Cross River, Akwa Ibom Tribunals: Matters Arising

THE judgments of Election Petition Tribunals in Cross River State have come under heavy criticism as litigants and others have called for a total probe or investigation of election petition tribunals across the country.
 
The saying now is that the Judiciary has become the last hope of the richest man going by the quality of judgments delivered by the tribunals across the country. These observers concluded that most of the judgments are “brazen and indiscreet show of wealth as reflected in their quality of judgment. Lord have mercy on us. All eyes are now on the Court of Appeal to redeem the image of the judiciary.” 

In Calabar, the Cross River State National and State Assembly Election Tribunal had disqualified itself after 179 days of sittings, thereby rendering all its proceedings and judgments null and void. But despite its disqualification on October 12, the Tribunal went ahead to deliver judgment on the five cases before it on the grounds of “mere academic exercise” and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) won in all. 

The cases were between Senator Bassey Otu of Labour Party (LP) and Senator Gershom Bassey of the PDP; Dr. Alex Egobona of LP and Mr. Bassey Ewa of PDP; Mr. Stanislous Tawo Afu of LP and Agibe Ngoro of PDP; Mr. Dominic Aqua Edem of LP and Apostle Essien Ayi of PDP, Dr. Julius Okputu of LP and Dr. Rose Oko of PDP. 

The Tribunal had on October 6, re-composed with Justice O. A. Adeniyi, former member now taking over from Justice Christopher Awubra as the new chairman following the application from Mr. Paul Erokoro, SAN, Counsel to Senator Bassey and PDP in the election petition by Senator Otu of LP, challenging the election of Senator Bassey of the PDP as the winner of the March 28, 2014 Cross River South Senatorial election. 

Erokoro had in his motion averred that the tribunal chairman was not competent to sit as chairman of the tribunal as “Schedule 6 of the Nigerian constitution says chairman of the Tribunal should be a sitting High Court judge but, Justice Christopher Awubra is a member of a Customary Court of Appeal in Taraba state.”
 
Delivering a two hour unanimous judgment on jurisdiction in the case of Senator Otu and Senator Bassey in a jam packed court room amidst tight security, Justice Adeniyi said, Awubra ”not being a judge of a High Court the proceedings of the Tribunal from inception up to October 6 should be set aside…as the law says  that the Chairman of the Tribunal shall be a judge of a High Court.  

He said the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time of a case even in the Appeal Court as issues of law is not based on sentiments or sympathy, as they are not relevant in law. 

Adeniyi said the application on jurisdiction by Erokoro was filed exactly eight days to the expiration of the lifespan of the tribunal “jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear the matter. It is the spinal cord or lifeline of any adjudication. Adjudication is what oxygen is to mammal. Any defect to adjudication of a court no matter how infinitesimal…whatever is done will amount to nullity.”
    
He submitted that a court is competent when it is properly constituted, but in this case the issue of qualification of Justice Awubra as chairman was not in order as the constitution does not provide that a Customary Court of Appeal Judge is qualified to seat as chairman and “given present circumstance the tribunal was not properly composed from its inception to October 6…the totality of the proceedings of this tribunal as previously constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice Awubra is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and they liable to be set aside and so be it”. 

Accordingly, the tribunal proceeded to decide on the merit of this petition if only for its academic record and delivered judgment in all the five matters in favour of the PDP.

Similarly, there was outrage over the October 14 ruling of the Akwa Ibom National and State Assembly Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja, following the upholding of the disputed March, 28, 2015 Akwa Ibom North West senatorial district election in favour of Senator Godswill Akpabio of the PDP. 

The three-man panel comprising the chairman, Justice Goddy Anunihu, Justice A. O. Adebusoye and Justice A. M. Lamido in its judgement insisted that even though Akpabio’s nomination form read Akwa Ibom North East, instead of North West, his nomination was in order. More shocking was the ruling of the Tribunal that the Card Reader report, which proved that only 205,519 voters were validly accredited was admitted in error and therefore ruled that all evidence emanating from the document be expunged. 

The tribunal said the mode of sponsorship was not specified in the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution and therefore Akpabio’s form reading Akwa Ibom North East is a clerical error, which amounts to a non-issue and that Akpabio’s form reading Akwa Ibom North is an erroneous error as INEC did not complain about the nomination.  

There were allegations of bribe in some of the tribunals like that of Cross River and Akwa Ibom, but the Secretary of the Cross River Tribunal, Mr. Peter Psok described the allegations as blatant falsehood and declined further comments.  

Reacting to the judgments, a senior lawyer in Cross River State, Chief Utum Eteng said, “I have heard of corrupt allegations surrounding the tribunals across the Country. I have heard so many things of the outgone administration and their agents stacked so much money-stolen money to bribe the tribunal they set up. I will not rule out such things because of the Nigeria we are today. We pray the change mantra of President Mohammadu Buhari will not close its eyes to it.  

“The cause also is that there is still so much money in the hands of some politicians and they can influence so many things and they are influencing that to the best of my knowledge. That is why to a very large extent some of us are urging that the anti-corruption agencies should expedite action in the trial of some of these persons because the money is still in their hands and they are spending it to submerge so many facts and it is not good for our democracy. 

“I urge the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the President of the Court of Appeal with reference to a near riot reaction in some of the judgements of the tribunal in Cross River” and Akwa Ibom States, they should try to find out what went wrong.  

Chief Eteng commended the action and steps of the present CJN in trying to instill discipline in the Judiciary and crying out very loud against corruption within the Judiciary.

“But I want to say emphatically please Mr. President, I crave your indulgence that a proper searchlight should be focused on the Judiciary and this can be done through secret security agents. I feel very sad to see at my old age as a legal practitioner and as a human being, things I never saw before I became interested in this profession. It is very sad. Look at Cross River State; a tribunal says it has no jurisdiction, yet same tribunal went ahead to pronounce on the merit of it. I was told in the Law School that if a court says it has no jurisdiction in simplicita that is the end of the journey. I know there is a right of appeal for the parties, but the public has the judiciary as the last hope of the common man (now it is the last hope of the richest man).

“I know the Court of Appeal has the constitutional imperatives to review judgments of the tribunal and give the same judgment the tribunal would have given in if they were able to look at the facts well, so it is an appeal and also a hearing appeal”. 

On whether a litigant can be punished for the mistake of the Judiciary, Chief Eteng said, “it is trite or settled law that the litigant cannot be punished or allowed to suffer from the error of the registry or the error of the Judiciary itself. It is a known law and the Supreme Court has said so because you cannot visit the sin of the father on the children. You should visit the sin of the children on the children based on what they have done. Who set up this tribunal and included the name of the Judge they said was incompetent or not qualified to be the chairman. Or does the disqualification of one judge rob the other two judges the opportunity of adjudicating cases on their merit? A panel of three, the law presupposes that there could be three judgments and two that agree would become a majority judgment, so that in a panel of three you can throw out one because of the urgency”.  

He argued that, “tribunal election matters are what we call sui-generics, that is to say they do not follow the normal procedure. It is a different ball game in respect of the use of procedure based on strict rules of giving the parties the opportunity to ventilate themselves. That is why were in a panel of three one is disqualified, it should not affect for God’s sake the rest of litigants who have spent so much money in money in millions to retain a SAN and it is not easy to retain one or two lawyers to prosecute a matter. I believe the president should be interested because he suffered similar situations in the past.”