The controversy over the conflicting content of the Court of Appeal judgment on the Kano State governorship election dispute is most unfortunate, as it has only succeeded in further dragging down the public image of the country’s judiciary.
The controversy does little to impress that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man; and it puts to question the credibility of sitting judges and/or their diligence in discharging their duty as impartial arbiter.
To this end, the silence of the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem over the controversial Certified True Copy (‘CTC’) of the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Kano State Governorship Election is deafening. As a prelude, the three-member panel of the appellate court unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by Kano State Governor, Abba Kabir Yusuf, against the decision of the Tribunal.
However, the CTC of the lead judgment delivered by Moore Adumein, JCA, was marred with contradictions. Contrary to the judgment read in open court, the certified version appeared to be in favour of both parties but with an award of N1 million costs in favour of the Appellant. Expectedly, this development stirred the hornet’s nest as each party claimed victory over the verdict of the intermediate court. Also, it further heightened the political tension in Kano State which could have snowballed into a state-wide crisis but for the proactive counter-measures of the Nigeria Police Force.
Reacting to the situation, the Chief Registrar of the court had explained that the self-contradictory portion of the judgment was a mere rectifiable clerical error. He added that the “contradictions did not in any way invalidate the findings and conclusion of the court” which is in favour of the 1st Respondent. Nonetheless, the nature of the error is considered too substantial to be trivialised. As a result, some legal experts questioned the neutrality of the panel while others opined that the error transcends the scope of clerical slip as it goes to the root of the judgment itself.
Although judges are expected to be meticulous in writing judgments, nevertheless, in doing this, they may inadvertently fall into some amenable glitches. “This buttresses the universal platitude that all men, save God, are fallible.” To remedy inadvertent mistakes in judgment, the concept of the Slip Rule was established. This rule permits a court to correct errors that are apparent on the face of a judgment, ruling, or order of the court on the presupposition that the errors were occasioned by accident or mistake and therefore not deliberate.
However, the slip rule is not applied slavishly and lavishly. For the rule to apply, the errors in the judgment must be immaterial in such a way that their correction cannot generate any controversy regarding the decision of the court; change the substance of the judgment; or alter the clear intention of the court. In other words, the Slip Rule does not confer upon a court, any jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its judgment. That is to say, the power of a judge to amend his judgment is limited only to where the clerical mistake or error is not a material misadventure that varies the operative part of the judgment, and substitutes a different form.
In the instant case, the controversial portion of the judgment reads as follows: “I will conclude by stating that the live issues in this appeal are hereby resolved in favour of the 1st respondent and against the appellant. In the circumstances, I resolve all the issues in favour of the appellant and against the 1st respondent. Therefore, I find no merit in this appeal which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the tribunal in Petition No.: EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023 between: ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 2 ORS delivered on the 20th day of September, 2023 is hereby set aside. The sum of [N1 million] is hereby awarded as costs in favour of the appellant and against the 1st respondent.”
Evidently, the foregoing excerpts of the judgment are conflicting. Accordingly, the salient issue is whether the contradictory content qualifies as a mere error blight. Whatever the intention of the lead judge, the controversial portion touches on the substratum of the final decision, and hence cannot be dismissed as a mere blunder. It is therefore doubtful if the Slip Rule is applicable.
To unravel the mystery surrounding the error, the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) urged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate the Court of Appeal. Also, a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Olumide Akpata, sought the intervention of the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA). However, the leadership of the judiciary has been mute so far. Not only should an investigation have been immediately set in motion, the officer(s) responsible for the ignoble act ought to be facing drastic disciplinary measures by now. It is no use trying to sweep the matter under the carpet, as Nigerians deserve to know what actually transpired.
Interestingly, the lead judge appended his signature immediately beneath the controversial content of the written judgment. Does this imply that his lordship failed to peruse the document to ensure it is the same one he authored before initialing? Does this not raise a red flag on the diligence of the learned jurist? Was the original document tampered with? Who doctored the original lead judgment by inputting the controversial text? Why is anyone not facing sanctions for this serious infraction? For an act that almost triggered chaos in a politically volatile environment like Kano State, the nonchalance of the various bodies of the justice sector is puzzling.
As a fresh page is flipped in the Gregorian calendar, it is about time the Nigerian judiciary is repositioned as the country’s bastion of democracy. Whilst the other two arms of government have their respective roles to play in the nation’s development, the judicial sector is the nervous system of governance. The rise and fall of the country rest on the judiciary. The immediate preceding year was a litmus test for the judiciary considering the barrage of unprecedented challenges it was confronted with. Undoubtedly, the heads of court should be manifestly seen to be making concerted efforts to improve justice administration.
The Court of Appeal by this action exposed Nigeria to global ridicule, mockery and embarrassment. This singular act distorts the majesty of the judiciary and further deepens public mistrust of the institution at a time the judiciary is under microscopic scrutiny for perceived compromise. More so, the fact that it emanated from the second highest court paints an uncomplimentary image of the state of affairs of the entire judiciary. The judiciary is complicating Nigeria’s democracy!
Therefore, the Court of Appeal must take responsibility for this inexcusable gaffe and ensure it never recurs. Furthermore, as Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN, puts it, this messy issue must not be rested without some heads rolling. It would spell doom for the federation should the people completely lose confidence in the judiciary.
