The judgement of Imo State governorship election petitions between Emeka Ihedioha and Hope Uzodima by Supreme Court has received wide criticisms from the public and the members of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in particular to the extent of leading to protest. Many Lawyers including PDP sympathizers have advised the PDP and its candidate in 2019, Imo State Governorship Election, Emeke Ihedioha to approach the Supreme Court to review and reverse itself on its just-concluded judgement that upturned the results declared by INEC that saw Emeka Ihedioha as the winner of the 2019 governorship election in Imo State.

The emphasis of this discourse would be on the power of the Supreme Court to review and reverse its decision given in the same case, on an election petition.

As in the case of Hope Uzodima versus Emeke Ihedioha. Whereas, the Supreme Court’s judgement was highly condemned as miscarried. In a situation that saw the Supreme Court declaring results that were more than the total number of registered and accredited voters in Imo State Governorship Election. It is on this footing many people are calling for the review of the judgement. In view of the timeline provided for in filling and disposing of election petitions by the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as Amended and the extant Electoral Act 2010 as Amended.

The Power Of The Supreme Court To Review And Reverse Its Judgement Given In The Same Case.

The Supreme Court is inherently empowered to set aside its judgment given in the same case when the judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit either on the Court or by one or more of the parties.

The judgment can be impeached or set aside by means of an action which may be given rise to without leave, or where the judgment is a nullity. A person affected by an order of the Court which can properly be described as a nullity is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside, and when it is obvious that the Court was misled into giving such judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties had consented to it.

The Power Of The Supreme Court To Overrule Itself On A Prior Decisions

The Supreme Court in exercising its powers has developed a large body of judicial decisions, or “precedents,” interpreting the Constitution. How the Court uses precedent to decide controversial issues has prompted debate over whether the Court should follow rules identified in prior decisions or overrule them. The Court’s treatment of precedent implicates longstanding questions about how the Court can maintain stability in the law by adhering to precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis while correcting decisions that rest on faulty reasoning, unworkable standards, abandoned legal doctrines, or outdated factual assumptions.

Thus, the Supreme Court may revisit its judgement under Order 8 Rule 16, Supreme Court Rules to correct clerical errors or omissions or gaps to give meaning to the judgement of the Court.

We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final – Late Justice Oputa.

The above quote by Late Justice Chikwudifu Oputa speaks much about the power of the Supreme Court to overrule itself on a prior judgement. A case in point is the case of ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD V ADESANYA (1989) 13 NWLR (Pt. 109)


The Power Of The Supreme Court To Reverse Itself In The Same Case In An Election Petitions.

Election Petitions are “suis generis” meaning that they are specific, have a life of their own, have special character and are regulated by procedures.

The Constitutional provision as to the limitation of time within which election petitions and appeals therefrom must be filed and concluded has remained a dual-edged sword, as in the way and manner election petitions are given attention to in Nigerian Courts.

On the one hand, it is a salutary reform that cured the mischief of prolonged election petitions procedures that often enabled the beneficiaries of ‘stolen’ electoral mandate to hold political offices for several years before final judgment is secured, nullifying their elections and sacking them from the offices they fraudulently occupied.

On the other hand, the limitation of time prejudiced numerous meritorious election Petitions, which were unfortunately struck out for being choked by the time frame.

Section 285 (5. - 8.) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides as follows:

a. An election petition shall be filed within 21 days after the date of declaration of results of the election;

b. An Election Tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition;

c. An appeal from a decision of the Election Tribunal or Court shall be heard and disposed within 60 days from the date of the delivering of the judgment of the Tribunal;

d. The Court in all appeals from election Tribunals may adopt the practice of first giving its decision and reserving the reasons thereto for the decision to a later date.

The Supreme Court has leaned towards a very strict interpretation of the above Constitutional provisions brooking no discretion whatsoever on the part of the Court to extend any of the time limits under any circumstance.

Thus, in the case of ANPP V Goni the Supreme Court, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, left no one in doubt about its attitude to the Constitutional timeline for election petitions:

The period of 180 days is not limited to trials but also to de novo trials that may be ordered by an Appeal Court. Once an election petition is not concluded within 180 days from the date the petition was filed by the petitioner, an election Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to hear the petition and this applies to rehear. The period of 180 days shall at all times be calculated from the date the petition was filed.

Still in the above case, the Supreme Court, per Onnoghen, JSC further opined and so held that:

Courts do not have the vires to extend the time assigned by the Constitution. The time cannot be extended or expanded or elongated, or in any way enlarged. The time fixed by the Constitution is like the “Rock of Gibraltar” or Mount Zion, which cannot be moved. If what is to be done is not done within the time so fixed, it lapses as the Court is thereby robbed of the jurisdiction to continue to entertain the matter.

It was the same cerebral Onnoghen, JSC, who in the case of Felix Amadi & Anor. V INEC & Ors also foreclosed any hope of judicial magnanimity for enlargement of time in election petition appeals. He categorically pronounced that the time limit of 60 days for election petition appeals as provided in Section 285 (7) of the Constitution was sacrosanct. He reasoned that the obvious intendment of the Legislature in making that provision was to limit time and not to extend it. According to the Jurist, it would, therefore, be inappropriate and indeed illegal to interpret the provision to attain the effect of extending the time therein allotted.

The Supreme Court has shown great reluctant and as well total refusal to act as an Appeal Court over itself, with inundated appeals to review its decision given in the same case.

A good example is the case of Dr Andy Uba, who had earlier gone to the Supreme Court to ask for the revalidation of his alleged victory at the April 14, 2007 governorship election and return him to office after the Supreme Court threw out his case, approached a seven-man panel of the court to get the court to set aside its judgment which terminated his two weeks tenure as the Governor of Anambra State in 2007.

The Court in its ruling delivered by the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Idris Kutigi, observed that Dr Uba’s attempt at luring the court into setting aside its judgment which was delivered on June 14, 2007, was a gross abuse of the Court process and maintained that there must be an end to litigation.

This was again reaffirmed in the case of Prof. Steve Torkuma Ugba vs. Gabriel Torwua Suswam, where the issue for determination was whether, given the facts of the case, the applicants satisfied the conditions to warrant the Supreme Court to set aside its earlier ruling.

The advantage of this stance is that it fosters stability, enhances development of consistent and coherent body of laws, preserves continuity and manifests respect for the past, assures equality of treatment for litigants similarly situated, spares the judges the task of reexamining rules of law or principles with each succeeding case and finally, it affords the law a desirable measure of predictability.

Based on the foregoing, on the issue of Supreme Court to act as an Appeal Court over its judgement on Imo State Governorship Election Petition between Hope Uzodima and Emeka Ihedioaha. It is rightly so to note that what is to be disposed of has in a way hit the rock and can go nowhere else.

It would be informed to note that the Court of Appeal reached its judgement on Imo State Governorship Election Petitions on the 19th of November 2019. While the Supreme Court, in turn, disposed of the appeals on the 14th of January 2020

Going by computation of time, the timeline for filling and concluding an election petition has elapsed.

It is in order for one to conclude that the 2019 Imo State Governorship Election Petition has gotten to its final judicial junction.

This is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in an Election Petition case between PDP and GOVERNOR OKOROCHA & 10 OTHERS in Suit No. SC/17/2012 delivered on 2nd March 2012, where Odili, JSC, held in a most profound manner and characteristic candour as follows-

“What is to be disposed of has in a way hit the rock and can go nowhere else. That is to say, the legal dispute or process has reached its final destination and is at grand finale”.

The advice that the PDP and its candidate to approach the Supreme Court for reviewing its judgement can be said is belated and go contrary to the Constitution of Nigeria.

Aidomokhai Cyril Longe is a Law Graduate.

https://www.barristerng.com/imo-state-governorship-election-petitions-revisiting-and-reversing-of-supreme-courts-judgement-and-the-time-limits-for-filling-and-conclusion-of-election-petitions-by-aidomokhai-cyril-longe/

If Supreme Court should reverse itself Mohammed Tanko and the other 12 senior Judges should be ready to answer question when Buhari returns to the country, Buhari is making Nigeria look like a low budget Norh Korea, Democratic but autocratic

If it's true that Uzodimma presented figures where total vote cast exceeded number of registered voters, then that's a sufficient ground for supreme court to overrule itself.

It's called fresh facts emerging.

But imagine supreme court reinstates Ihedioha, what about those that defected

If it's true that Uzodimma presented figures where total vote cast exceeded number of registered voters, then that's a sufficient ground for supreme court to overrule itself.

It's called fresh facts emerging.

But imagine supreme court reinstates Ihedioha, what about those that defected..

Good analysis but please let us be patient till the Justices of the Supreme Court rule on the new prayers laid before them. Let us allow them to do their constitutional tasks for which they are paid. It is only when they speak that they have spoken. Till then, let us wait.

I still maintained that the supreme court judgement on the Imo guber election case is simply a judicial hatchet job hastily done in a stupid way.The judges have simply subjected the apex court to disgrace & shame.

So the only honourable option left for the court is to revisit this fraudulently obtained & incongruent victory in background of the equally fraudulent concocted electoral figures paraded by Uzodinma that was legalized by judges of the Supreme Court.

Why should they?

Where on this crust that Supreme court judgements overturned?

Pdp should have presented reputable lawyers, the judges might have asked for reelection instead of declaring Hope the winners.

NaijaDonCast:
If Supreme Court should reverse itself Mohammed Tanko and the other 12 senior Judges should be ready to answer question when Buhari returns to the country, Buhari is making Nigeria look like a low budget Norh Korea, Democratic but autocratic

It is true, why did you not complain about Ortom and Tambuwal's verdict, indeed President Buhari is spoiling Nigeria?, please find a better excuse.

Racoon:
I still maintained that the supreme court judgement on the Imo guber election case is simply a judicial hatchet job hastily done in a stupid way.The judges have simply subjected the apex court to disgrace & shame.

So the only honourable option left for the court is to revisit this fraudulently obtained & incongruent victory in background of the equally fraudulent concocted electoral figures paraded by Uzodinma that was legalized by judges of the Supreme Court.

Waste of time, God (The Supreme Court) has spoken.

NaijaDonCast:
If Supreme Court should reverse itself Mohammed Tanko and the other 12 senior Judges should be ready to answer question when Buhari returns to the country, Buhari is making Nigeria look like a low budget Norh Korea, Democratic but autocratic

. The judges are not 12 they are seven, mostly known as bandits, especially Kudirat Kekere Ekun, who was posted to the supreme Court through the influence of Tinubu, she is known for giving frivelous judgment, like the case of fraudulent judgement between APC Oyetola and PDP Adeleke in Osun state, the case if Liyel Imoke PDP in Cross Rivers State against Nte of ACN, and latest the of Emeka Ihedioha PDP and Hope Uzodinma APC

[quote author=Awol1 post=86485540]If it's true that Uzodimma presented figures where total vote cast exceeded number of registered voters, then that's a sufficient ground for supreme court to overrule itself.

It's called fresh facts emerging.

But imagine supreme court reinstates Ihedioha, what about those that defected..[/quote. That is the fear of APC and their supporters they don't want to experience the earthquake will happen that is why all of them are indirectly calling the supreme Court not to review the judgement]

Reverse itself?

A dream that can never come true.

The position of governor doesn't go to the loudest contestant.

It's not a shouting match.

NaijaDonCast:
If Supreme Court should reverse itself Mohammed Tanko and the other 12 senior Judges should be ready to answer question when Buhari returns to the country, Buhari is making Nigeria look like a low budget Norh Korea, Democratic but autocratic

durangokid:
. The judges are not 12 they are seven, mostly known as bandits, especially Kudirat Kekere Ekun, who was posted to the supreme Court through the influence of Tinubu, she is known for giving frivelous judgment, like the case of fraudulent judgement between APC Oyetola and PDP Adeleke in Osun state, the case if Liyel Imoke PDP in Cross Rivers State against Nte of ACN, and latest the of Emeka Ihedioha PDP and Hope Uzodinma APC

You forgot to include also the lead judgement she delivered in Wike vs Peterside 2015

Waste of time, energy and resources.

A total waste of time, Imo is the only state in the east APC has structure, hence losing it means that they will not have a representative state in the east and secondly the issue of getting at least 24 states in order to be sure of retaining power in 2023. It was a deliberate act.
The Seven Judges should remember that nothing last forever. Only Good legacy will definitely stand the test of time. They have failed Nigerians and their names are already dented.