Let me start by saying that I am not a lawyer, but with all humility, it may not always be right to say that a ‘non-lawyer’ is a layman because the founding fathers of the legal profession, Socrates and his protege, Aristotle were sculptors turned philosophers. According to legal history, they were in the family business as sculptors until persuaded by the oracle of Memphis to take to Philosophy as a career. God damns anyone that consults Ifa Oracle today but this is by the way.
Until 1963, the Nigerian Supreme Court was not Supreme per se as that authority was in the Privy Council, London. Chief Obafemi Awolowo might have obviously appealed to the Privy Council after the Supreme Court Judgement that found him guilty of treasonable felony if the carpet had not been taken off his foot. Earlier, his defence counsel, Dingle Foot from Great Britain, had been denied his service because the country had become Independent of Britain. Perhaps Chief Awolowo and his team would not have gone to jail if the case had ended up in the Privy Council.
Indeed both the Bar and the Bench are lucky that today, cases no longer go to the Privy Council because a few cases that escaped to the British Bench for adjudication ended up to the shame of the Nigerian judicial system. For instance in the case of Ibori, both the Bar and the Bench agreed that there were “two Iboris”
But a London court was able to discover that there was only one Ibori and not two according to the Nigerian judiciary.
The unfortunate case of the former Deputy Speaker, Chief Ike Ekweremadu in London where the medical doctor that accompanied him earned more years in jail terms is an indication that many Nigerian lawyers would have ended up in jail were cases still to end up in the Privy Council because like the Medical doctor, they are supposed to be upright at all times.That would have served as a deterrent that no lawyer worthy of his gown and wig would deliberately substitute falsehood for facts.
Of recent, court judgements have caused many citizens discomfort, resulting in casting aspersions on the credibility of their judgements. The latest being that of the Supreme Court in the Governor Fubara Vs 27 members of the Rivers House of Assembly case who have decamped from the PDP to the APC.The Supreme Court said it ruled against Fubara because he did not show any evidence in his defence to prove that the 27 legislators have left the PDP.
This controversial judgement thus brings to memory as I have previously cited, the case of Senator Arthur Nzeribe Vs The Senate in 1980. Nzeribe was elected to the Senate on the platform of the NPP but he decamped to the NPN. Senators are the law makers just as the Judiary is the interpreter of the law. The Senate of Dr Joseph Wayas as President of the Senate agreed that Nzeribe had infringed on section 68(1g) of the 1979 constitution and immediately expelled him from the Senate.
Section 68 (Ig) reads:
_A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member of; being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected: Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one which he was previously sponsored._
The Senate did not go to court for interpretation of section 68(1g) before implementing it because as law makers, the section was clear enough. Nzeribe has committed an infringement against the section, he must go and was removed after a unanimous vote.
Nzeribe was not to suffer humiliation without a fight. He appealed to Justice Fred Anyaegbunam Electoral Tribunal “to restore my honour”, arguing that his removal from the Senate was unconstitutional. But in his judgement, Fred Anyaegbunam told Nzeribe that, _”You are not entitled to the honour you do not possess. Your people gave you their mandate to represent them but took the mandate to another political party that they did not vote for”._ Justice Anyaegbunam did not ask the Senate to produce any proof but simply judged on the basis of what section 681g said.
Around 2002, the same Senator Arthur Nzeribe crossed from the ANPP to the PDP in the Senate. At the weekly Press briefing by the Senate Information Committee Chairman, Senator Jonathan Zwingina, I brought up a case of precedence against Nzeribe to which Senators were surprised and that night I was on NTA network news explaining the past under the same section 68(1g) of the 1999 constitution.
It is against the judgement by justice Anyaegbunam against Nzeribe and the view of the Senate as regards section 68 1g of the constitution of the 1979 and 1999 respective that one is reviewing their Lordships’ judgement in the Rivers’ case.One has no option to to accept the Supreme court as that of the last resort. and inauguration for the happened in the Senate in 1980 and before Justice Anyagbunam Tribunal pertaining to section 68(1g) in the Nzeribe case and the Supreme Court but pulling against Fubara for not providing evidence to show
that the 27 members of the Rivers State Assembly have decamped from PDP to the APC, leaves much to be desired. Otherwise, appeal should be allowed to go to the Commonwealth Court of Justice if any.
The Supreme Court is to interpret the law which is already before them in section 68(1g) of the Constitution. Or is the constitution not their working tool?
The celebrated British Jurist Lord Dening, ‘in a melodramatic way’ defined law as ‘what the Judge says it is’. By this Judgement should be taken beyond technicalities, to morality, in other to bring about attitudinal change or deterance.
For instance after the expulsion of Nzeribe from the Senate and his disgrace before Justice Anyaegbunam’s Tribunal there was no further decamping from one party to another either in the Senate or the House of Representatives.
According to Aristotle, Law has a moral purpose: It is to make men good and righteous and above all, to serve common interests. He explained that all that is founded on wisdom is deep and enduring.
What is based on justice will be respected for centuries: what speaks the truth will resist all obstacles. But what is based on convenience will not last long; what suits only a particular class or section of the population will inevitably create discontent, antagonism and lack of peace. What is unfair is bad and will not be obeyed even if it must be obeyed. Jurisprudence is said to be all that is founded on wisdom, and is deep and enduring.
The Supreme Court is therefore challenged to review its judgement in the Fubara case and see if it is deep and enduring or has a change of attitude to provide. The conclusion is that any judgement that doesn’t respect moral significance as enunciated by Aristotle leaves much to be desired.
*Gboyega Amoboye, a veteran Journalist and media consultant is Publisher FESTAC- Amuwo Emporium .
Share your story or advertise with us: Whatsapp: +2347068606071 Email: info@newspotng.com
