Saturday, January 12, 2013

Oshiomhole floors Airhiavbare at Supreme Court

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: