...Plus why the judges subverted justice

...RSM condemns judgement

...Legal Battle to resume September

...Yar’adua orders probe of Judges

The embattled former Speaker of the Rivers State Assembly, Rt. Hon. Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi has headed for the Supreme Court to challenge the decision of the Appeal Court which last week dismissed his appeal against the judgement of the Federal High Court, Abuja. Amaechi through his lawyers led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, had on Friday, 20th of July, 2007 same day judgement was delivered filed an appeal at the Apex Court on grounds of appeal that ‘the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to follow and apply the decision in UGWU V. ARARAUME in SC/63/07 which it had bounded itself to apply following its ruling of April 4, 2007 which was not appealed against. According to Fagbemi, a Court of law is bound by its earlier decision to do a particular thing on the occurrence of a particular event, while also the Court is not allowed to later distinguish a case before it from another one it had bounded to itself to follow or apply.’  It would be recalled that the Appeal Court the had on April 4, 2007 consented to the request of Omehia’s counsel, E.C. Ukala who had urged the Court to await the decision of the Supreme Court on the Araraume case before it could rule on the case before it since the two were similar and bothered on whether section 34(2) of the Electoral Act was complied with in substituting the names of the candidates which INEC had already published. Rather than abide by its decision, the appellate Court made a detour when the Supreme Court eventually the next day, April 5, 2007 dismissed Ugwu’s appeal and ruled that the substitution was wrongfully done. Amaechi is also asking the apex Court to nullify the decision of the Appeal Court in allowing the application of the 1st Respondent, INEC, for further evidence on appeal to prove the issue of indictment and applied same to hold Amaechi had been indicted and, therefore, came to a wrong decision occasioning a miscarriage of justice, and which by its implication means that INEC can disqualify a candidate for election contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in SC/69/2007-ACTION CONGRESS AND ABUBAKAR ATIKU VS. INEC delivered on the 29th June, 2007. In deciding the case, the Appeal Court had sought to rely on fresh evidence from INEC represented by Amaechi Nwaiwu, SAN, even though it ruled that it was not INEC that disqualified the candidate. ‘‘It s however noteworthy that the appellant (AMAECHI) was not disqualified by INEC from contesting based on the list captioned Investigated and Indicted but it was the party which substituted his name under the provisions of Section 34(1) and (2) of the Electoral Act.’’   This aspect of the judgement upon which the Court dismissed the appeal has come under serious criticism and attack by legal luminaries. Despite a Supreme Court ruling in AC and Atiku Abubakar V. INEC which ruled that the electoral body does not have the powers to disqualify a candidate, the Court of Appeal still used that as a basis to support the claims of INEC whose responsibility it is to verify if the reasons adduced by the PDP is cogent and verifiable. The PDP had given its reasons for the substitution as error in a letter dated Feb.2, 2007 to the Chairman of INEC. It failed to further furnish the reasons for the said error. Though the Judges ruled that the evidence to justify the error was already at the disposal of INEC, it is worthy of note that the Supreme Court had earlier ruled that error must have particulars and is not cogent and verifiable. ‘Assuming that the respondent committed an error in submitting the name of the 1st respondent, what was the error? An error is a mistae. It is the state or quality of being wrong or mistaken. What it then means is that the appellate court sought to adduce evidence for the respondents in other to justify their case.

Amaechi’s lawyers have also argued that no case was made for the reception of further evidence on appeal as the proceedings in suit N0.FHC/ABJ/CS/74/2007 that is at the trial court. They also argue that the reception of further evidence on indictment was irrelevant because it was not the basis upon which the 3rd Respondent predicated its decision to make the substitution since the only reason given by the 3rd Respondent was mere ‘‘error’’. Fagbemi is also seeking to upturn the decision of the Appeal Court in allowing a document which was not certified as a true copy of the alleged indictment to be tendered in Court. The five-man panel had also ruled that the trial Judge, Justice Binta Nyako should have taken judicial notice of the purported list of indicted persons as it was a public document. But Amaechi is saying that firstly, as at the time the letter dated Feb.2, 2007 and marked ‘Exhibit D’ was written by PDP to INEC, there was no case of the alleged indictment. Interestingly, the PDP had given its reason of ‘error’ only for INEC to furnish evidence of indictment on Feb. 22, 2007; twenty days after the Party which reserves the sole right of adducing reasons for the change had done so. It would also be recalled that the evidence which INEC sought to give for the indictment which is the report of the Administrative Panel of Inquiry which said it had not ‘noted’ Amaechi’s case unlike in the case of most others, the report clearly stated that ‘indicted’. It would be recalled also that the Court of Appeal in Kaduna had in February, ruled that the Federal Government has no powers to set up and administrative panel of Inquiry to investigate state officers. This also means that Amaechi, as a former Speaker of a State Assembly cannot be tried by the panel set up the FG. Also, in 1991, the Appeal Court in Port Harcourt in ruling on the matter between Ada George and NEC had said that the word ‘noted’ cannot be taken for ‘indicted’.

The Court of Appeal had also ruled that Amaechi’s counsel had submitted that the case of Araraume and Amaechi are not the same when on the contrary, Fagbemi SA N had submitted that Amaechi’s case was even stronger than the former since in the case of Araraume, Ugwu was a co-contestant which the Party sought to use as a replacement while in Amaechi’s case, Omehia was not a candidate at the primary election. It would be recalled that Justice Niki Tobi of the Supreme Court had in its reasons for the judgement on June 8, 2007 ruled that the PDP was bound to follow its Constitution to the letter. According to Tobi, ‘‘This logic clearly faults the underlying factor or need for primaries, particularly in the context of section 34(2) of the Act. It makes nonsense of the Electoral Guidelines for Primary Elections 2006 for the PDP, the 3rd respondent. Why should the 3rd respondent produce a document of 32 pages in the name of the National Chairman and National Secretary of the Party and not follow it? Why should Article 17 of the Constitution of the Peoples Democratic Party provide for primaries, if the party will not follow it? This beats me hollow and hands down’’. This also confirms the prayer of Amaechi at the Supreme Court where he s urging the apex Court to upturn the decision of the appellate Court in distinguishing his case from Araraume’s  case where Omehia did not follow the laid down procedure of the party to arrive as its candidate for the April 14 election in Rivers State. Below are further details of Amaechi’s appeal at the Supreme Court which is expected to be heard when the Court returns form its one month recess in September.  Meanwhile, Gov. Omehia has been relishing his controversial victory at the Appeal Court. Though he attributed it to an act of God, the Rivers Success Movement led by Dr. Chidugam Nyeche Amadi has described it as an act of man rather than God. In a chat with The Beam, Nyeche-Amadi said Amaechi’s supporters though were saddened by the judgement of the appellate Court but they never expected anything short of that considering the fact the presence of Justice Mary Odili at the Appeal Court is an added advantage for Omehia. He recalled the role played behind the scene by the wife of the former Governor in ensuring that Amaechi never succeeded her husband.

The President of RSM also decried the inability of the President of the Appeal Court to reconstitute the panel following the way and manner the matter was shamelessly handled by the appeal court, while failing to abide by the supreme orders of the Supreme Court to hear the matter on its merit an d expeditiously. Nyeche-Amadi wondered how it would have been possible for Amaechi to get justice at the Appeal Court when some members of the five-man panel hearing the matter were guests of the Odilis and Omehia few days to the swearing-in ceremony of Omehia as governor. ‘‘We had long expected this to happen. In fact, we 6the supporters of Amaechi who believe in justice and fair play had prayed for the Appeal Court to rule against us so that we could leave that place and head for the Supreme Court where we are optimistic that the judgement would be upturned. How can you reconcile the fact that state funds were being used to feather the nests of those involved in the panel? The entire world is watching as this is one case that would make or mar this judiciary. We are afraid of a dangerous precedence being set by the Appeal Court in questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court. It was only done to suit the whims and caprices of one man and his wife. It is clear now that it was done in the spirit of esprit d’corp and not based on the rule of law. But we shall not relent until we correct this injustice and illegality foisted on our people by a few selfish cabal in our state’’. The RSM boss also urged those who attribute the victory to the hand of God to desist from doing so as he said, ‘‘God cannot be part of this fraud, a situation where a man is denied justice through bribery’’. Meanwhile, President Yaradua has ordered the National Judicial Council to commence the immediate probe of the judges to ascertain whether the allegations of bribery levelled against them. According to the reports, more than one thousand petitions have since been filed against the Judges by persons and groups speculated to be in support of the embattled former Speaker. It is said that the President is highly disappointed with the way and manner the appellate court dispensed justice on the matter while also flagrantly disregarding the orders of the nation’s apex Court which is the custodian of our Constitution.