The Supreme Court is struggling to make up the numbers of the panel that would hear the appeals brought against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, which begins tomorrow. Although the Apex Court has released the names of seven Justices that will hear the appeals filed by the Presidential candidates of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar and Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, respectively, against the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court there are reservations about the composition of the panel.
The Appeal Court on September 6 upheld the election of President Bola Tinubu. Obi and Atiku had filed separate petitions at the PEPC challenging the election, which produced Tinubu. They contested among others, electoral malpractice, and Tinubu’s qualification to stand for election and urged the PEPC to set aside the election. However, the Court on September 6, in its judgement, held that the Petitioners failed to substantiate their claims of electoral fraud against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the President.
Dissatisfied with the judgement, the duo of Atiku and Obi had separately approached the apex court for redress. The apex court had on Thursday in a notice issued, named seven justices of the court, who will hear the ap- peals. The notice signed by Zainab M. Garba in the of- fice of the registrar, said by the Order 2 Rule 1 (2) of the Supreme Court’s Rules 1985 as amended, the notice was deemed as sufficiently served on the parties.
The notice informed that the list of members of the panel to sit on the appeals included Justices Musa Dattijo Muhammad, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, Lawal Garba, Helen M. Ogunwumiju, I.N. Saulawa, Tijjani Abubakar and Emmanuel Agim. In a related development, the apex court has also fixed tomorrow for hearing of the appeals filed by Atiku and Obi. The apex court is also billed to hear the motion filed by Atiku seeking to bring fresh evidence to prove that President Tinubu submitted a forged certificate to the INEC.
Meanwhile, controversies had continued to trail the list of the seven justices. Reacting, an Aide to Atiku on Communication, Phrank Shuaibu, in an exclusive chat with Sunday Telegraph, said that, “after God, the Supreme Court is the highest authority in our nation. So, the apprehension in certain quarters about a certain Justice on the panel, who is biologically related to two staunch members of the APC is therefore scary.
“Such a relationship is at variance with Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, which says that, a judicial officer should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. “Rule 2(a) which pertains to social relationships specifically says, “A Judicial Officer must avoid social relationship that are improper or give rise to an appearance of impropriety, that cast doubt on the judicial officer’s ability to decide cases impartially, or that bring disrepute to the Judiciary.”
“It is thus expected that the particular member of the panel, who has been pointed as having a familial relationship with prominent politicians in the ruling party should apply the dictates of the rule and enforce a recusal”. Similarly, a another source, who pleaded anonymity while reacting to the list said: “the only female on the 7-member Supreme Court Panel on the election – Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, should also recuse herself.
Her son, Otunba Ogunwumiju is an APC Member Ondo House of Assembly (2023-27). Her other son, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) is an APC lawyer at the Tribunals. That should knock her out. “Again another panel member, Supreme Court Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad will retire October 27th, 2023 (a week’s time) when he will be 70”. Another source in his own reaction notes, “Already, CJN Ariwoola, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and Inyang-Okoro have been recused for interest’s conflict.
So, the Supreme Court with only 11 Justices cannot make up a 7-member Panel if Ogunwumiju and Mohammed are axed from the Panel, as only 6 Justices would be left.” In a related development, following the transfers of all appeals arising from the Governorship and National Assembly elections petitions Tribunal to Abuja and Lagos , Sunday Telegraph gathered that the Court of Appeal President, Monica Dongban-Mensem, acted in response to petitions and protests by political parties and their candidates.
Justice Mensem had directed that all appeals arising from the judgments of the election petitions tribunal on the 1,209 cases filed against the conduct and the outcome of the 2023 general elections be assigned to Abuja and Lagos for hearing and determination. All political parties and their candidates having pending appeal cases have therefore been directed to comply with the order by moving to either Lagos or Abuja as the case may be to prosecute their cases.
Sunday Telegraph further gathered that some of the political parties and their candidates alleged that the judges of the tribunals at the state divisions were indiscriminately compromised by the governors during the trial stage; hence, they compromised their judgments. For instance, it was learnt the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP), and their aggrieved candidates in their various petitions and protests to the leadership of the appellate court, had alleged that the judges of the tribunals became vulnerable as governors generously provided logistics and other support for them.
The aggrieved parties and their candidates protested that various judgments pronounced by some of the tribunal judges were not only fraudulent but were “purchased” outright by the governors in favour of their parties and candidates in the election. Sources reportedly said that the appellants in the various cases expressed apprehension that the same fate might befall them if their cases were allowed to be determined by the other divisions of the Court of Appeal in states under the watch of the governors.
A source said the leadership of the appellate court was persuaded to move against the governors by relocating the cases to Abuja and Lagos where the judges could be effectively monitored by the president of the appeal court. Meanwhile, it was further reported that Justice Mensem had launched discreet enquiries into the allegations against the governors and the judges of the trial tribunal, and it was gathered that enquiries established the veracity of the allegations to the extent that a compromised alliance was established between some governors and judges of the tribunals.
Some judges of the tribunals were reportedly indicted and might face trial by the National Judicial Council (NJC).
