The Supreme Court says the Court of Appeal erred in ordering for a fresh trial of election petition cases by tribunals after the expiration of the 180 days granted for the purpose by the 1999 Constitution.
In a ruling today, the Supreme Court said that it is clearly established in the Constitution that cases cannot be heard after 180 days.
The Supreme Court said in the Borno State governorship suit between the candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party and Governor of the state, Alhaji Kashim Shettima, and the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Alhaji Mohammed Goni, the Court of Appeal erred by delving into the matter in the first place.
Justice Walter S.N Onnoghen, who led four other justices of the Supreme Court in delivering the judgement, faulted the Court of Appeal for relying on Section 285 (6) in reaching a conclusion on the timeframe for the hearing of cases by the tribunals.
The section states: “An election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition.”
Onnoghen said “The above provision is very clear and unambiguous and therefore needs no construction or interpretation.
“The law is settled that in a situation as this the duty of the court is simply to apply the provision. As it exists.
“That is to give the words their plain and ordinary meaning.
“The above being law, it follows that an election tribunal, in an election petition matter, must deliver its decision/judgment/ruling/order in writing within one hundred and eighty (180) from days from the date the petition was filed.
“It means the argument cannot be given a day or more even an hour after the one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date the petition was filed.
“”It is very worrisome that despite the decisions of this court, since October 2011 on the time fixed in the constitution some of the justices of the lower court (Court of Appeal) still appear not to have gotten the message.
“From where will the election tribunal get the jurisdiction to entertain the retrial after the expiration of the one hundred and eighty (180) days assigned in the constitution, without extending the time so allotted?
“Do the courts have the vires to extend the time assigned by the constitution? The answer is obviously in the negative.
“The amendment to the original Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution by allotting time within which to hear and determine election petition and appeals arising therefrom is designed for such matters in the country.
“If the decision of the lower court, in the circumstance of this case and the law, is allowed to stand, it would re-introduce the earlier mischief which the amendment sought to correct.
“It will mean that the instant election petition can go on for another one hundred and eighty (180) days or more after the expiration of the original one hundred and eighty (180) days assigned by the constitution.
“The lower court (Court of Appeal) was therefore in error in delving into the matter in the circumstance of this case.”
By the ruling, it means that the order of the Court of Appeal for the retrial of the governorship case in Akwa Ibom State has become null and void.
The candidate of the Action Congress of Nigeria, Chief John Akpanudoedehe, got the order of the Court of Appeal for the retrial of his case against the candidate of the PDP and Governor of the state, Barrister Godswill Akpabio.
The ruling will also affect the case between representative of Anambra Central Senatorial District, Senator Chris Ngige, and his challenger, who is a former Minister for Information, Prof. Dora Akunyili.
Also affected by the ruling is the Benue State governorship case where the candidate of the ACN, Chief Steve Ugbah, challenged the candidate of the PDP and Governor of the state, Chief Gabriel Suswam.