COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT AND THE STRENGTH OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PANEL: TODAY’S IMPLICATIONS.

By Ugochukwu Amaraizu Esq.
Despite the existence and/or publication of allegations against the constitution of the Panel that heard the matter between Dr Alex Otti and Dr Okezie Ikpeazu, the Court of Appeal also heard the matter and delivered its judgment on 31st December, 2015. The said allegations did not stop the Court of Appeal from doing their job. However, the allegation has been resurrected today and now enjoys global attention and/or recognition. It therefore becomes pertinent to check the authenticity, validity or strength of the allegation especially now that it is weighty enough to forestall proceedings of the Apex Court in Nigeria.
Immediately after Justice Amina Augie of the Supreme Court declined jurisdiction and/or withdrew from being a member of the Panel constituted to hear the appeal involving Dr Uche Ogah and Dr Okezie Victor Ikpeazu- The Governor of Abia State, the unrepentant critics of IKPEAZU started publishing all manners of articles that have no bearing with what is at stake at the Supreme Court. Someone has written that the learned Justice decided to withdraw to avoid Ikpeazu’s allegations and attack on her the same way Ikpeazu and his supporters maliciously attacked and/or petitioned the Judges of the Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri.
Inasmuch as the learned Justice of the Supreme Court has every right to distance herself from any matter that concerns the Abia Governorship Election, that alone can never and will never JUSTIFY the highly controversial judgment of the Court of Appeal Owerri which the Supreme Court of Nigeria, in their own wisdom, meticulously scrutinized, assessed, considered and finally set aside. Who could have delivered such a judgment? Any reasonable person that reads the judgment of the Court of Appeal Owerri delivered in favour of Dr Alex Otti on the 31st day of December, 2015 will have no doubt that the Panel was determined to turn the law upside down. Many suspected that they were there for a mission. It is the judgment of the Supreme Court that exposed their mistakes and/or glaring errors in law. We lawyers understood what they did as mistake or errors in law. However, the public and/or fellow Abians will not understand it from the same perspective. This is the reason our people resorted to massive protest.
Once again, let us cast our minds back to the days of the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. The extract below is from one of my posts at the early stage of this our legal excursion:
“We submitted that the onus was on the petitioner- Dr Alex Otti to prove his case. Unfortunately, the APGA Leader was not called to adopt his written deposition on oath in his own case. In law, he was deemed to have abandoned his evidence. That was a very fatal and damaging/costly mistake. Again, we submitted that their PW20- Chief Ahamdi Nweke was not in a position to testify in respect of what transpired in the various Polling Units across the State. In the alleged Polling Units in the 3 LGS which is over 400, only 5 Polling Unit Agents were called to testify. We vehemently argued that they could not have discharged both their legal and evidential burdens of proof with that microscopic number of witnesses. Our Lead Counsel- Chief Wole OLANIPEKUN, SAN informed the Tribunal that the petition was dead on arrival because it is not grantable in law. His reasons are that the reliefs sought are contradictory and illogical. You can’t tell a Court to declare you winner of an election that you have condemned in writing. That is a bad prayer. On the issue of result cancellation, we submitted that the Returning Officer- RO had no power ab initio to cancel at that stage. He reversed himself and upheld the elections in the 3 LGS. The petitioners vigorously contested this reversal pursuant to Sec 64 of the Electoral Act which posits that once cancellation takes place, only the Tribunal can declare otherwise. However, they forgot that both the cancellation and reversal are conclusive decisions of an Administrative Body which only the Tribunal can look into. If an Administrative Body does something that is illegal and same is being corrected when its attention is being drawn to it, it does not matter whoever is responsible for drawing the attention. The most important thing is that the right or lawful thing is done. This is how we succeeded in burying the allegations against the former Governor- Senator T.A ORJI and Olisa Metu. The Tribunal saw this line of reasoning and finally granted our prayers.
Finally, on our main appeal, our lead Counsel- Chief Wole Olanipekun- SAN revealed that Otti’s witnesses tendered 2 conflicting card reader reports from PW 19 and PW 20. Also, in the light of Sec 140, the reliefs they sought are not tangible and therefore, not grantable as earlier posited. They had the responsibility of resolving the conflicts in the reports. Again, voters register still enjoys the blessing of the Electoral Act.
Who will see the above submission and proceed to give a clapping ovation to the Court of Appeal Panel? The moment a judgment is delivered, that judgment becomes a matter of discussion. People will definitely say all manners of things.
One thing is worthy of note concerning the Appeal Court judgement in favour of Dr Alex Otti. It always speaks volumes when a party in a matter raises alarm over the constitution of a Panel and the Panel or any other Panel’s verdict on that same matter also drops as predicted or reasonably suspected by the Party who raised the alarm. What am I saying? In Otti’s case, it is reported that there was a petition against the constitution of the Panel. The Panel ( or any other )proceeded into the matter and delivered a judgment that was condemned by the Appex Court. In this case, many people will jump into an irresistible conclusion that the allegation raised by one of the parties against the Panel is true. The case would have been different if the Supreme Court had upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Note: My argument in this paragraph is from the perception of a non lawyer.
Somebody may equally say that what it simply means is that once a Panel is constituted, the best thing to do in order to succeed or attract sympathy is to fault the constitution of the Panel. Before a party resorts to this approach, he or she must be ready to parade credible evidence of bias or likelihood of bias. In Justice Amina’s case, she did the right thing by stepping aside. I think it is related to the issue of likelihood of bias. The learned Justice is still innocent of the allegation in law. It is just an allegation. However, having raised it before now, stepping aside is commendable.
An impression that must be corrected in the minds of Ikpeazu’s critics is that Otti’s case has no nexus with Ogah’s case. Otti’s case is res judicata. It has been settled forever. Making reference to it while dealing with Ogah v Ikpeazu makes no meaning. The Judges that faulted or made mistakes have been criticized constructively and that criticism stands. Similarly, it will be recalled that when Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court Abuja delivered his judgment and the Court of Appeal set it aside, he was highly criticized. The only thing that will save Justice Okon Abang from further criticism is if the Supreme Court allows Ogah’s appeal.
It therefore follows that it makes no sense for anybody to keep citing the highly controversial judgment of the Court of Appeal Owerri which the Supreme Court rightly settled long ago. It is so because the allegations and/or the criticisms that accompanied the APPEAL COURT case were normal vis-a viz the Supreme Court verdict. Having adjourned sine die in Ogah v Ikpeazu, let us patiently wait for a new date. Whoever becomes a member of the Supreme Court Panel, we will accept because we believe in God. The law MUST prevail…