‘Supreme Court Abandoned Tradition By Attacking Court Of Appeal Rulings Not Under Review’ — Alliyu SAN Says Court Seeking Public Sympathy

Senior lawyer Chief Yomi Alliyu SAN has expressed deep concerns about the recent actions of the Supreme Court, deviating from its age-long tradition of deciding only matters that are on appeal before it.

Alliyu figure points out that the Apex Court assumed the role of the judiciary’s police in matters not directly before them, marking a significant departure from established norms.

Chief Alliyu questions the wisdom behind the Supreme Court delivering judgments on issues not formally presented to it, emphasizing the importance of awaiting matters to come before the court before issuing gratuitous judgments. He suggests that such actions may be an attempt to draw public sympathy, perhaps to mitigate perceived shortcomings in previous judgments.

Raising pertinent questions, Chief Alliyu challenges the Supreme Court’s claim to infallibility, citing instances where the court allegedly failed to follow its previous judgments or statutory provisions. The reference to the voiding of elections in Katsina State in 2014 underlines the need for consistency and adherence to legal principles.

The SAN explores whether the mantra of infallibility, often associated with being a final court, holds when the Court of Appeal sits as a final court in certain election appeals. He questions whether this principle guided the Supreme Court in avoiding unguarded statements that could potentially disrupt the country.

Drawing attention to the Supreme Court’s role as a promotional court for justices of the Court of Appeal, Chief Alliyu suggests that alumni of the Court of Appeal should be aware of the limitations of revisiting judgments. The metaphorical reference to “acting Pontius Pilate” raises concerns about the court’s detachment from the consequences of its actions on the lower court.

In conclusion, Chief Yomi Alliyu asserts that the Supreme Court, by making statements and holdings on matters not directly before it, has acted unsupremely against the interest of the judiciary. He suggests that these comments may be self-serving, potentially affecting the perception of the judiciary and the legal profession in the eyes of right-thinking individuals. The ramifications of this departure from tradition warrant serious consideration by legal experts and the public alike.