Lawrence Nwimo, Awka
SBM Intelligence, a research organisation and one of the leading consulting outfits in Nigeria, has berated the Supreme Court over its rulings in high-profile cases leading to the 2023 general election.
SBM Intelligence’s recent report obtained by Ikengaonline accused the apex court of not being fair in its ruling, noting that recent events that played out in the court have raised questions about the integrity and independence of the court.
According to the report entitled: “An Elusive Independence: Assessing the Supreme Court Verdict on Ahmed Lawan,” the body said the apex court “has not had the rosiest of times recently had been rocked by a series of scandals in the past few years.”
Citing instances of the scandalous judgments delivered by the apex court, the body recalled the President’s unprecedented suspension of the sitting Chief Justice in 2019, which the Judiciary was reluctant to accept because it had no constitutional backing.
It also recalled how the court overturned the Imo State gubernatorial election in favor of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Hope Uzodimma, despite his finishing fourth on the election log.
The report described what played out in the Nigerian apex court on Monday, 6 February 2023, as a judicial absurdity.
A three-against-two split judgment of its five-member panel, led by Centus Nweze had declared the Senate President, Ahmad Lawan as the rightful senatorial candidate for Yobe North against Bashir Machina’s candidature, despite the former having lost at a High Court and Appellate Court, respectively.
According to the report, “Senator Ahmed Lawan, having ambitions for a loftier office, chose to forgo participating in the Yobe North Senate Primary of the APC in favour of contesting in the presidential primaries.
“He submitted a letter to the state chapter of the APC to this effect and reached for his party’s presidential ticket. In his voluntary absence, the party conducted a primary according to the law, and Bashir Machina emerged unopposed as the party’s Senatorial candidate for the Yobe North seat.
“However, his certified win was challenged when Senator Lawan returned to retrieve his Senatorial seat after his presidential aspirations flamed out. Mr. Machina insisted that he was the right candidate for the Senate seat and refused to hand over the ticket; therefore, Yobe State’s APC decided to conduct a new primary in which Senator Lawan emerged victorious, and his name was sent to INEC.
“This made Mr. Machina take legal action; he won at the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which gave short shrift to the arguments put forth by Senator Lawan and the APC. Their rulings displeased Senator Lawan, who headed to the land’s top court, and (once again) the Court stunned the public by declaring him the authentic APC senatorial candidate despite his non-participation in the only recognized primary that made Mr. Machina the lawful winner.
“The minority decision of the Supreme Court, which consisted of two members of the panel, Adamu Jauro, and Emmanuel Agim held that the conduct of another primary on 9 June 2022, where Mr. Lawan emerged, was in breach of Section 84 (5) of the Electoral Act 2022 as the APC never canceled the primary election which was held on 28 May. The dissenting justices’ position is more sensible. In the lead dissenting judgment, Mr. Jauro held that the APC “appeal is devoid of merit” and slammed a ₦3 million fine against the APC in favor of Mr. Machina.
“Justice Centus Nweze, who wrote the lead majority judgment, however, held the opinion that ”Bashir Machina was wrong to have commenced his suit at the trial court via an originating summons and without oral evidence to prove allegations of fraud,” adding that “his suit ought to have commenced via a writ of summons.” It seems that the leading judgment did not comment on the substance of which primary election was valid and why.
“The court reasoned that Mr. Machina had initiated his suit via the wrong means, thus rendering it incompetent, so the court declined to examine the substance of the matter. The judgment, which was rendered on a procedural technicality, stands in contrast with established precedent and principles of court practice, which affirms that substantial justice should be prioritized over a reliance on technicalities, which can produce odd outcomes such as this judgment.”
It said the recent judgments “have made a mockery of the internal democracy that should play out within political parties and which Nigerian courts have historically sought to protect under fundamental rights principles. It also said the judgment has given credence to the fact that the leadership of political parties can always enforce their preferred candidates, even if the candidate loses or does not even participate in primary contests.”
