No one saw it coming! I can take a bet for it that not even Senator Duoye Diri and the PDP who instituted the case and got judgment in their favour at the Federal High Court in November 2019, saw it coming.
Just as the dust caused by the decision of the Supreme Court in Imo State is yet to settle, the Apex Court dished out another steaming decision and I dare say the dust created by this recent decision is more intense than that of Imo State. As the news of the decision filtered in, lawyers and “laymen” alike were thrown into panic.
This Supreme Court now seems to specialize in upsetting the status quo in unprecedented manner! A lot of people with various interests couldn’t hold back their emotions; the ensuing confusion knows no bound and it’s still raging … “How can the Supreme Court punish one man for the sins of another man?
A lawyer queried “if Faleke could not benefit from his joint ticket with Audu in the Kogi State 2015 governorship election, why then is the issue of Deputy Governor’s qualification affecting David Lyon now? Did the Deputy Governor get the party’s nomination? I must state here that though some of these questions were raised by learned minds, it must be pointed out that these learned minds must have been beclouded by sentiments and deep rooted bias caused by the disappointment in the sudden turn of events in Bayelsa State.
Members of the PDP who were berating the Supreme Court a few weeks ago are suddenly full of praises for the Apex Court and it is now the turn of the APC to lament and call for a review of the judgment. Typical of the chameleonic tendencies of our political elites. One thing is however sure, by this judgment, the Supreme Court has asserted its independence and impartiality in the Nigerian polity. Like the Lady Justice statue with a blindfold, a set of scales and a sword, which is a personification of justice as being blind to the personality of whoever comes before it for a redress and depicts the impartiality and objectivity of the law in not allowing extraneous factors, such as politics, wealth or fame, influence its decisions.
The Supreme Court has shown that it can dispense justice by being impartial and weighs the evidence presented before the court accurately on either sides of the scales and with the right hand the heavy sword is wielded with strength, swiftness and precision to balance the skewed scale in order to right the wrong complained of and return the scales to their natural state of harmony and evenness.
The double-edged blade of the sword of Lady Justice signifies that justice can rule against either of the parties once the evidence has been measured on the basis of comparison on either sides of the scale. That is the essence of justice; achieving a remarkable feat of balance! That is what the Supreme Court has been able to achieve here.
The case was a pre-election matter instituted by means of an Originating Summons at the Federal High Court by the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), Senator Douye Diri and Senator Lawrence Ewhrudjakpo as first, second and third Applicants respectively. The Defendants to the suit were Senator Biobarakuma Degi- Eremienyo (Deputy Governorship Candidate of the APC), Mr. Lyon David Pereworimin, (Governorship candidate of the APC), All Progressive Congress (APC) and Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) sued as first, second, third and fourth Respondents respectively. Simply put, the case of the PDP and its aspirants was that the particulars and information of the Deputy Governorship candidate supplied by the APC to INEC in the INEC Form CF001 were false.
They therefore prayed the court to invoke the provisions of section 31(6) of the Electoral Act to disqualify the Deputy Governorship candidate of the APC and by extension the Governorship candidate from contesting the election on the basis that the deputy governorship candidate had given false information by supplying multiple names to INEC.
The documents presented by the PDP and its candidates disclosed that the APC Deputy Governorship candidate, who is currently a Senator representing Bayelsa East Senatorial District at the National Assembly, bore different names in each of his primary school, secondary school and university degree certificates.
The case was contested at the High Court on the basis of the documents presented before the court. Since it was a suit initiated by Originating Summons, it was an invitation on the court to interpret the documents presented before it and apply the provisions of the law accordingly.
There was therefore no room for oral evidence as the documents speak for themselves. On 12th November, 2019, the Federal High Court delivered judgment in favour of the PDP and disqualified the candidates of the APC from contesting the election on the ground of false information supplied by the APC Deputy Governorship candidate. The APC and its candidates appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upturned the decision of the Federal High court in a judgment delivered on 23rd December, 2019.
In setting aside the decision of the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal High Court ought to have allowed the parties to call oral evidence to resolve some conflicts in the affidavit evidences before the court. The Court of Appeal also held that the case does not disclose any reasonable cause of action and that the allegation that the APC Deputy Governorship candidate supplied false information to INEC was an allegation of crime which ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal prosecution.
The PDP and its candidates then appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal. In arriving at its decision, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of section 31(6) of the Electoral Act and Section 182(1)(j) of the Constitution which are reproduced below:
“31. (1) Every political party shall not later than 60 days before the date appointed for a general election under the provisions of this Act, submit to the Commission in the prescribed forms the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections.
(2) The list or information submitted by each candidate shall be accompanied by an Affidavit sworn to by the candidate at the High Court of a State, indicating that he has fulfilled all the constitutional requirements for election into that office.
(3) The Commission shall, within 7 days of the receipt of the personal particulars of the candidate, publish same in the constituency where the candidate intends to contest the election.
(4) A person may apply to the Commission for a copy of nomination form, affidavit and any other document submitted by a candidate at an election and the Commission shall, upon payment of a prescribed fee, issue such person with a certified copy of the documents within 14 days.
(5) A person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the High Court of a State or Federal High Court against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.
(6) If the Court determines that any of the information contained in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false, the Court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the election”
Section 182 (1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provide thus:
“182 (1) No person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if –
………………….
(j) he has presented a forged certificate to the independent National Electoral Commission”
In a well-considered judgment, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 23rd December, 2019 and restored the judgment of the Federal High Court of 12th November 2019. The Supreme Court held that the Federal High Court was right to have decided the case on the basis of the documentary evidence and affidavits before it as there was no conflict in the affidavits of parties. The court also held that both the APC and Mr. David Lyon admitted in their affidavits that the documents brought before the court were submitted by the APC Deputy Governorship candidate and that the multiple names in the documents belonged to him. So clearly there were no conflicts.
The Supreme Court also took out time to analyze the documents and the multiple names of the APC Deputy Governorship candidate, Senator Biobarakuma Degi- Eremienyo as contained in the documents supplied by him to INEC. His name was written as Degi Biobara in his primary school certificate. His WEAC/GCE certificate is bearing Adegi Biobakuma (not Biobarakuma) while his university degree certificate bears Degi Biobarakuma. His MBA certificate has Degi Biobarakuma Wanagha as the name of the same person.
As the Deputy Governor-Elect he is bearing Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo. Space will not permit us here to analyze the different variants of the multiple names contained in the documents of the APC Deputy Governorship candidate submitted to INEC but suffice it to say that the decision of the Federal High was upheld by the Supreme Court to the extent that it is clear before the court that Senator Biobarakuma Degi- Eremienyo supplied multiple names to INEC and he thereby runs foul of the provisions of section 31(6) of the Electoral Act. He was therefore rightly disqualified from contesting the election.
The Supreme court also held that the various affidavits and newspaper publication made by Senator Biobarakuma Degi- Eremienyo to correct and explain the discrepancies in his names in all his certificates is a fraudulent attempt as it is only the issuing authorities of those certificates that can correct any error in them. Now to the big question bugging the mind of most people. How do all these affect Mr. David Lyon and the APC? Why did the court not disqualify only Senator Biobarakuma Degi- Eremienyo and allow Mr. Lyon to simply pick another Deputy governor. The answer to this is contained in section 187(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended):
“187(1) In any election to which the foregoing provisions of this part of this Chapter relate a candidate for the office of Governor of a State shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor in accordance with the said provisions.
(2) The provisions of this Part of this Chapter relating to qualification for election, tenure of office, disqualifications, declaration of assets and liabilities and Oath of Governor shall apply in relation to the office of Deputy Governor as if references to Governor were references to Deputy Governor.”
Succinctly put, the logic of the decision of the Federal High Court affirmed by the Supreme Court is that the Deputy Governorship candidate having been disqualified and the time for submission of names of candidates to INEC by political parties having elapsed, it means that the APC has only a Governorship candidate for the election which automatically disqualified the governorship candidate by the provisions of Section 187(1) of the Constitution. The fact that this is the first time a governorship candidate is being disqualified in Nigeria for the defect in the candidacy of his deputy does not make the decision a bad one. The duty of the court is to interpret the law as it is, and what the Supreme Court has affirmed by this decision is the duty of the Court to interpret the law as it is and apply it to each scenario as the case maybe. The law makers elected by the people made these laws and same has been interpreted and applied as it is! The Supreme Court and the entire judiciary therefore deserve the accolade of all Nigerians.
Honesty Eguridu is a Legal Practitioner based in Lagos. He can be reached via his email address: honestyeguridu@yahoo.com