The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended created three sets of courts in Nigeria to administer justice. These courts are the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Court. In the judicial hierarchy, the Supreme Court is the highest in the country. In terms of elections and pre-elections, appeals from the Court and the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court in some cases.
The High Court is the highest court in Nigeria. The Constitution has allocated time for the adjudication of cases to these three sets of courts. For example, 180 days and 60 days are provided for the trial court and the Court of Appeal, and the High Court, respectively, as can be seen in section 285 (10) and (11) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. , 1999 as amended.
The basis of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is to correct any error that the Federal High Court may have made in the Pre-Election matter and if any error has been made by the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, our clerk. The Constitution provided for the Supreme Court’s powers and jurisdiction to determine and correct such errors within 60 days.
But recently there has been a worrying trend from the apex court, the Supreme Court where the dignity of the court seems to have surrendered to the principle that if the Federal High Court fails to examine the merits of the case within 180 days, then that is how it is. mistakes can not be corrected on appeal even in cases where the justice of the matter deserves the exercise of the powers vested in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court not only by statute but even the Constitution that creates the right of appeal and appeals jurisdiction of this court.
There is a need for the Supreme Court to re-stand as I will show anon. The right of appeal created by the Constitution is not gifted for non-enforcement. Because our law makers appreciate that mistakes such as not doing what the court wants, the right of appeal is created.
Further by section 6, 233, and 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, whether the failure of the trial court and the Court of Appeal to comply with section 285(8) of the Constitution cannot be stopped. Supreme Court from exercising appellate jurisdiction.
This is because the Constitution does not state that the failure of a trial court or the Court of Appeal to exercise jurisdiction within 180 and 60 days, respectively, cannot be justified by the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not say so and we cannot read into the Constitution what it does not say.
The Constitution has never sought to leave an error in the Federal High Court uncorrected. The Nigerian Supreme Court cannot rob it of its dignity and finality by saying that once the 180 days have passed, whatever mistake the Federal High Court made in not looking into the pre-election matter will remain uncorrected forever.
No, it cannot be the right approach to justice. The Constitution cannot confer supervisory and appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and will be involved in giving interpretations that create injustice in adjudication. Section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, defines the judicial hierarchy of Nigeria to exercise adjudicatory power in all matters between persons, or between the government or authority and any person in Nigeria, and for all actions and proceedings relating thereto with, to determine any question about the civil rights and obligations of the person.
In terms of the adjudicatory powers mentioned in the Constitution, the special grundnorm sets out both the hierarchical order and the procedure through which all claims must be raised, through a systemic and systematic review, before reaching the Supreme Court. Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 says the pre-election will be filed in the Federal High Court.
Section 285(8) of the Constitution explains that: If a preliminary objection or other interlocutory issue related to the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal in the pre-election matter or the authority of the petition itself is submitted by the party, the court. or the court must postpone the decision and send it at the stage of the final judgment.
This section of the Constitution was interpreted by the Supreme Court in APP vs. Obaseki [2022] 13 NWLR 11 (Pt.1846) 1 at 41-42, where prince Ogunwumiji, JSC, stated that: “According to section 285(8) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), every decision capable of terminating an Election petition in limine is preliminary arguments or interlocutory issues touching on the jurisdiction or competence of the court must be postponed or suspended until the final Court when both will be rendered together.
[d]
The provisions of article 285(8) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) are mandatory, because the word ‘shall’ is used there and leaves no room for discretion. The offense sought to be cured by this section is to prohibit the court or tribunal of first instance in election matters from dismissing an election petition in limine based on a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal or the competence of the petition. In the instant case, the Court of Appeals erred in condemning the trial court for adhering to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Even if the bad behavior sought to be cured by section 285(8) of the Constitution is the situation where the court will give a judgment in limine, and a default judgment without considering the merits of the case or the case, experience shows that some courts. judicial officers still violate this provision of the constitution.
If the trial court failed to consider the action on its merits, why did the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refuse to correct the error? Is it fair for the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to see the clear error that jurisdiction is given to them by the Constitution for the authorities to shy away from their constitutional duties and responsibilities under the guise of 180 days? What is the essence of the jurisdiction given to him?
The Supreme Court’s powers and jurisdiction are conferred to check the excesses or errors of the trial court and the Court of Appeal. That is the greatness of the Supreme Court. It is the supreme court of the land. See section 233 and 235 of the Constitution. While section 233 empowers the Supreme Court to review the decisions of the Court of Appeal, section 235 of the Constitution makes the decision of the Supreme Court final. Final in the sense of finality. See Adegoke Motors (Nig.) Ltd vs. Adesanya & Ors. (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 at 274.
How the appeal is withdrawn or counsel is advised to withdraw the appeal based on the principle of 180 days which appears to make the right of appeal to the Supreme Court useless and an option. The Supreme Court should review its position on this issue before the trial court becomes the Supreme Court in the pre-election.
This is because some judex may deliberately decide not to decide the matter for reasons other than justice. The Supreme Court cannot set this policy or standard. To continue to say that the appeal cannot be heard to correct what the court did not do or did not do within 180 days, means that the court has become the last court in the pre-election.
The Supreme Court is a court of policy. See Marwa vs Nyako (2012) 6 NWLR (Part 1296) 199. If the current position is not reviewed quickly and abandoned, it means that the Supreme Court unwittingly supports a very dangerous policy that the current court can wait until the end. Statutory time is allocated to deliver the judgment, which said the judgment, they can raise the issue suo motu and get rid of the claims without hearing the merits of this case and the possibility of such a decision that is seen in the appeal becomes impossible.
That cannot be done in the interests of justice. Not even for the sake of the existence of the Supreme Court. It will not be in the interest of the greatness of the Supreme Court. No, it can’t.
In Ebodaghe vs. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt 905) 472 at 494 – 495, the High Court explained that even if there is a challenge to jurisdiction, the court must decide any issue. greatness, to leave them intact. On this foot alone, that is, the majesty of the court which must always be right, the Supreme Court must and should review its current position on the question of 180 days on the jurisdiction to hear the aggrieved party.
To be continued tomorrow
Okutepa is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).