Despicable conduct
• The David Mark-led faction of ADC might have got judicial reprieve, we condemn its penchant to have its way even after foisting on itself avoidable circumstances The judgment of
• The David Mark-led faction of ADC might have got judicial reprieve, we condemn its penchant to have its way even after foisting on itself avoidable circumstances
The judgment of the Supreme Court, on the leadership tussle in the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has restored buoyancy amongst the David Mark-led faction of the party, which hitherto had taken matters into their own hands.
In a rare, if not unprecedented manoeuvre, the faction’s legal counsel, Shuaibu Enejoh Aruwa, SAN, wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, on April 28, to prevail on the panel of justices hearing the case to determine the dispute between parties before the court, latest by the April 30, in other for their party to meet up with the guidelines of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
In its judgment, delivered as requested on Thursday, the apex court asked the parties to return to the Federal High Court, for the hearing and determination of the dispute, on merit.
The court also invalidated the ‘status quo ante bellum’ order of the Court of Appeal, on the premise that such an order will constitute an injunctive relief when the appellate court has ordered the parties back to the lower court for hearing the case on merit.
By implication, such an order can only be made to preserve the ‘res’ (the interest that is the subject matter of a lawsuit) by the trial court, if considered necessary after hearing the parties in the dispute.
While the Mark-led faction of the ADC had been upbeat about its partial success at the Supreme Court, their penchant to deprecate every institution of state unless it does their bidding must be condemned by every well-meaning Nigerian.
Before this judgment, the leadership of the faction under Mark had gone to town that the nation’s judiciary had been bought over by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). Instead of pursuing their matter before the courts, the faction resorted to abuses, intimidation and public ridicule of those constitutionally entrusted to advance the democratic process.
Mark and members of his faction had also shamelessly carried placards calling for the extra-constitutional dismissal of the chairman of INEC, because the body appropriately interpreted the order of the Court of Appeal to maintain the ‘status quo ante bellum’.
Read Also: Nigeria’s economy rebounds strongly, report shows
Now that the Supreme Court has decided that the order was invalidly made, and INEC has restored the names of Mark and his team on its portal, should those opposed to them, instead of going to the Federal High Court, as ordered, resort to carrying placard calling for the removal of the INEC chairman? Such anti-democratic processes should be denounced by every well-meaning Nigerian.
The reason for the three cadres of the court is to ensure that justice is distilled through them, as far as is humanly possible. To seek to pull down the entire democratic structure just because a decision of the court, or that of an administrative authority, is against the interest of one of the parties is the antithesis of democratic practices.
The leading opposition candidates who led their followers to march on the office of INEC because it gave vent to the order of the Court of Appeal, owe Nigerians an apology for misleading them.
The constant resort to self-help, each time a faction of the opposition party is faced with difficulties, most of which their leaders foisted on them, is ridiculous.
The leadership crisis currently faced by the Mark-led faction of ADC was self-inflicted. They apparently did not do due diligence before they hijacked the party.
While the Nafiu Bala-led faction of ADC was battling with the Mark-led faction at the Supreme Court over the matter decided last week, some state chairmen of the party got an order of the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, that the state congresses conducted by the Mark’s faction were invalid.
Even though the Mark-led faction got some respite last week; Nigerians were shocked that litigants before a judicial panel will seek the help of the administrative head of the court to interfere with the proceedings of the panel. Luckily for ADC, whether by sheer coincidence or in deference to their importunities, the dispute before the Supreme Court was determined within the time requested.
As they jubilate, many Nigerians consider it most inappropriate for a party before a court to seek administrative interference in a judicial process.
By that conduct, the ADC and its counsel are giving the impression that the CJN or other heads of the court have undue influence on the proceedings of a matter before their courts. The appropriate procedure was for ADC and its counsel to file an affidavit of urgency before the court, for accelerated hearing.
When that is done, the judge or judges, relying on the merits of the matter, will make a judicial decision in an open court, as enjoined by Section 36(3) 1999 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which provides: “The proceedings of a court or the proceedings of any tribunal relating to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of this section (including the announcement of the decisions of the court or tribunal) shall be held in public.” Subsection (1) deals with the determination of the “civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority.”
The decision whether a dispute before a court should receive accelerated hearing is one which a court hearing a matter will make after examining the circumstances of the case, and not a right which one of the parties should seek through an administrative fiat. The administrative head of a judicial arm of government who does that may be accused of interference with the judicial process.
The job of the administrative head merely extends to setting up the panel to hear a matter, but once the panel is seised of the matter, the administrative head cannot rightly interfere.
Now that the Supreme Court has sent the dispute between the ADC factions back to the lower court for accelerated hearing, we urge the Mark-led faction to desist from the use of strong-arm tactics anytime it disagrees with any decision of the court.
We also urge the lower court to exercise its responsibility judicially and judiciously without fear or favour, and to do so expeditiously in the interest of the rule of law and the democratic process. The lawyers involved in the cases must also be up and doing, by pursuing their cases diligently.
Even when under pressure from their clients, they must remember that they are first, officers in the temple of justice.
Our democracy will thrive when all parties show willingness to play by the rules, even when the outcome may not favour them.
The administrative heads of INEC must stay above the fray, maintain impartiality in the exercise of their constitutional responsibilities, and ignore the tantrums of the partisans who would always seek to subpoena them to do their bidding. When all parties play by the rules, our democracy thrives, and in the long run, every democrat benefits.
Of course, where partisans seek to pull down the democratic system, those entrusted with the protection of the republic should rise up to their responsibility and deal with troublemakers appropriately.
