the 1st Respondent (INEC) to conduct a fresh election in Rivers State”, the tribunal ruled.
Besides, it was the view of the panel that INEC did not conduct the election in substantial compliance with both the Electoral Act and its own guidelines for the poll.
It noted that whereas the Commission had in a press release it issued prior to the election, stressed that Card Reader Machines must be used to accredit voters, the tribunal said that evidence that were adduced before it showed that contrary to that directive, INEC officials resorted to manual accreditation of voters for the poll.
Check the Vanguard for the full story.
th
Comments
Post a Comment