The rot in the nation’s judiçiary must have been exposed because of various conflicting judgements that have emanated from the Appeal Courts over the 2023 general elections.
The cases of Plateau and Kano States are quite an eye-opener to conflicting interpretations of the country’s laws by the Appellate court.
However, with the controversy surrounding the recent judgement by the Appeal Court on the Kano State Governorship Election in which N1m was awarded the NNPP Candidate, Abba Yusuf with reliefs in his favour in the “Certified True Copy” of the judgement counters whatever oral judgement that was pronounced by the judges.
An Onitsha-based Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Ben Uzuegbu who spoke to our correspondent yesterday in Onitsha said that what was obtained from the “Certified True Copy” of the judgement, shows that the judgement of the election petition was in favour of the NNPP and its candidate, Abba Yusuf.
Chief Uzuegbu disclosed that what is reflected in the “Certified True Copy” (CTC) can not be classified under the ‘slip rule’ where a judge makes an avoidable minor mistake (s) or “printers’ devil”.
The human rights lawyer noted that what transpired in the Kano State Appeal Court judgement is strange and curious which could only be corrected by the Supreme Court.
He said that it was left for the NNPP to approach the apex court to correct whatever anomalies that were prevalent in the judgement of the lower court.
He called on the judges of the Supreme Court to live up to expectations by correcting the erroneous impressions that emanated from the judgement of the lower court.
“There appear inconsistencies in some of the Appeal Court judgements and this is not healthy for our democracy and rule of law. It behoves the Supreme Court to correct these judicial anomalies.”
“As a lawyer, there’s no time I will lose confidence in the Supreme Court. I only ask the Supreme Court and the entire judiciary to live up to expectations and do the right and just to save Ñigeria’s democracy.”
“The Supreme Court should define, categorise and come to a conclusion about what constitutes the pre-election matter as there seem to be inconsistencies in some judgements delivered by Appeal Courts in which one Appeal Court delivers a judgement and another branch of the court delivers a contradictory one.”