April 7, 2008
Signs that the presidential appeal petition at the Supreme Court will get interesting began to emerge two days ago. An otherwise innocuous “chambers sitting” by the Supreme Court justices to discuss a motion filed by Umar Yar'adua’s lawyers ended up in a decision by the justices to hold a full hearing on the matter.
In the motion with suit number SC 274/2007, filed last September, Yar’adua’s lawyers asked the apex court to bar Abubakar Atiku, the presidential flag bearer of Action Congress (AC), from seeking relief from the electoral tribunal on the basis of exclusion from the last election. It also pleaded that the nation’s highest court strike out the name of Maurice Iwu from the list of respondents that could be joined in their individual capacity. Iwu is chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC).
Sources within the judiciary told Saharareporters that Yar'adua’s motion to curtail Atiku’s suit was filed at the Supreme Court about the same time Atiku petitioned the court to allow him to serve interrogatories on Maurice Iwu,
But Yar’adua’s lawyers apparently lost interest in advancing their motion. According to one of our sources, their nonchalance owed to the fact that Justice James Ogebe, who headed the electoral tribunal, gave them firm assurance that the panel would uphold Yar’adua’s “election.”
While the Ogebe-led tribunal was aware of the pending motion and even agreed not to take any pleadings from lawyers on the opposing side for those reasons, it still went ahead to deliver a judgment that specifically addressed the prayers contained in the motion pending before the apex court. One senior lawyer who spoke to us said the tribunal’s action “constituted gross abuse of court processes.”
Another legal analyst told Saharareporters that the decision of the Ogebe panel to deliver an elaborate ruling that touched on matters before the Supreme Court lent credence to an earlier report by us that the tribunal members had no hand in writing their ruling.
Justice Ogebe has already confessed to that he “supervised” the writing of the judgment, which had already been concluded by the date lawyers gave their final addresses on February 5 2008. The senior lawyer who spoke to us noted that the “outside” authorship of the ruling as well as its composition before the lawyers gave their final submissions must have accounted for the fact that the final judgment never mentioned anything about the interrogatories which the Supreme Court had permitted Atiku’s lawyers to administered on Iwu.
Two days ago, when Yar’adua’s motion finally came up for mention at the Supreme Court “in chambers,” the justices (whose identities remained unknown as at the time of this report) decided to give lawyers to both parties a chance to address the court.
An inside source within the judiciary has told us that the justices are ill at ease as a result of heightened public interest in the appeal against the tribunal ruling as well as the wide castigation of the Ogebe-led tribunal. The source said the air of anxiety at the apex court informed the justices’ decision to proceed with hearing Yar’adua’s motion despite the fact that it has already been overtaken by events following the ruling that gave Yar'adua a controversial victory.
However, several lawyers have expressed quiet dismay at a worrisome dimension to the petitions before the Supreme Court on the presidential elections. Lawyers to Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, APGA presidential candidate in the flawed April 2007 presidential election, said they were shocked that the apex court was yet to assign them a date to commence their client’s appeal against Ogebe’s decision to dismiss their case at the tribunal. “We concluded the filing of our appeal several months ago,” said one of the team of lawyers. “We’re ready to go, but we can’t understand why the court has not scheduled the opening of our case.”
Ojukwu took his case to the Supreme Court after the Ogebe tribunal had dismissed his petition as a "nuisance".
A source at the Supreme Court told Saharareporters that the justices may have decided to take all the appeals at once so as not to betray the nuances of the justices too early. It is difficult to decipher what the strategy is about, but it is certain that the Supreme Court justices are fully aware that the world is watching the petitions more carefully than they have ever done, especially in the light of the political events in Kenya and the unfolding scenario in Zimbabwe where citizens power seems to have brought about a new political order.
In the motion with suit number SC 274/2007, filed last September, Yar’adua’s lawyers asked the apex court to bar Abubakar Atiku, the presidential flag bearer of Action Congress (AC), from seeking relief from the electoral tribunal on the basis of exclusion from the last election. It also pleaded that the nation’s highest court strike out the name of Maurice Iwu from the list of respondents that could be joined in their individual capacity. Iwu is chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC).
Sources within the judiciary told Saharareporters that Yar'adua’s motion to curtail Atiku’s suit was filed at the Supreme Court about the same time Atiku petitioned the court to allow him to serve interrogatories on Maurice Iwu,
But Yar’adua’s lawyers apparently lost interest in advancing their motion. According to one of our sources, their nonchalance owed to the fact that Justice James Ogebe, who headed the electoral tribunal, gave them firm assurance that the panel would uphold Yar’adua’s “election.”
While the Ogebe-led tribunal was aware of the pending motion and even agreed not to take any pleadings from lawyers on the opposing side for those reasons, it still went ahead to deliver a judgment that specifically addressed the prayers contained in the motion pending before the apex court. One senior lawyer who spoke to us said the tribunal’s action “constituted gross abuse of court processes.”
Another legal analyst told Saharareporters that the decision of the Ogebe panel to deliver an elaborate ruling that touched on matters before the Supreme Court lent credence to an earlier report by us that the tribunal members had no hand in writing their ruling.
Justice Ogebe has already confessed to that he “supervised” the writing of the judgment, which had already been concluded by the date lawyers gave their final addresses on February 5 2008. The senior lawyer who spoke to us noted that the “outside” authorship of the ruling as well as its composition before the lawyers gave their final submissions must have accounted for the fact that the final judgment never mentioned anything about the interrogatories which the Supreme Court had permitted Atiku’s lawyers to administered on Iwu.
Two days ago, when Yar’adua’s motion finally came up for mention at the Supreme Court “in chambers,” the justices (whose identities remained unknown as at the time of this report) decided to give lawyers to both parties a chance to address the court.
An inside source within the judiciary has told us that the justices are ill at ease as a result of heightened public interest in the appeal against the tribunal ruling as well as the wide castigation of the Ogebe-led tribunal. The source said the air of anxiety at the apex court informed the justices’ decision to proceed with hearing Yar’adua’s motion despite the fact that it has already been overtaken by events following the ruling that gave Yar'adua a controversial victory.
However, several lawyers have expressed quiet dismay at a worrisome dimension to the petitions before the Supreme Court on the presidential elections. Lawyers to Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, APGA presidential candidate in the flawed April 2007 presidential election, said they were shocked that the apex court was yet to assign them a date to commence their client’s appeal against Ogebe’s decision to dismiss their case at the tribunal. “We concluded the filing of our appeal several months ago,” said one of the team of lawyers. “We’re ready to go, but we can’t understand why the court has not scheduled the opening of our case.”
Ojukwu took his case to the Supreme Court after the Ogebe tribunal had dismissed his petition as a "nuisance".
A source at the Supreme Court told Saharareporters that the justices may have decided to take all the appeals at once so as not to betray the nuances of the justices too early. It is difficult to decipher what the strategy is about, but it is certain that the Supreme Court justices are fully aware that the world is watching the petitions more carefully than they have ever done, especially in the light of the political events in Kenya and the unfolding scenario in Zimbabwe where citizens power seems to have brought about a new political order.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });