Some Nigerians have applauded Friday’s
judgment by the Supreme Court that dismissed the non-qualification
petition by the Peoples Democratic Party’s governorship candidate in Edo
State, Maj.-Gen. Charles Airhiavbare (retd.), against Governor Adams
Oshiomhole.
The state Deputy Governor, Pius Odubu;
Executive Director, African Network for Environmental and Economic
Justice, Revd. David Ugolor; Coordinator, Oshiomhole Peoples Brigade,
Athanasius Ugbome; and former Edo PDP governorship aspirant, Jacob
Idinye, are among those who commented on the judgment.
Odubu said he had stated it from the
beginning that the PDP candidate’s petition was dead on arrival based on
his (Odubu) training as a lawyer.
“As far as we are concerned, it was a
serious abuse of court process. First, the oracle spoke and they did not
believe; now God has spoken through the Supreme Court and I am sure
they now believe,” he said.
Ugolor said the outcome of the case
showed clearly that people must continue to encourage the culture of
rule of law, which provides an enabling environment for the ordinary man
to secure justice.
“This victory of Oshiomhole is a victory to the people of Edo State, the people of Nigeria and to democracy.
“Through this, the judiciary has once
again shown to the people that they are not just the defenders of the
ordinary man, but also the protectors of the ordinary man.
“I hope that this will encourage other
political oppositions to join forces with the governor to bring more
development to the state by taking a cue from their United Kingdom and
American counterparts/politicians, who, after defeats, join the winner
to develop their nations rather than dragging the winner down,” he said.
Ugbome commended the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices for what he called a “landmark judgment.”
He said, “It shows that democracy in
Nigeria has come to stay, and to the Edo people, it is just the
beginning of more dividends of democracy, which the governor has
started. Edo people and indeed true lovers of democracy across the state
are happy with the pronouncement of the court.
“I urged the petitioner (Airhiavbere) to
chew the bitter pill of defeat and support the transformation agenda of
the governor rather than embark on a wide goose chase.”
The Supreme Court had set aside the
decision of the Benin Division of the Court of Appeal, which ordered the
reconstitution of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal
to hear allegations that Oshiomhole was not qualified to be governor.
Earlier on September 27, 2012, the
tribunal, then headed by Justice Suleiman Ambrussa, dismissed a petition
brought by the PDP candidate against Oshiomhole’s election in the July
14, 2012 poll.
The tribunal held that claims by the
petitioner that Oshiomhole was not qualified to contest the election was
a pre-election matter and therefore, outside its area of jurisdiction.
But in a unanimous decision, the Court
of Appeal, Benin, on November 15, 2012, chaired by Justice Helen
Ogunwumiju, set aside the verdict of the tribunal, and ruled that the
Acting President of the Court of Appeal should reconstitute the tribunal
to hear Airhiavbare’s allegations that Oshiomhole was not qualified to
occupy the position.
The development prompted Oshiomhole to approach the Supreme Court in a bid to set aside the decision of the appellate court.
Delivering judgment in the matter on
Friday, the panel of justices of the Supreme Court held that the only
ground raised by Airhiavbare in his petition against Oshiomhole’s
election was that the said election did not comply with the Electoral
Act, it had no link with the allegation that the governor was not
qualified.
Reading the lead judgment, Justice Bode
Rhodes-Vivour maintained that the petitioner did not raise the issue of
non-qualification in his petition, and that the Court of Appeal was
making a case for the petitioner by ordering the tribunal to hear the
allegation of non-qualification.
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal lacked such powers.
It also stressed that the only relevant
paragraph in the petition was paragraph 30, which dealt with
non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
Rhodes-Vivour said, “A petitioner who
makes non-qualification a ground for the nullification of an election
should present grounds to support that claim.
“There is no nexus between the petition and the issue of non-qualification.
“The laid down position of the law is
that a party must be consistent in his submissions. The petition is
irredeemably inconsistent.
“It would amount to going on a voyage in
search of grounds to entertain it. The issue of non-qualification is
not properly before the court.
“The tribunal has no jurisdiction to
determine the qualification of the candidate as no grounds supporting
that were presented before it.
“The judgment of the Court of Appeal is hereby set aside and the judgment of the tribunal is hereby restored.”
Oshiomhole’s lawyers, led by Chief Wole
Olanipekun, SAN, had argued that the PDP candidate, Airhiavbere, did not
specifically plead the issue of qualification in the petition.
Olanipekun further argued that there was no basis for the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
According to him, the petitioner
grounded his petition on corrupt practices and non-compliance with the
Electoral Act 2010, but not on Oshiomhole’s non-qualification for the
office of governor.
He said, “The Court of Appeal made a case for the respondent (Airhiavbere) which the respondent did not make for himself.”
Stressing that the petition only
challenged results in five out of 18 local governments in the state,
Olanipekun noted that the “PDP honourably withdrew from the petition
because it was hopeless.”
However, Airhiavbere’s counsel, Chief
Efe Akpofure, SAN, had asked the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm
the judgment of the lower court.
He argued that the tribunal did not say
that there was no ground to sustain the allegation that Oshiomhole did
not have the qualification to stand for an election as governor.
Akpofure held that the fact that
non-qualification was not made a separate ground was not a basis to hold
that there was no ground in the pleadings to sustain the allegation
that Oshiomhole was not qualified.
He noted that the grounds would be established if the court read the petition as a whole.
PUNCH
No comments:
Post a Comment