Constitutional lawyer, Daniel Bwala has called on the
Supreme Court to avert ‘anarchy’ by setting the records straight on the
superiority of its judgment on the incapacity of election tribunals to look
into pre-election cases.
Speaking in an interview on Monday morning, Bwala warned
that the decision of the Court of Appeal to take over jurisdiction in the
pre-election matters concerning the Plateau State elections could be a threat
to judicial order as it could set a pattern for lower courts to undermine
settled law as pronounced by the apex court.
Bwala spoke on AIT’s Kakaki programme while discussing the
decision of the Court of Appeal to annul the election of Governor Caleb
Mutfwang based on the claim that his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP),
did not have a structure in the state.
Bwala, while putting aside the settled precedence of the
Supreme Court that the APC was an interloper by questioning the nomination of
candidates by the PDP, said that the court had already settled the issue of
pre-election matters being outside the purview of election tribunals.
He said that such pre-election matters, according to the
apex court, could only be determined at the Federal High Court before
elections.
He said, “It is important that the judiciary set the records
straight because once the Supreme Court has settled a matter, you have no
choice but to follow it. There is a precedent; we are saying, How can the
Supreme Court say this is it? This court did not abide by the decision of the
Supreme Court because we are told that under the doctrine of judicial
precedence, courts are bound by the decisions of the superior court.
“Once the law is settled by the decision of the Supreme
Court, it becomes a law that cannot be changed except that the legislature in
the next legislative cycle passes a law to change it. That law is binding on
authorities and also binding on courts below them, and it becomes a final law,
and any disobedience to it attracts the anger of the courts.
“In the days of the late Hon Justice Niki Tobi, they were
very jealous in guiding the integrity of the court. If any court below them
gives a decision that is contrary to a precedent that they have made, they have
not failed to chastise the lower court.
“That is because they wanted stability in the legal
profession and stability in democracy. After all, if the Supreme Court decides
in a certain direction and the courts below them decide in another way, it can
create a great deal of instability and destroy democracy because what it means
is that there is no order in judicial precedence in a country.
“And it is
constitutional and not just a matter of the Electoral Act. Section 287 says
that the judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, and the
Supreme Court on that issue has settled that pre-election matters cannot be
entertained by election tribunals either at the trial level or at the appellate
level. They set an example when pre-election matters were brought before them.”
“Even at the Court of Appeal sitting as a trial court in the
Presidential Election Tribunal, they said they lacked jurisdiction to entertain
pre-election matters, and when it got to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court
maintained the same position. So, why should Plateau be different? It cannot be
different because the decision of the Supreme Court has to be obeyed.”
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com