OSUN: US Nigeria Law Group Condemns Supreme Court Verdict

A group, the US Nigeria Law Group, on Friday, challenged the outcome of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Osun Guber Poll, saying that the verdict of one judge should not be enough ground to vitiate that of the panel.

The group in a statement signed by Barrister Emmanuel Ogebe and made available to Daily Independent suggested that the court ought to have ordered a retrial if for any reason the justices felt a fair trial was not accorded.

According to the group, an intellectually dexterous court could have eliminated the ruling of the particular judge in question and resolved the matter on the strength of the other judges present.

The statement read in parts, “How does this Osun judgment measure up considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the Saraki case that an incompletely constituted Code of Conduct Tribunal was still competent to sit?

“Secondly, why not order a retrial if for any reason the justices felt a fair trial was not afforded? Regardless of the time limitation set by the constitution, the court could have erred on the side of justice and democracy to order a retrial and deem it to be in order as all necessary processes were filed timorously.

“The dissenting opinion of one judge cannot supersede the verdict of a panel, therefore, questions regarding the verdict of one judge cannot and should not vitiate that of the panel,” the group stated.

Furthermore, the group stated that the people of Osun state, the Nigerian legal system and indeed country’s democracy had been ill-served by this terrible travesty.

“We now have a country where a ghost code of conduct tribunal can sit and write a mysterious judgment which Buhari quickly obeyed. Now we have a judgment by a real election tribunal which has discarded on speculation that a judge was absent. It is one thing when the executive violates their own constitution but when courts begin to doubt their own records, we are truly finished.

“Sadly following the rape of the judiciary by this government, it could only be expected that the resulting pregnancy would have a strange offspring of doubtful antecedents.

In an analysis, the group stated that when the 2000 United States presidential election challenge reached the Supreme Court, the court ordered that the case should go back to Florida courts for retrial at which point the candidate Vice President P Al Gore conceded to the leading challenger George Bush, adding that had sustained the spirit of democracy.

The group likened the ruling to the declaration of the judge and the ruling All Progressives Party (APC) winner after both had missed their shots.

The statement added, “We commend the dissenting Justices Akaahs and Galinje JJSC for their sensible, commonsensical approach to this matter. Future generations will be guided accordingly that not everyone subscribed to this claptrap”.


https://www.independent.ng/osun-us-nigeria-law-group-condemns-supreme-court-verdict/

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the appeal filed by candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2018 Osun governorship election, Ademola Adeleke, against the election of Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC). The apex court in a majority judgment of 5 to 2 upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja which nullified the judgment of the Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal on the grounds that the tribunal was not properly constituted in regards to numbers. The majority decision which was delivered by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, agreed with the lower court that the absence of Justice Peter Obiorah from the proceedings of February 6, who delivered the lead judgment was fatal to the case of the appellants. The apex court accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the election of Oyetola as governor of Osun State. Reading the verdict of the apex court, it is clear the majority based their decision on technical breach of procedure rather than on the substantive merit of the case against INEC. Senator Ademola Adeleke According to By Dr Charles Omole, a legal technicality is a small but ultimately important detail of the law. When a case is decided on “a technicality”, it means the plaintiff would have won but for some – though small – oversight or misinterpretation of a rule, or a procedural mistake he lost the case. The court said the judge who had read the majority judgement at the tribunal, Justice Peter Obiora, was “evidently absent” on February 6th, 2019, following the documents before the court. In this case, the Supreme court says because the Lead judge in the Tribunal did not sign the attendance sheet on 6th February, it is assumed that he was not in attendance; hence cannot be a judge in a case he did not hear its facts and details. Justice Bode Rhodes- Vivour who delivered the majority judgment supported by five of the seven- justices held that it is settled law that when “the rightly constituted panel of a court does not seat the activities carried out by that panel is a nullity.” However, Justice Akaahs in his minority judgment held that INEC in an election ought to remain an unbiased umpire because even when it erred in law by relying on it’s manual to cancel some aspects of the election, the applicant still met the constitutional requirements of having the highest votes cast and spread. But the Election umpire went ahead to cancel the election and carried out a rerun showing that INEC had a plan up its sleeves. It appears then that while the Majority based their verdict on a Procedural breach, the Minority based theirs on Substantive justice, ignoring the technicality relied upon by their majority colleagues. Osun State governor, Agboyega Oyetola So who made the right decision? From publicly available facts, Justice Obiora stated he was in court on 6th February but forgot to sign the attendance register. APC in its appeal argued that the judge’s failure to sign at the end of the proceedings on February 6, 2019, was enough evidence to justify their claim that Justice Obiora was absent on the day. Thus at the Appeal and Supreme Courts, the case was no longer about substantive discrepancies and illegalities alleged against INEC. It was hinged solely on legality of the Composition of the Tribunal on 6th Feb. On one hand, I can see why procedural justice should be promoted as an aid to substantive justice, after all, the fruit from a poisonous tree is also equally poisonous, on the other hand, the court should have put more weight on what is at stake in this case. Verdicts like this does not develop our jurisprudence as all the substantive matters about INEC’s conduct have not been addressed by either the Appeal or Supreme courts. They simply focused on the procedural irregularity and dismissed the case on that ground alone. So we are not better informed on whether INEC can do what it did in Osun in future elections or not as the courts turned willfully blind eyes on the substantive issues. Justice Obiora, could have been deposed on oath to ascertain his attendance and the courts can then focus on the substantive issues that will help develop our law and polity. That is what is needed; not simply a technical judgement; especially when the technical irregularity was not the fault of all parties to the case. A judicial irregularity of such pettiness, that could have been remedied as suggested above should not have been relied upon solely to vitiate a verdict such that the substantive allegations were not explored by the justices. The Supreme court should have ordered a retrial. This is becoming a pattern. In the case of former Supreme Court Justice Onnoghen, the court of appeal dismissed the case because, “it has been overtaken by events” because Onoghen has resigned. In my opinion however, Onoghen’s resignation should not have affected a full verdict that would have developed our laws and set justiciable precedents to grow our jurisprudence. As a result of their reluctance to address the substantive issue of whether the President has power to suspend a CJN, we are left non the wiser and so a President can therefore confidently suspend a CJN in future as the appeal court did not address that question at all. Using mere technicalities to decide cases on certain magnitude is a disservice to justice and in certain cases can be result of judicial corruption. It is almost certain that the current Presidential election petition could also be decided purely based on technicalities if these precedents hold. This is not about APC or PDP. When a substantial wrong is alleged, the court should give their verdicts on the allegations and not simply dismiss such cases on mere technicalities. At the very least, the courts could dismiss a case based on technicalities and still give opinions on the substantive matters in ways that informs and grow our common law. That is what Lord Denning did in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees Ltd , (Obiter) where although the case was dismissed, the judge nevertheless used its facts to re-establish the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in modern English Law on Contract. I am not a lawyer but if this case was decided based on technical breaches as listed here which is not the fault of any of the parties involved, then a very wrong precedence has been set by the Supreme court. To simply dismiss cases on technicalities while failing to address alleged substantial illegalities perpetuates impunity and weakens the rule of law. This must stop now! DISCLAIMER : Opinion articles are solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the publishers of Elombah News

https://elombah.com/review-of-supreme-court-verdict-on- osun-governorship-election/

Supreme Court Ruling On Osun Gov Poll: Victory By Technical Justice Calls For Sober Reflection On Nigerian Justice System By Dr. A.S Ishola


Like many other cases similarly decided by the Supreme Court, the incumbent Governor of Osun State has won his election petition at the Supreme Court on technical ground.
I do strongly believe that technical justice is a legal way by
which injustice is still allowed to thrive in our justice system.
If beneficiaries of technical justice were to be guided by
Islamic justice tenets, they would realize that, if by technical
justice, they are judicially given what does not belong to them, it is hell fire that is being handed over to them.
This is how Prophet Muhammad used to admonish the
litigants that came to him.
The same also goes to lawyers who employ technicalities to
defeat the course of justice which they themselves glaringly
know. Like Professor ALARO said, such technical justice
lawyers who are Muslims should warn themselves lest their
legal practice become the price they pay for their divine
salvation in the hereafter.
For judges, Islamic law has made it clear that there are three
types of judges and only one of them will earn the divine
pleasure of their Creator.
For any litigant that is denied his entitlement on technical
ground, let him be comforted that his prayer as an oppressed person has direct entrance to his Creator.
The above is not however in particular reference to the
recently delivered judgment of the Supreme Court, but on the need for our justice system to do away with technical justice practice. Many tears are out there which have refused to dry up because they were denied what belongs to them by technical justice.

Written by Dr. A.S Ishola.



https://thenigerialawyer.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-osun-gov-poll-victory-by-technical-justice-calls-for-sober-reflection-on-nigerian-justice-system-by-dr-a-s-ishola/

The wailing just started.if the supreme court verdict in zamfara can award the governorship victory to a loser and their was travesty of justice then the osun own is in order.sniper is always available for the dancing crew.

Barrister Emmanuel Ogebe is in sifia pain

A paid Judge could easily abscond to pervert judgement. This is a terrible precedence. Is it Adeleke that is supposed to suffer the negligence of a judge?

Aftreall the judge was not even quarried or sanctioned for his negligence. I feel a retrial or a rerun would have been ordered by the supreme Court.