UZODIMMA V. IHEDIOHA; In Defence Of The Supreme Court By Agbada S. Agbada

I Have Read A Lot Of Negative Commentary Against The Supreme Court In Respect Of The Judgement In The Referenced Suit. Emotions Have Been High. And In Our Usual Manner, We Have Already Concluded That The Supreme Court Erred In Declaring Uzodimma The Winner Of The Election. And We Also Believe That The Judgment Is A Product Of Inducement And Compromise. We Don’t Believe A Court Can Err Except It Is Corrupt. So We Have Once Again Resorted To Name-Calling.

While I’m Yet To Read The Full Judgement, I Have Read A Summary Of The Reasoning For The Judgement And Would Stand Aside From The Bandwagon. From What I Have Read So Far, Uzodimma’s Case Was Built On The Fact That The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Unlawfully Cancelled The Results Of 318 Polling Units Where He Was Declared Winner. He Contended That But For The Cancellation, He Would Have Polled The Highest Number Of Valid Votes And Ought To Have Been Declared The Winner. The Relevant Questions Therefore, Are Whether INEC Indeed Cancelled  The Said Results And Whether The Cancellation Was Lawful. Another Question Is Whether INEC Successfully Refuted This Allegation. I Believe Evidence Was Adduced To Establish The Unlawful Cancellation. And If That Is The Case, What Was The Supreme Court Expected To Do? Ignore The Evidence? Or Accept The Credibility Of The Evidence And Proceed To Dismiss The Appeal?

If Indeed The Allegation Of Unlawful Cancellation Was Established By Credible Evidence, The Inevitable Consequence Was The Nullification Of The Cancellation And Restoration Of The Cancelled Votes. And If This Resulted In More Valid Votes For Uzodimma, The Only Reasonable And Appropriate Thing Was To Declare Him The Winner. The Arguments About Uzodimma Finishing Fourth In The Election, With Respect, Miss The Point; It Doesn’t Take Account Of The Case The Man Took To Court In The First Place. Ditto The Arguments About The Supreme Court Decision Voiding Uche Nwosu’s Nominations.

As A Lawyer, I Know That Judgments Are Based On Facts And Issues Before The Court. Relevant Laws Are Only Applicable Within The Factual Context Of A Case And Decisions Are Therefore Informed By The Facts Of Each Case. See Gani Fawehinmi V. NBA (No. 2) Reported In Part 105 Of The Nigerian Weekly Law Reports. Again, Issues For Determination At The Appellate Courts Are Distilled From The Grounds Of Appeal And A Ground Of Appeal Is Only Valid When It Is Based On The Ratio Decidendi Of The Judgement Being Appealed Against. The Arguments To The Effect That The Supreme Court Should Have Either Declared Uche Nwosu Winner Because He Came Second In The Election Or Dismissed The Appeal On The Basis Of The Earlier Judgement Of The Supreme Court Voiding Uche Nwosu’s Candidacy On The Ground Of His Nomination Both By The All Progressives Congress (APC) And AAC Would Make Meaning Only If Those Issues Were Properly Raised From The Grounds Of Appeal. Otherwise, They Are No Issues And Could Not Found A Valid Judgement No Matter How Brilliantly They May Have Been Canvassed.

I Have Always Maintained That Judgments Are Not Products Of Emotions And Public Opinion. But Sadly, Only Judgments Which Chime With Our Expectations And Emotions Are Hailed As Good Judgements. It Has Become Fashionable To Demonize Judges And Call Them All Manners Of Uncharitable Names When A Judgement Does Not Please Us. And Even Lawyers Easily Catch The Fever And Jump In The Bandwagon Without Restraint. It Was This Same Supreme Court That Nullified The APC Primary Elections Of Rivers And Zamfara States And Gave The People Democratic Party (PDP) Those States On A Platter Of Gold. Then, The Justices Were Not Corrupt. This Supreme Court Has Also Upheld The Elections Of Several PDP Governors And No One Heard These Insults And Insinuations. I Believe Strongly That If PDP Was The Beneficiary Of Such A Judgement, It Would Have Been Hailed As A Testament Of Judicial Courage And Erudition; It Would Have Been The Best Thing To Happen To Our Democracy. But Because The Judgement Was Given In Favour Of APC This Time Around, The Supreme Court Has Once Again Become Compromised, Intellectually Challenged And Cowardly. You See, Judicial Independence Is Not All About Giving Judgments That Synch With Public Sentiments. It Is Also About Dispensing Justice Without Unwarranted Public Opprobrium.

There Is Nothing Wrong In Disagreeing With And Even Criticising A Judgement. But Criticisms Should Be Logical And Founded On Facts And Law And Not Emotions. It Is Not Everytime A Judgement Departs From Our Expectations, Emotions Or Understanding Of The Law That The Judgment Is Erroneous. And It Is Wrong To Vilify Judges With Unguarded Comments Whenever We Are Dissatisfied With A Judgement.

In My View, The Supreme  Court Has Done No Wrong In The Instant Case And The Attacks Are Unjustifiable.

Agbada S. Agbada Is A Lagos Based Legal Practitioner And Can Be Reached On Stephen.Agbada@Yahoo.Co.Uk