Godwin Tsa Abuja
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, refused to reverse its judgment that sacked David Lyon and Degi-Eremieoyo as governor and deputy-governor elect of Bayelsa state under the platform of the All Progressive Congress (APC).
In a unanimous judgment, a seven-man panel of Justices of the apex court headed by Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, dismissed the two different applications that sought the setting aside of the February 13 judgment that went against Lyon and his deputy.
Justice Amina Augie, who delivered the lead judgment described the fresh applications that were filed by Lyon and his deputy, as well as the All Progressive Congress, APC, as “highly vexatious, frivolous and gross abuse of the judicial process”.
It held that the applications were aimed at “desecrating the sanctity of the court”, stressing that it was an invitation for the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its final judgment in violation of the Constitution.
She said there was no doubt that the applications were aimed to review a final judgement of the apex court, in violation of Order 8 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Act.
She said the sole aim of the Applicants was to set-aside “operative and substantive parts of the judgement”, despite the provision of section 235 of the 1999 constitution, as amended, that gave the Supreme Court the final say in every appeal.
“Once this court has finally determined an issue, it is functus-officio. It is final forever, only legislation can alter it. It is final for all ages. No force on earth can get this court to shift its position on Bayelsa matter”, Justice Augie held.
She said even if the apex court was minded to review its judgement, there was no guarantee that the PDP and its candidates would not also file their own application for a review.
There must be an end to litigation to ensure certainty in the law”, she added, saying “there must be finality to decision of the court”.
Justice Augie held that if the applications were not dismissed, “every disaffected litigant will bring appeals ad-infinitum. This must not be allowed”.
She expressed her disappointment that counsel to the Applicants, being senior members of the legal profession, encouraged their clients to desecrate the sanctity of the apex court.
Consequently, Justice Augue awarded a cost of N10million each against Lyon, Degi-Eremieoyo and APC, to be paid in favour of governor Douye Diri, his deputy, Lawrence Ewhruojakpo and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.
She ordered that the cost should be personally paid by lawyers to all the Applicants.
Earlier, Lyon and his deputy had through their lawyer, Chief Afe Babalola, SAN, maintained that the Supreme Court had inherent powers to set aside its own judgement when it constituted a nullity.
Babalola, SAN, contended that the judgement was a nullity as it amounted to a breach of the right of fair hearing of his clients.
He contended that his client was not asking the court to review its judgment, but to set it aside.
He said,:“The issues which I addressed in the documents include, among others, whether or not the Supreme Court can set aside the judgment delivered on 13th February 2020. The answer is yes, this court has inherent Jurisdiction and power to set aside its judgment.
“There is a difference between a review and setting aside. At page 22 of our brief, my lordships will see our argument.”
He argued that he asked for the setting aside of the judgment because it amounted to a nullity as the procedure adopted by the court and the judgment was delivered in breach of its client’s right to a fair hearing.
The celebrated lawyer said, “The judgment of this court delivered on February 13, 2020, amounts to nullity. It was delivered in breach of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.
“At page 41 of the address, the procedure adopted by this court in delivering the judgment does not have the character of legitimate adjudication.”
In his submissions, in the case of the APC, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), maintained that the apex court had jurisdiction to correct its human errors in the disputed judgment.
He clarified that his client was not accusing the court of fraud, but to overrule itself as a result of the error in the verdict.
He noted that the Supreme Court in affirming the Federal High Court’s judgment where the case originated from, erroneously stated that the said trial court nullified the APC’s governorship ticket in its judgment.
Olanikpekun said, “We are saying that your lordships have the power to overrule yourselves.
They asked for nine reliefs , in the wisdom of the trial court, only six reliefs were granted.”
He noted that the refusal of the Federal High Court to grant the plaintiffs’ request to nullify APC’s ticket for the election was not appealed against by the plaintiffs.
He argued that Diri’s lawyer, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), admitted against his own interest that the Federal High Court never said the joint ticket held by the APC’s governorship and deputy governorship candidates were nullified.
He said that by the principles laid down by the apex court, “the law does not permit your lordships to tinker with the decision of the trial court not appealed,” adding that “the court does not have the jurisdiction to tinker with it beyond the frontiers of the judgment of the trial court.”
“We say with respect that this was a human error, it was a slip by this court,” Olanipekun said.
In his reply on points of law, he said the Supreme Court could not have relied on section 187 of the Constitution to affirm an order not made by the trial court.
He also faulted the interpretation given to the February 13, 2020, judgment by the Independent National Electoral Commission to award zero votes to APC, to declare the PDP and its candidates as the winner of the poll.
Replying to the applications, Diri’s lawyer, Oyetibo, described them as “an invitation to violate the Constitution, particularly section 235.”
He added, “This court is the final court, but these applications are inviting this court to sit in appeal over its judgment.
The attitude of the Supreme Court to this kind of application is to dismiss it summarily.”
He added, “Once, this court has given full-blown hearing and given an order, the order remains forever.
“The court cannot change the operative and substantive part of its judgment.
“Honestly, it will be scandalous if these applications are granted.
“If the court deletes a portion of the judgment as APC has requested, will your lordships redeliver it?”
He added that ‘when this court gives a judgment, it is deemed in law to be correct,” adding “it is a principle of see no error, hear no error and smell no error in the case.”
He faulted the argument by Babalola on the difference between reviewing and setting aside a judgment.
“Can the court set aside a judgment without reviewing it?” He asked.
He added that granting the applications “will engender political instability in the country.”
Diri’s lawyer, Yunus Usman (SAN), also maintained that the Supreme Court could not review its final judgment following a full-blown trial.
The application constitutes “gross abuse of not just the process, but also of the court itself”.
While urging the court to dismiss the applications, Usman said they lacked in merit, as ” the court does not have constitutional, statutory, or inherent power to review its final judgment after a hearing on merit”.
Chris Uche (SAN), who represented the deputy governor, Lawrence Ewhruojakpo, also described the applications as an “outright abuse of court process”.
He added, “Once this court delivers judgment in a final case, it becomes functus officio.”
Uche further urged the court “to decline this dangerous invitation to violate the constitution which will open a floodgate for endless applications for review of the court’s judgment and this will erode the dignity and the pride of this court as the final court.”