Dr. Farah Dagogo was a former governorship aspirant in the 2023 Rivers State election. He was at different times member of the National Assembly (House of Representatives) and State House of Assembly. He is currently an undergraduate law student.
In this interview, he gives a breakdown of the recent Supreme Court judgement on Rivers State political crises, steps that the Governor and House of Assembly need to take for lasting peace, just as he gave instances on how the judgement on stoppage of allocations can be challenged.
Excerpts:
Can the Supreme Court and Federal Government justify the seizure of allocations to Rivers State?
In Nigeria, the doctrine of stare decisis mandates that decisions of higher courts bind lower courts, and courts of equal standing should follow established precedents. Specifically, a smaller panel, such as a five-justice bench, should not overrule the decision of a larger panel, like a seven-justice bench. This hierarchy preserves the integrity and predictability of the legal system. For instance, in Sodeinde Bros. Ltd v. ACB Ltd, the Supreme Court emphasised that a five-person panel cannot overrule or depart from the decision of a panel of equal or larger number. The recent events in Rivers State have brought this principle into sharp focus.
The crisis began when 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly allegedly defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Under Nigerian law, specifically the 1999 Constitution (as amended) lawmakers are expected to vacate their seats upon defection unless their original party is factionalised. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence supporting the claim that these lawmakers had defected, thereby rejecting the assertion that they had lost their seats.
You recall that a five-justice panel of the Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence of defection by the 27 lawmakers, effectively restoring their positions in the House. This decision raises concerns about adherence to judicial hierarchy, as it appears to conflict with the established precedent that a smaller panel cannot overrule a larger one. The ruling also ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria to withhold federal allocations to Rivers State until the budget was passed by the reinstated lawmakers, a move that has been criticised as punitive towards the state’s populace. This brings to bare analysis of Judicial Authority and Case Law. The Supreme Court’s decision to have a five-justice panel address an issue previously settled by a seven-justice panel contradicts the established judicial practice of panel hierarchy and overruling precedents. Such actions can undermine the consistency and reliability of legal precedents. As noted in legal analyses, the present panel size weakens the institutional voice of the Supreme Court and is potentially harmful to its integrity.
To your question on withholding of Federal Allocations to the state, the Supreme Court’s directive to withhold federal allocations to Rivers State introduces a complex constitutional issue. While the court aims to enforce legislative compliance, such financial sanctions could be seen as overreach, potentially violating the principles of federalism and the financial autonomy of state governments. The Supreme Court’s handling of the Rivers State legislative crisis highlights critical issues concerning judicial hierarchy, adherence to constitutional provisions, and the balance of powers within Nigeria’s federal structure. Departing from established precedents without convening an appropriate panel size undermines the judiciary’s credibility and the doctrine of stare decisis. Moreover, punitive measures affecting state finances may set a concerning precedent for federal-state relations. It is imperative for the judiciary to uphold its foundational principles to maintain public trust and ensure the rule of law.
Additionally, addressing the judicial controversy in Rivers State requires a nuanced understanding of the remedies available within Nigeria’s legal framework. These remedies aim to uphold judicial consistency, respect constitutional mandates, and ensure the proper functioning of the state’s governance structures. Some of the judicial remedies include upholding precedent and panel hierarchy. The principle that a smaller panel cannot overrule a larger panel within the same court ensures stability in legal precedents.
Are you suggesting that there are chances of appealing the Supreme Court’s ruling on Rivers State allocation?
In Nigeria, the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land. As such, its decisions are final and binding under Section 235 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), which states that “without prejudice to the powers of the President or Governor with respect to the prerogative of mercy, no appeal shall lie to any other body or person from any determination of the Supreme Court.” This means that ordinarily, there is no appeal from a Supreme Court decision. However, there are limited options for challenging such a decision.
One of such is an Application for Review Under Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules. This rule allows the Supreme Court to review its own decision in exceptional circumstances. In the case of Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250, the court held that it will only review its judgment in cases of; a clerical mistakes or accidental slips, fraud or misrepresentation and the absence of jurisdiction. In Ekwunife v. Wayne West Africa Ltd (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that it has no power to sit on appeal over its own decisions except in very rare circumstances. Those circumstances include; new evidence or a fundamental jurisdictional error, a motion for review can be filed, Constitutional Amendment, the National Assembly can enact a law to reverse the effects of the judgment, provided it does not contradict the Constitution. In Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt.833) 1, the court held that where legislation is enacted after a judicial decision, the new law can alter the legal position.
Another angle, is International Human Rights Petitions. If the decision violates fundamental human rights, a petition may be filed before the ECOWAS Court of Justice or the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
If the Rivers State Government wants to appeal the Supreme Court decision on stoppage of allocation, it will start by drafting action plan for Challenging the Supreme Court Decision. The first step will be to Filing a Motion for Review. The grounds should be to Identify clear jurisdictional errors or miscarriage of justice in the judgment.
The second step would be to mobilise the National Assembly for Legislative Intervention. It would involve drafting a bill to reinforce the constitutional provision on legislative defections and state financial autonomy. As a former Lawmaker, I can tell you for free that it would require lobbying and engaging lawmakers to fast-track the legislative process. The third step is the International Human Rights Petition, if applicable. It would also require filing a petition before the ECOWAS Court of Justice or the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights if the ruling affects fundamental rights.
So, comprehensively, challenging a Supreme Court decision is difficult but not impossible under the right legal circumstances. A well-drafted Motion for Review, combined with legislative action, provides the best chance of reversing the impact of the ruling.
What is your take on the Supreme Court judgement that invalidated the Rivers State Local Government Elections?
The great Malcolm once said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Also, Magie Kuhn encouraged us to speak the truth even if our voices shake! Yes, it is a very sensitive question, but when we don’t allow emotions becloud our reasoning, we will come to terms that the Supreme Court of Nigeria acted within its constitutional mandate in nullifying the October 5, 2024, Local Government Elections in Rivers State. This might be an unpopular view, depending on the perspectives, expectations and desires of some for the pendulum to swing otherwise. Nevertheless, the Court’s decision was based on facts and the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission’s (RSIEC) failure to comply with those mandatory legal requirements, helped in rendering the election invalid.
There was the violation of Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2022 wherein the Supreme Court identified that RSIEC conducted the elections without adhering to Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2022. Specifically, the court said RSIEC did not issue the mandatory 90-day notice before the election date, a prerequisite designed to ensure transparency and adequate preparation for all stakeholders. That was why in delivering the lead judgement, the key point emphasised by Justice Jamilu Tukur, was the clear absence of evidence by RSIEC showing compliance with Section 150(3) of the Electoral Act 2010 (now 2022) before conducting the elections and that, in their estimation, rendered the process invalid.
There was also the order by the Federal High Court in Abuja that had issued an order on September 30, 2024, restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from releasing the voter register to RSIEC. Additionally, the court barred security agencies from providing support for the elections due to RSIEC’s non-compliance with electoral laws. RSIEC wilfully disobeyed these orders and proceeded with the elections. Of course, the court frowns at these clear disobedience to judicial directives that undermines the rule of law from their perspective.
Do you foresee peaceful end to this political logjam?
The interest of the populace, especially those at the grassroots should be paramount and with that in mind, and with a further understanding that governance is all about the people, the camp that views the ruling as ‘victory’ and the other that seems aggrieved in your ‘classification of camps in the state’, should work towards a compromise for the benefits of the people they so professed to love. And this is where the need for both the Executive and Legislature to sheath their swords not just as the bastion of democracy that they are, but also as the fulcrum. The judiciary comes into play only when there are irreconcilable differences that threaten to blow the very essence of democracy to the smithereens.
The real political crisis in Rivers State is between the Executive and the Legislature, the Judiciary is just there to adjudicate. There can be a peaceful end if both can harmonise on their differences because the truth is that the primary reason for this brouhaha is all about protection of their interests. That of the populace is secondary, this is an opinion that would not be welcomed by the protagonists on both divides as well as their prime movers. But I have said mine the way I have observed the whole situation.
It is trite at this juncture for all divides to seek political solutions to avoid further legal battles and political instability in the state. This can be done amicably since the major actors were a ‘ family’ before and immediately after elections. If truly their fights are related to the good, well being and development of the state and its people, meeting at a point and making compromises should be a non-issue.
The Sun Nigeria
