EBONYI: How Sound Is The Decision Of Federal High Court Removing Gov, Deputy?

For starters, I agree wholly with the submissions of the learned silk, Ozekhome, shared above that the decision to declare the seat of a governor and his deputy vacant does not lie with the Federal High Court.

The decision of the Federal High Court, sitting at the FCT, Abuja is such that should be condemned massively by all keen observers, who are lovers of democracy, especially those with legal background. The decision is plagued with so much irregularities that it stops short of being declared an illegal decision. The reason for this stance is straightforward and clear:

1. Our legal jurisprudence thrives on judicial precedents referred to in legal parlance as stare decisis. It is the doctrine that where a case has been decided in a particular manner, subsequent cases of similar facts should be decided in accordance with the one first decided. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, where the Supreme Court has laid a precedent, it is an act of impudence and insubordination for lower courts to deviate from the precedent. They are obligated to follow religiously, the precedents laid down by the Supreme. Further, it is the Supreme Court only, that is at liberty to overrule its own precedents. No other court shares this liberty with the Supreme Court.

There are, as already cited by the learned silk, a plethora of Supreme Court authorities that a president or governor cannot by reason of defection to another political party other than the one that sponsored him for election, lose his seat. It has also been firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that parties do not contest elections but only sponsor candidates (humans) who contest and win or lose elections. The Federal High Court Judge, by his decision, has gone against these principles entrenched in our laws.

2. The manner in which the decision was obtained also raises a lot of eye brows. Firstly, there is a subsisting judgment of the high court of Ebonyi on the same issues and parties.

There was also an application for transfer of the case from Abuja to Ebonyi which was granted by The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, and the case was transferred to Ebonyi. How the case found its way back to Abuja, without the knowledge of the defendants still remains to be seen. In fact, the allegedly sacked governor has threatened to drag the judge to the NJC.

3. The governor enjoys executive immunity, that prevents him from being sued either civilly or criminally in his personal capacity. The instant sacking, not being through an election petition or connected to an election petition, runs foul of this constitutional immunity and the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the cause in the first place.
4. Why is it that some of these judges are unable to refrain from issuing unpopular and controversial political decisions? It was this same Justice Eyang Ekwo that recently issued an order restraining the National Assembly from amending the Electoral Act just passed into law. The judge, in accordance with the substance of the order, purported to dictate to the National Assembly, how to go about their law-making duties. Surely, it is these sort of decisions that lead observers to classify some of the judges as Party A or Party B judges.
5. Finally, why is it that when certain fate befall some parties in our polity, it is hailed and celebrated as triumph for democracy, while when it befalls others it is seen as black days for democracy?

We are witnesses to the defections of some governors, like Ortom of Benue. There was no hue and cry. He did not lose his seat. In fact, he was celebrated as a hero for democracy for relentlessly criticising and insulting the President of the Federal Republic. Today, others must lose their seats at all costs.

Is this the type of polity we really intend to bequeath to our dear children.

An a political observer.