Legal Analysis Of Matters Arising From The Verdict Of Supreme Court On Plateau Governorship Election: The Fate Of Sacked PDP Legislators In Perspective

By Godfree Matthew

BACKGROUND

It was the 12^th of January, 2024; the spirit of Plateau people was in a stand-still. There was a judicial Red Sea that was about to be partitioned, but the dilemma was, nobody was sure between PDP and APC who will be the Israelite that might cross the Red Sea after it is partitioned, and  who will be the Egyptians that will be drowned. The world awaits the Plateau verdict. The much awaited score to settle was whether PDP had a valid structure or not. This legal duel can be likened to the metaphor of a football match. In the first half of the match PDP scored the first judicial goal at Election Petition Tribunal which says that Barrister Caleb Mutfwang was a product of a valid structure. The score is thus 1:0 in the first half. However, during the second half of the match, APC equalized the score before the Court of Appeal stating that PDP has no valid structure to sponsor the Executive Governor of Plateau State, Barrister Caleb Mutfwang. As such, Dr Nentawe Goshe Yilwada was declared as winner, and to be returned as Governor of Plateau State. This judicial stalemate availed both parties the opportunity for another extra-time before the Supreme Court.

After intense arguments by counsel on the respective sides, the Supreme Court reserved the 12^th of January, 2024 for judgment. To Plateau people, the question was how would that ‘judgment day’ be like? Would it be a Daniel come to Judgment experience or another instance of judicial chicanery? The period between the verdicts of the Court of Appeal to the final verdict of Supreme Court, tasted a lot of waters in terms of loyalty to Barrister Caleb Mutfwang and Dr Nentawe Goshwe Yilwada. The Mutfwang camp might have lost hope; loyalists were gradually becoming double-minded and ambivalent. Only God knows how many members of his cabinet were loyal to Mutfwang during that period of turbulence. For as the saying goes, “the devil himself knows not the mind of man.” [1]

Some party men in PDP might have started neutralizing their loyalty towards Mutfwang. People who were initially 100% sure that Mutfwang is the right candidate in the eyes of the law, stated sitting on the fence. The platitude by then evincing sitting on the fence was reflected in the common saying, “it’s all about Plateau and not Mutfwang or Nentawe. So any of them the Supreme Court gives us is our son.” Some political power brokers in PDP might have started contemplating retirement to have time with their families. They were about relinquishing their status as elder statesmen to pave way for the younger ones to grow. Political ‘prophets’ who were initially with Caleb Mutfwang started compromising their stands because of the unpredictable impending verdict of the Supreme Court. Thus, the voices of prophets that once told Mutfwang, ‘surely the Lord is with you’, are now saying ‘let God’s will be done.’

To Nentawe, hopes began to resurface that he might have a date with destiny as governor of Plateau State. Destiny appeared to be beckoning on him. This is because both the political and legal factors appeared to be favourable towards Nentawe. Politically, APC with Bola Tinibu as President could have been a clear omen that ‘things’ will be influenced in his favour. This theory was pronounced by statement “we will know who they know, and they will know who we know.” Legally, Nentawe initially appears to have the favour of law. This is because the jurisprudence that PDP have no valid structured was judicially acknowledged, even by the Supreme Court twice.[2] Friendly foes started endearing themselves towards Nentawe, because it appears, the weather will be fairer to him than Caleb Mutfwang. There might be some decampees (at heart) from PDP to APC because prospects were favourably glittering towards the emergence of Nentawe as governor of Plateau.

THEN CAME THE VERDICT OF THE SUPREME COURT

Plateau people awaited the Supreme Court verdict with a lot of expectation that is mixed with anxiety. The manner in which both the supporters of APC and PDP awaited the Supreme Court verdict can be likened to a situation in which two childless Kings are expecting the birth of a Prince from One Woman. The two Childless Kings in this context are PDP and APC. The pregnant woman is the Supreme Court, while the Prince to be given birth to is justice. Then came the verdict of the Supreme Court that PDP had a valid structure to conduct the 2023 General Election. By the virtue of this judgment, the Supreme Court settled the three years legal tussle on the validity of the structure of PDP as political party in Plateau. Judgment was given in favour of PDP. But the aftermath of the judgment delivered on the 12th January, 2024 raised a lot of questions. One of these questions is, would the PDP federal and state legislators from Plateau State who were sacked by the Court of Appeal benefit from the victory of Caleb Mutfwang in the Supreme Court?  This view was prompted by two things; the sympathetic ‘obiter’ of Okoro Inyang, JSC to the effect that the sacked Plateau Senators were victim of circumstances due to the verdict of Court of Appeal. Secondly, the circulation of an online article titled “Upholding Justice and ensuring Judicial Accountability: The Supreme Court Ruling On Governor Caleb Mutfwang’s Election In Plateau State And Need For Writ of Certiorari In Legislative Cases”, purportedly written by ELIAS NANKAP LAMLE.[3] The impression created by these two views had led to a lot of misconceived legal views. It is these developments that prompted the writing of this article.

The purpose of this article is to give another perspective of law different from the impression created by the comments of Inyang Okoro JSC and the article written (purportedly) by Elias Nankap Lamle. Thus, this article will engage three fundamental issues by raising the following questions: (a) Can the Supreme Court review the verdict of Appeal in the case of the sacked Plateau legislators? (b) Is the Writ of Certiorari needed in the instant cases? (c) What is the way forward for the sacked Legislatures?  In responding to these questions this writing is structured into four parts. The first part will examine the justification or otherwise of the power of the Supreme Court to review the judgments of the Court of Appeal. In the second part of this work, this writer will examined the propriety or otherwise of deploying the Writ of Certiorari in this context. The part three of this work deals with the way forward on how to address the plight of the sacked legislators. The fourth part is the conclusion des this work.

• IS THERE ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE VERDICT OF THE PLATEAU STATE LEGISLATORS?

In responding this question, the understanding of two principal things is imperative. The first thing is to appraise the subject-matter jurisdiction of the case of the sacked Plateau legislators. This will help in the understanding of the jurisprudence behind the jurisdictional competence of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on election matters relating to the offices of National Assembly and the State Houses of Assembly. The second thing is to examine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

• The Case of the Sacked Plateau Legislators Falls under the Subject-matter Jurisdiction Contemplated by Law

In our procedural laws, the subject-matter jurisdiction of the sacked Plateau legislators first starts with the Election Petition Tribunal as a court of original jurisdiction. Appeals from the decision of the Election Petition Tribunal lie to the Court of Appeal. Then the decision of the Court of Appeal is the final court. There is a public misconception that every judgment must go to the Supreme Court. However, this is not true in the eyes of the law. Certain cases terminated at the Court of Appeal.[4] One of such cases is appeal from Election Petition relating of the office of the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly. This means that apart from its appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal is the final jurisdiction with respect to the cases on election petition relating to the National and State Houses of Assembly.

The final jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is provided for in section 246 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (2010 as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), which provides that “the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of appeals arising from the National and State Houses of Assembly shall be final.” By the import of this provision, matters relating to election petition with respect to the National and State Houses of Assembly are finally determined by the Court of Appeal. It is the Court of Appeal that is the final authority to determine whether a particular person has been validly elected into the office of the national or state parliament.

Further, by the dint of the provision of section 246 (3) of the Constitution, no appeal shall lie against the decision of the Court of Appeal on whether a person has been validly elected either as the federal or state legislator. The finality of the Court of Appeal in election petition matters relating to National or State Houses of Assembly has been judicially recognized in the case of Ogboru V President Court of Appeal & ANOR[5], where it was held that to the effect that by virtue of section 246(3) of the Constitution, the Court of Appeal is the final court when it comes to electoral cases relating to the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly.

By the above judicial expositions, it is settled law, by general principle that the fate of the Federal and the State legislators from Plateau State had been determined by the decision of the Court of Appeal. Thus, even the Supreme Court cannot overturn such final finding of the Court Of Appeal.  But a curious mind should always seek to know whether there are other exceptions this general rule. Put in another way; are there any justifiable grounds where the Supreme Court can overturn the verdict of the Court of Appeal with respect to the findings of the Court of Appeal? The answers to these questions are addressed at the subsequent paragraphs.

• The Jurisdiction of The Supreme Court

In order to determine whether or not the Supreme Court has the power to review the decisions of the Court of Appeal, readers should advert their minds to the laws establishing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The first law that established the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is the Constitution. Section 230 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Supreme Court of Nigeria. The Supreme Court is provided with two types of jurisdiction under the Constitution, the original jurisdiction and the appellate jurisdiction.

• Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The original jurisdiction is the power of the Supreme Court to entertain matters in their first instances to the exclusion of other courts.[6] Examples of matters that fall under original jurisdiction are: (a) disputes between Federal government and State government(s) and (b) disputes between States.[7] One of the reasons why the Supreme Court might have to exercise original jurisdiction between state parties and federal government is to avoid the tendency of biases among the states. Imagine a situation where the government of Kano State is having legal dispute with Lagos State government, and the matter is to be determined by the High Court of Lagos State, the tendency of impartiality and likelihood of bias cannot be averted. Similarly, imagine a dispute between Federal government of Nigeria and Nassarawa State over a mineral deposit. And the case is to be determined before the Federal High Court in Abuja or Nassarawa State High Court in Keffi division. It is obvious that in both instances bias could be imminent. That is why the law decides dispute between States and States as well as States and Federal government should be determined by the Supreme Court.[8]

Again, the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been expanded by the Act of the National Assembly.[9] A statute of the National Assembly that expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was the Supreme Court Original (Additional) Jurisdiction, 2002. Section 1 of the Supreme Court Original (Additional) Jurisdiction Act, 2002, gave the Supreme Court the power to entertain disputes between National Assembly and the President, National Assembly and the State Houses of Assembly, and the National Assembly and the States of the federation.

• Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is spelt out in section 233 of the Constitution. It specifies the ground upon which matters can be appealed to Supreme Court. The grounds specified in section 233 does not mention appealing the verdict of election petition relating to the offices of the State or National Assembly. The categories of persons who can benefit from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are specified in section 233(e) as follows:

(e) decisions on any question-

(i) whether any person has been validly elected to the office of the President or vice President under this Constitution;

(ii) whether the term of office or President or vice President has ceased;

(iii) whether the office of the President or vice president has become vacant;

(iv) whether any person have been validly elected to the office of the Governor  or the Deputy Governor under this Constitution;

(v) whether the term of office or Governor or the Deputy Governor has ceased;

(vi) whether the office of the Governor or  Deputy Governor has become vacant                                                                                                                      

Therefore, based on the above expositions one can deduced that the laws on the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court never contemplated the office of the National Assembly or State Houses of Assembly, as parties whose cases bothering on election petition can be heard. Equally, the classes of persons whose cases can be determined in the appellate jurisdiction under section 233 (e) does not include the members of National and State Houses of Assembly. It only includes the executives; the President, Vice-President, Governors and the Deputy of Governors. It excludes the legislature. One could further wish that the Supreme Court Original (Additional) Jurisdiction, Act, 2002, could rescue the National and State House of Assemblies from such fundamental omissions. However, that law as of now only gives institutional capacity to National Assembly to approach the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction where there are disputes. It only provides for the National Assembly to approach the Supreme Court on issues concerning their legislative businesses and not their personal political interest, as in the Plateau saga.

Flowing from the above legal analysis, the question is where can the Plateau legislators resort to? What are the next options available to them? To these questions, some have strongly suggested that the Supreme Court should review the verdict of Court of Appeal, while some advocated for suing the justices of the Court of Appeal and claiming damages. But before agreeing or disagreeing with these options, it is pertinent to scrutinize these views through the lens of the law. After that one could be placed in an informed state of mind to draw a conclusion.

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT

In the light of the Supreme Court’s verdict on Plateau Governorship petition, there were calls for review of the Court of Appeal decision by the Supreme Court.[10] For analysis, it is proper to examine the two types of judicial reviews the law accorded the Supreme Court. The first type of review is the power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgement. The second type of review is the power of the Supreme Court to review the judgements of other courts, including the Court of Appeal.

• The power of the Supreme Court to Review its own Judgement

The power of the Supreme Court to review its judgement is reflected in the provision of Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules (As Amended 2014). This writer is obliged to reproduce the contents of Order 8 Rule 16 as follows:

The Court shall review any judgment once given and delivered by it save to correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention. A judgment or order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the Court decided nor shall the Operative and substantive part of it be Varied and a different form substituted.

The above provision on power of review given to the Supreme Court is equally available to the Court of Appeal under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act. Expounding on the concepts of the power of both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to review their judgements, Chief Tom Anyafulude in his book[11], extrapolated as follows:

The Supreme Court shall not review any judgement , once given and delivered by it, save to correct any clerical mistakes or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effects to its meaning or intentions.  A judgment or Order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the Supreme Court decided nor the operative or he substantive part of its be varied and a different form substituted.

Similarly, in the Court of Appeal, the court shall not review any judgement, once given and delivered by it, save to correct any clerical error, mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission , or to vary the judgement or order so as to give effects to its meanings or intentions A judgment or Order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the Supreme Court decided nor the operative or he substantive part of its be varied and a different form substituted.

The above views about the reviewing power of both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal shows that, the Apex Courts can only review their judgements where there is a clerical error, mistake arising from accidental slip or omission. It is when these conditions exist that the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal can vary their judgements to reflect its true intentions.

• The Power of the Supreme Court to review the Judgement of other Courts/Tribunal

The second type of the power of judicial review given to Supreme Court by the law is the power to review the judgements of other courts, as if it is its own. It gives the Supreme Court the power to assume the jurisdiction on the subject-matter adjudicated by the lower courts. This type of power is provided in section 22 of the Supreme Act, which states as follows:

The Supreme Court may, from time to time, make any Order necessary for determining the real question in controversy in the appeal, and may amend any defect or error in the record of appeal, and may direct the court below to inquire into and clarify its findings on any question which the Supreme Court thinks fit to determine before final judgment in the appeal and may make an interim order or grant and may direct any necessary inquiries or accounts to be made or taken and generally shall have full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted and prosecuted in the Supreme Court as a court of first instance and may rehear the case in whole or in part or may give such other directions as to the manner in which the court below shall deal with the case in accordance with the powers of that court.

By the above provision of the law, the Supreme Court can exercise the power of correcting any error, defect as well as grant injunctions and interim orders in the same capacity the trial court would have done. It also implies that Supreme Court can assume jurisdiction to rehear the cases of the parties, as if it has the original jurisdiction to do so. Thus, it can also assume jurisdiction over the subject–matter of any court and deliver judgment in the same capacity that the original court would have done. An interesting question to ask is, does section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, provides for instances where the judgement of Court of Appeal could be reviewed? The answer is yes, the Supreme Court can review the decision of the Court of Appeal subject to some conditions. Interrogating further, can the Plateau sacked legislators benefit from the provision of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act?

Legally, the provision of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act would have given lease to the sacked legislators of Plateau State who were affected by the verdict of the Court of Appeal. However, there are two flaws that will militate against them; the limitation period and supremacy of the constitution.

One of the flaws of the general powers of the Supreme Court under section 22 of the Supreme Act is limitation period. The power of the Supreme Court to rehear a matter must be done within a statutory time contemplated by the law. Where such action is caught up by statute of limitation, section 22 of the Supreme Court Act cannot avail the aggrieved party. As such, they are not qualified to benefit from the provisions of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act. This principle was well enunciated in the case of Ugba v Suswam,[12] where the Supreme Court held that:

An election tribunal is conferred with jurisdiction to hear an election petition filed within 180 days from the date the petition is filed. Where an appeal court orders a retrial, the retrial must be concluded within the unexhausted days of the 180 days. In the instant case, there was no longer a live issue in the petitions filed by the appellants since the 180 days provided for the hearing of the petitions had expired. The appellants were unable to take advantage of the order of the Supreme Court for a retrial.[13]

By the above verdict, the Supreme Court has settled that for one to benefit from the general powers of the Supreme Court for re-trial, his action must not be caught up by statute of limitation. Juxtaposing this position of the law with the case of the sacked Plateau legislators, the question to ask is, can the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction for review or re-trial over the fate of Plateau legislators within the 180 days provided for election petition? Are the Plateau legislators still within 180 days to approach the Supreme Court? The answers to these questions are factually on the negative.

Again, expounding on the imperative of approaching the Supreme Court for review or re-trial within 180 days stipulated by the law further implies that section 22 of the Supreme Court Act is further limited. This made the Supreme Court to hold that:

Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act confers wide powers on the Supreme Court to rehear a matter as if it is a trial court. However, where the trial court no longer has jurisdiction to hear a matter, the Supreme Court cannot hide under the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. The whole powers conferred by Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act is to enable the Supreme Court assume jurisdiction and do what the trial court ought to do because it had to do it within a time provided by the Constitution, Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act would be inapplicable.[14]

From the above judicial authority, the Plateau legislators should ask themselves, if the Supreme Court composed another panel of the Court of Appeal to revisit their case, would the panel still conduct their proceedings within the 180 days contemplated by the constitution? The obvious answer to this question is no. The time for election petition has elapsed. Thus, the provision of section 285 (6) of the constitution which stipulates the 180 days as limitation period for election cannot be subjected to the provision of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act. Neither can the judiciary extend the scope of that provision of the law. It was for this reason that RHODES-VIVOUR, J. S. C. (as he then was) put it thus;

A petitioner who is unable to argue his petition to his satisfaction within 180 days as provided by Section 285(6) of the Constitution or finds the time too short should approach the National Assembly with an appropriate bill to amend Section 285(6) of the Constitution. Once again, the courts have no jurisdiction to amend the Constitution or extend time provided by Section 285(6) of the Constitution. An order of retrial is carried out subject to Section 285(6) of the Constitution. If this court or any court proceeds to amend the Constitution or any extend the time for the hearing of election petitions provide by Section 285(6) such an exercise would amount to judicial legislation and that would be unfortunate to the stream of justice which must remain pure at all times.”[15]

By the above judicial authorities it is evident that the law appears to be against the sacked Plateau legislators. They are caught by statute of limitation as matters that the Supreme Court can exercise power of review or for retrial.

Moreover, the principle of supremacy of the constitution could be invoked against the Plateau legislators. This is because of two fundamental constitutional provisions. The first is the provision of section 285(6) of the Constitution which limited the time within which to bring an action for retrial or review by the Supreme Court. This provision is superior to the Supreme Court Act.[16]

Another argument is that,  allowing review or retrial of the decisions of the Court of Appeal  by the Supreme Court due to the Provision of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, will conflict with the provision of section 246(3) of the Constitution. Section 246(3) of the Constitution states that, “the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of appeal arising from the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition shall be final.” Therefore, subjecting the verdict of the Court of Appeal to review or retrial by the Supreme Court because of the provision of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act is tantamount to placing the Supreme Court Act above the Constitution.

There is usually the temptation to say that the validity of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act derived its validity from section 233 (2) (f) which states that the Supreme Court may have jurisdiction in “….such other cases as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.”  But since the provision of section 246 (3) outrightly stated the finality of the Court of Appeal as the final ‘bus stop’ for election petition in National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly, there is no need to resort to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the clause “such other cases as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.”

In order to settle the crisis on whether the Plateau legislators can approach the Supreme Court is to compare the provisions of sections 233(2) (e) and section 246(3) of the Constitution. Section 233 (2) (e) of the Constitution provides for persons who are entitled to approach it in its Appellate jurisdiction. It includes cases relating to the election, tenure, vacancy, and termination of the office of the President, Vice- President, Governor and Deputy Governor. It was squarely an executive Affair. That was why section 246(3) of the Constitution provides for legislature its final appellate jurisdiction. Thus, while interpreting the constitution in this regard, the court will be inclined to adopt the principle of “generalibus specialis non derogante” –meaning where there is a specific provision on a matter; the special provision shall prevail over a general provision. In this case, the general provision is “such other cases as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly” ascribed to the omnibus power of the Supreme Court under section 233 (2) (f). The specific provision is section 246(3) which states that the Court of Appeal as the final court in cases involving National and State Houses of Assembly. Based on this, the court may be inclined to agree with fact that the finality of the Court of Appeal which is constitutional cannot be subjected to ‘judicial review’ by the Supreme Court.

Another public misconception is the reference to the necessity of judicial review, specifically certiorari, in order to do justice to the sacked legislators. This position is not tenable in the instant case. This is because one of the conditions for the application of certiorari is that the authority or institutions (including courts) order seeks to be quashed, must have acted without jurisdiction or outside the scope of its jurisdiction. The acting authority must have acted ultra-vires. Thus, in the case of Egbaniwe V FRN[17] where it was held that:

Writ of Certiorari is one of the instruments of judicial control of administrative action. It will apply where judicial acts are made in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. 

Flowing from the above judicial authority, the question to ask is, has the Court of Appeal acted outside its jurisdiction in the case of the Plateau legislators? Has the Court of Appeal acted in the excess of its jurisdiction? By virtue of section 246(3) of the Constitution, the answer to these questions is obvious in the negative. The Court of Appeal has not acted outside its jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction.

THE WAY OUT

It is true that PDP on the Plateau is the architect of ‘no valid structure theory’. It was a product of lack of respect for internal democracy due to power tussle among the PDP Patrons and their loyalists. The Supreme Court has salvaged PDP from the Octopus hook of ‘no structure’, Nigerians and Plateau Citizens are hopeful that history should not repeat itself in the negative. Therefore, as way forward, this writer opined the following suggestions:

• Legally, the sacked legislative members (both the national and state) should be given automatic ticket to contest for 2027 election. Challenging judicial review in Supreme Court may be like the adventure of Don Quixote. The party should accord the sacked legislators the heroic status of ‘wounded heroes’ in battle whose ‘medals’ of honour’ should be ‘automatic ticket in 2027 election.
• There should be respect for internal democracy. All stakeholders from the zones in the state should have some sense of representation in determining the Party structure in PDP.
• PDP should be wary of detractors. The Wall of Jericho (No Structure Theory) is conquered, but Achans (detractors) could still remain in the camp.
• There should be reconciliation with aggrieved members during the battle of no structure. Magnanimity in victory is a virtue.

5.0. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is evident that the fate of Zamfara State in 2019 has revisited Plateau State, with the exception of Governor Mutfwang as the survivor. Since during Zamfara travails, the fate of their legislators were not reviewed by the Supreme Court, PDP legislators should accept their fate in good faith. PDP on its own should take a special measure to compensate them. As it is now, Plateau is now a political entity with a PDP Governor and APC legislators. The APC legislators should cooperate to work with the governor of Plateau State. Likewise, Mutfwang should be open to them as Plateau patriots, not political opponents. When these hints are taken, Plateau State will be far better now than it was.

1.Arnold Miller, “The Devil Himself Knows Not the Mind of Man”, How Possibly Can Judges Know The Motivation of Legislators?”, Sandiego Law review,1978,Semantic ^{Scholars@https://www.semanticscholars.org>I…<accessed} on January 18, 2024>

2.Henry Kenechukwu Eni-Out, “ Plateau State Election petition judgements: The PDP Conundrum” December 11, 2023, the Cable @www.thecable.ng<accessed on January 19, 2024>

3. A background research shows that Elias Nankap Namle) is a scholar of a high profile, who might not have written a piece of such substandard in Nature. As the structure of the said article is not organized . All issues in Abstract. There is nobody of the work. It was written in first person narrative techniques.  The work may a work of mischief makers and social media miscreants spreading wrong information. This is what this article seeks to cure.

4.Apart from election petition to the National and State Houses of Assembly, the Court of Appeal has the final jurisdiction on any appeal arising from the  decision of the National Industrial Court. This position was given judicial recognition in the case of Coca-Cola & Ors V Mrs. Titilayo Akinsanya (2013) 18 NWLR  PT. 1386

5. (2005) LPELR-7473(CA)
6. Section 232 (1) of the Constitution

7.Section232 (2) of  the Constitution

8.The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain disputes between the federation and states has its roots from the 1963 Republican Constitution. Under section 14 of the 1963 Constitution, the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction on settling disputes between the  Central governments and Regional governments and also between Regional governments. See also,Olajide Olakanmi and Olamide Olakanmi, “The Nigerian Constitutions Since 1914” ( LawLords Publications, 2014) P.478.

9.Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act, 2002. CAP S15, LFN, 2004

10.This view has been trending and misleading people on different social media platforms

11. “A Guide to Appellate Practice And Brief Writing in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Nigeria” (Mercele Press Nig , 2022) Pp.   373-374

12.Ugba V Suswam (2013) 4 NWLR PT. 1345

13. P.476,Paras. E-G (Supra)

14.P.477, Paras. B-D (Supra)

15.at pages 476-477 Paras.G-B

[16]

17. (2010) 2 NWLR PT.1178 Page. 348 at 367 Paras .E-G Per Agbo JCA

Follow Our WhatsApp Channel _______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence

Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via: 0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888 Website: www.alexandernigeria.com

________________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials

Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation _______________________________________________________________________