|
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Thursday, the
14th day of June 2007
Before Their
Lordships
S.C.
123/2007
Between
And
Judgment of the
Court
Delivered by
Aloysius Iyorgyer Katsina-Alu
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court below given on 22nd
May 2007. The Court below had affirmed the judgment of the Federal High
Court, which declined jurisdiction in the matter on the ground that only the
Election Tribunal could entertain same.
I
have read the proceedings of the two courts below and
adverted my mind fully to the nature of the appellant's case. I have
also given consideration to the arguments of counsel in their written brief
and their oral argument. It is my firm view that what plaintiff/appellant
had sought by his claim was the true interpretation of section 180(2)(a)
of the 1999 Constitution. The Court under the 1999 Constitution and in
particular section 251(l)(q) and (r) has
the jurisdiction to interpret any provision of the Constitution or the law.
It is therefore my view that the court below was wrong to hold that this was
an election matter under section 285 of the 1999 Constitution. I
therefore allow the appeal on jurisdiction.
In
the interest of justice and having regard to the fact that the relevant
facts in this matter arc not in dispute, I ought to proceed to exercise the
power vested in this Court under section 22 of the Supreme Court Act.
Let me reiterate that the only relevant fact is the date when the
plaintiff/appellant took his oath of allegiance and oath of office, which is
17th March 2006. Happily the said provision is very clear and
explicit and all I need do is to apply it. The provision reads:
“180(2)
Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the
Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years
commencing from the date when –
(a)
in the case of a person first elected
as
Governor under this Constitution, he took the oath of allegiance and oath of
office."
There being no dispute on the fact that plaintiff/appellant took his oath of
allegiance and oath of office on 17th March 2006 his term of
office will expire on 17th March 2010.
I
now consider the orders to make. The plaintiff/appellant had in his claim
before the High Court sought both declaratory and injunctive reliefs
directed at protecting his four-year term of office. In its effect, the
claim is in another way, that his term of office
extends beyond May 29, 2007. However the 1st Respondent inspite
of its awareness that the case was still pending in court went on to conduct
the purported election.
This court and indeed any court ought not to permit its processes to be
treated with disdain. I therefore have the duty to ensure that
plaintiff/appellant's appeal is not rendered nugatory. I therefore make the
following declaration and order –
1.
That the office of Governor of Anambra State was not vacant as at 29th
May 2007.
2.
It is ordered that the 5th Respondent Dr. Andy Uba should
vacate the office of the Governor of Anambra State with immediate effect to
enable the plaintiff/appellant Mr. Peter Obi to exhaust his term of office.
I
will give my full reasons on 13-7-07.
Judgment Delivered By
George Adesola Oguntade
The facts leading to this appeal are very simple and straightforward. In
addition, the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria are
very explicit in relation to the facts. The two courts below patently fell
in error, because they misunderstood and in consequence misinterpreted the
provisions of sections 184 and 285 of the 1999 Constitution. This error led
them to conclude that the suit by the plaintiff/appellant could only be
heard by an election tribunal. This suit was filed at the trial Court on 12th
February 2007. At that time the office of the Governor of Anambra Slate had
not become vacant neither was there a dispute as to whether the term of
office of the plaintiff had ceased. The plaintiff (now appellant) only
brought his suit to invoke the interpretative jurisdiction of the Federal
High Court under section 251(1)(i) of the 1999
Constitution. There is clear jurisdiction in the Federal High Court to
hear plaintiff’s suit.
As
for the merit of plaintiffs suit.
Section 180(2)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution
is clear and unambiguous. It says:
“180(2)
Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the
Governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years
commencing from the date when –
(a)
in the case of a person first elected
as
Governor under this Constitution, he took the oath of allegiance and oath of
office."
The only conclusion to be arrived at on the above of provision of section
180(2) is that the 4-year term of office of the plaintiff commenced on
17-3-2006 when he first took the oath of office.
His term will not end until 7-3-2010. To arrive at a conclusion
different from the above will amount to a subversion of the Constitution.
I am aware that the conclusion now reached will impose pain and
hardship on those who have been made to expend resources and time in the
quest to fill an office which was nor vacant. But the Constitution of the
land, which I have sworn lo protect, must be upheld.
I
intend to give fuller reasons fur my judgment on 13-07-2007.
It suffices to say that I agree with the lead judgment by my learned
brother
Katsina-Alu
presiding. I subscribe to all the orders in the said lead judgment.
Judgment Delivered By
Francis Fedode Tabai
J.S.C.
I
agree with the reasoning and conclusion in the lead judgment of my learned
brother Katsina-Alu, J.S.C. I allow the appeal on the issue of jurisdiction.
And by virtue of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, I have also
considered the originating summons. Reliefs 1 and 2 of the originating
summons ought to be and are accordingly granted. I shall also give my fuller
reasons on the 13/7/07.
Judgment Delivered By
Pius Olayiwola Aderemi, J.S.C.
The reliefs claimed are in the main declaratory- a pronouncement as to the
state of the law. A court always has jurisdiction to make a pronouncement on
the state of the law. Therefore the two courts below are wrong to have
declined jurisdiction.
Invoking the provisions of Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, which
I must do in the interest of justice, I hold that the appeal is meritorious.
Full reasons to be given by me on 13th July
2007.
Judgment
Delivered By
Christopher Mitchell Chukwuma-Eneh
J.S.C.
I have read the judgment prepared and delivered by my learned brother Katsina-Alu J.S.C. in this matter and I agree with him that the High Court has the jurisdiction to interpret any provision of the Constitution and the law. I also allow the appeal on jurisdiction.
In
the interest of justice and acting under Section 22 of the Supreme Court
Act. I agree with him that there is merit in the substantive claim. I
grant the declarations sought as per the lead judgment. I abide by all the
orders made in the lead judgment. No order as to costs, I will give my
reasons on 13/07/07.
Counsel
|