tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23216342.post4985788410463944319..comments2023-10-28T11:41:07.472+01:00Comments on Pause to Ponder: Was Supreme Court Wrong?twinstaiyehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13586738919682959943noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23216342.post-17390661243820181662007-07-24T09:00:00.000+01:002007-07-24T09:00:00.000+01:00In a thought – provoking address he presented on M...In a thought – provoking address he presented on Monday at the Benin branch of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) Law Week, Justice Uwaifo said if he had sat on the panel of judges, he would have presented a dissenting opinion.<BR/><BR/>“With due respect, if I had sat on the panel of the Supreme Court and seen the way of my learned brothers’ understanding of Mr. Obi’s case, I would have had no hesitation to express a dissenting opinion. I have decided to make my views known at this august forum because I consider the case to be of extreme national importance,” Justice Uwaifo said.<BR/><BR/>The retired Supreme Court Justice observed that if the apex court’s interpretation and reliance on section 251 were to be correct, it would undermine the exclusive original jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Appeal under section 239 and even that conferred on the Supreme Court under section 232 as it set out to do to sections 246 and 285.<BR/><BR/>Justice Uwaifo stated that the provisions of sections 251 cannot override sections 246 and 285, being special provisions made mainly for the prosecution and final resolution of certain election matters up to the Court of Appeal, adding that the window which the Supreme Court attempted to create for the Federal High Court jurisdiction to hear the matter did not exist.<BR/><BR/>“The orders made by the Supreme Court in the Peter Obi’s case did not demise from the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in its original jurisdiction. How then did the Supreme Court get itself involved in the Peter Obi’s cases,” Justice Uwaifo queried.<BR/>According to him, a court does not just go interpreting a provision of the constitution or the law in vaccum, but can only do so for a purpose, and within its jurisdictions and in relation to a claim before it, showing a cause of action.<BR/><BR/>Justice Uwaifo said: “It is not the character of the judiciary, a vital organ of government to spring surprises with relaxed ease for the ovation of the gullible. The Supreme Court is the engine of purifier of the Rule of Law. It musts consistently perform its solemn duty with deep commitment in line with the constitution and the laws for the edification of societal values” adding that the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction of which the constitution denies it.<BR/><BR/>He said the tenure of office at any one time was meant for four years, and that the emphasis was not on the incumbent but the tenure of office of governor.<BR/>Justice Uwaifo pointed out the implications of the judgment among others, to include that Dr. Chris Ngige’s tenure was not recognized to have existed when in reality he was in office by default for three years, that just through one election. Anambra State would now be ruled for seven years contrary to four provided for in the constitution.<BR/><BR/>While saying that there was no basis for Peter Obi’s continued stay in office, the retired Justice of the Supreme Court said judicial intervention in Anambra would result in staggered election in that state, contrary to what would happen in other parts of the country.<BR/>He said if the Anambra case was to be applied to the Presidency it could create uncertainty in the international community, who he said, would be afraid to do business with Nigeria.twinstaiyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13586738919682959943noreply@blogger.com