“It is the right of every man, in parliament or out of it, in press or broadcast, to make fair comment, even open comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment may faithfully treat all that is done.” in a court of law.” -Lord Denning in R vs. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Exparte Blackburn (No. 2) (1968) 2 QB 150.
In a unanimous judgment in Lawsuit No: SC 1462/2019 (Senator Hope Uzodinma & Anor vs. Rt Hon. Emeka Ihedioha & 2 Others) delivered on Tuesday, January 14, 2020, a seven-man panel of the Nigerian Supreme Court canceled the election. of the former Governor of Imo State, Emeka Ihedioha, and ordered the immediate swearing-in of Hope Uzodinma as the validly elected Governor of Imo State. In light of Lord Denning’s earlier opinion, the Imo Progressive Lawyers Association (IPLF) has felt it necessary to ask some relevant questions about the High Court ruling that removed Emeka Ihedioha.
First of all, we dare to state that both Ihedioha and Uzodinma are respected sons of NDI IMO. This reflection responds specifically to the controversy generated by the Supreme Court ruling since it was issued. More importantly, it is not lost on us that former Governor Ihedioha has approached the high court for a review of the sentence that removed him. The consequence is that, having submitted the matter to the Supreme Court, it remains subjugation. As lawyers, we are aware that commenting on cases sub justice are generally considered inappropriate. However, we are compelled to ask the following questions after having read the full judgment of the high court.
Before delving into the facts of the matter, it is instructive to note that Section 179(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) deals with the votes a candidate must obtain in an election for Governor in order to be elected. declared winner. That section provides:
179 (2): A candidate for election to the office of governor of a state shall be deemed to have been duly elected when there are two or more candidates:
- has the highest number of votes cast in the election; Y
- he has no less than a quarter of all votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of all local government areas in the state.
Guided by the above constitutional directives, we examine the indisputable facts in the recent ruling. Specific facts to keep in mind are:
-
The 1st Appellant (Hope Uzodinma) filed a motion challenging the return of the 1st Defendant (Emeka Ihedioha) on two grounds:
(a) The 1st Respondent was not validly elected by a majority of legitimate votes cast; Y
(b) The statement and return of the 1st Defendant is invalid for breach of the Electoral Law. (See page 2 of the main judgment delivered by KudiratMotonmoriOlatokunboKekere-Ekun JSC).
-
Elections were held in 27 Local Government Areas, 305 constituencies and 3,523 voting units. The Third Defendant (INEC) canceled the election in 252 voting units, collated the results of 2,883 voting units, and excluded the results of 388 voting units. The First Defendant asserted that he obtained 213,695 votes from only the 388 voting units excluded. (See pages 2-3 Judgment of Kekere-Ekun JSC).
-
Paragraph 7, a, b, c, d, e and f of the 3rd Defendant’s Reply (INEC) categorically denied the assertions of the Appellant’s petition, especially the incorrect calculation of the election results as alleged. (See pages 31-32 of the Kekere-Ekun JSC judgment).
Having established the law and the undisputed facts in the matter, we seek to raise the following questions regarding the sentence:
A. The Appellant (Hope Uzodinma) alleged that he obtained more than 213,000 votes from 388 voting units. However, during the trial, his star witness, PW54, a police officer, only provided the results of 366 voting units instead of 388. The findings of the Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court also established that PW54 provided the results of 366 votes. voting units vs. 388 voting units. Doesn’t this discrepancy place the Supreme Court in your investigation?
B. The court is required to take judicial notice that the maximum number of voters per voting unit is 500, unless additional polling places are created. Again, 500 voters multiplied by 388 voting units cannot be more than 194,000.00 votes. In other words, 500 voters multiplied by 366 would also give only a possible maximum of only 183,000 votes. Mindful of the certainty of deaths, voter transfers, and voter apathy, the chance of all 500 voters in each of the 388 (or 366) electoral units voting during an election is very remote, if not impossible. So, whether by 366 or by 388 voting units, the figures presented by the Appellant leave large mathematical and logical gaps that should be put to the higher court in its investigation.
C. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court refused to hear the First Defendant’s (Emeka Ihedioha) cross-appeal, holding that the main appeal had made it unnecessary to review the cross-appeal. With all due respect to the superior court, perhaps, had the cross-appeal been assessed on its merits, some of the questions highlighted above might have been resolved.
D. In light of A and B above, is the Supreme Court satisfied that the conditions laid down in Section 179(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) have been fully met as would warrant the annulment of Ihedioha’s election and declaration of Uzodinma as the actual winner?
Justice, they say, is not a cloistered virtue. It must be allowed to suffer the respectful, even frank, scrutiny and comments of common men.” – “Lord Atkin in Amber vs. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (1936) AC 322, 335. As ministers in the temple of justice and equally as stakeholders in the IMO architecture of government,
Lord Atkin’s warning prompts the Imo Progressive Lawyers Association to raise the above legal issues. We present these concerns as amicus curia, fueled by a deep concern that the doctrine of fixed decision would be threatened if these issues are not fully reconsidered by the higher court.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court is a court of policy, with its decisions binding not only on all lower courts, but also on all other institutions and executive arms of government. In accordance with the full binding of the Supreme Court ruling, Hope Uzodinma was promptly sworn in as governor. Therefore, our main concern is that justice prevails. Not only that, every state regime must derive its legitimacy from popular democracy and the sound application of the rule of law.
We end our reflections by referring to the following quotes from Lord Denning in his book ‘The Road to Justice’ (1955):
“In every court in England you will find, I think, a newspaper reporter… He takes note of everything that happens and makes a fair and accurate report of it… I sincerely believe he is the guardian of justice… The The judge will take care to ensure that the trial is conducted fairly and properly if he realizes that any injustice or wrongdoing on his part will be noted by those present in court and may be reported in the press. He will be more anxious to give a correct decision if he knows that his reasons must be justified in the court of public opinion..
And also:
“When a judge sits on a case, he himself is on trial…If there is any misconduct on (his) part, any bias or prejudice, there is a reporter to keep an eye on him.“Lord Denning in his speech to the High Court Journalists Association, as reported in the Times of December 3, 1964.
Signed Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri, Secretary General
Matthias Emeribe, Advertising Secretary,
