From GODWIN TSA, Abuja
The Supreme Court has affirmed Dr. Kayode Fayemi as the duly elected governor of Ekiti State and struck out the appeal brought by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Segun Oni for want of jurisdiction.
In dismissing the appeal, the apex court, in a unanimous decision, described the action of the appellants simply as "an invitation to rely on section 36(1) of the 1999 constitution to strip the ruling of the Court of Appeal of the finality granted to it by section 246(3) of the same constitution."
Justice Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, who read the lead judgment, held that where a court is not clothed with jurisdiction to entertain a matter, "it does not hunger after jurisdiction. It can expound, but should not under any circumstances, such as the one presented in this appeal, expand its jurisdiction.
He was supported by Justices Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad; Christopher Mitchell Chukwuma-Eneh; Muhammad Saifulah Muntaka-Coomassie; Suleiman Galadima; Musa Dattijo Muhhammad and Stanley Shenko Alagoa.
In his appeal, Oni and his political platform wants the apex court to set aside an Appeal Court's judgment, which removed him from office and declared Fayemi as the elected governor of the state.
Oni is challenging his removal on the grounds that the suspended President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, who constituted and presided over the panel and wrote the judgment of the Appeal Court that sacked him from office, had close affinity with Senator Bola Tinubu, national leader of Fayemi's party, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN).
He framed three issues for the determination of the court, including the issues of lack of fair hearing, likelihood of bias by the Court of Appeal and asked the apex court to set aside the decision of the lower court.
But reading his judgment, Justice Ngwuta held: "My noble lords, the facts of this appeal appear to me curious, peculiar and novel. Two provisions of the 1999 constitution-section 36(1) and section 246(3) appear to me to have been set on a collision course. I am not persuaded by the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that: "... as the present appeal to this honourable court did not arise from election petition but anchored on misdirection, likelihood of bias and breach of the appellants' fi' hearing provided for under section 36 of the 1999 constitution.
"This is an attempt to wriggle out of the jurisprudential quagmire in which the appellants appear to have plunged themselves. As I said earlier in this judgment, the ultimate purpose of this appeal is to re-install the 1st appellant in the seat of power as the governor of Ekiti State.
"This appeal is against the ruling of the lower court, in which the said court declined to set aside its previous judgment in an appeal from the decision of the governorship and Legislative House election tribunal in favour of the respondents. The issues of 'jurisdiction, likelihood of bias and breach of the appellants' fair hearing' did not arise from the blues. The issues arose out of the refusal of the court below to set aside its decision against the appellants in election petition appeal.
"I have considered the plethora of cases decided by this court and some persuasive authorities relied on by the appellants. In my humble view, the issue is not whether or not the lower court violated section 36 (1) of the constitution in the proceedings leading to, and including its judgment in the governorship election appeal in which it entered judgment against the appellants."
Via: Sun News Online