The Supreme Court will later today (Wednesday) deliver its judgment on the applications for a review of its February 13, 2020 judgment which overturned the All Progressives Congress’ victory in the last governorship election in Bayelsa State.
A seven-man panel of the apex court led by Justice Sylvester Ngwuta disclosed this shortly after hearing two applications for review of the poll filed by the APC and its governorship candidate at the poll, David Lyon.
Lyon was represented by Chief Afe Babalola (SAN), while the APC was represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), at Wednesday’s hearing.
Opposing the applications were the Peoples Democratic Party, which was the beneficiary of the February 13 verdict, and its candidates who were later declared the winner of the poll in the said Supreme Court’s verdict.
While the PDP was represented by Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), Governor Duoye Diri was represented by Yunus Usman (SAN), and the deputy governor, Lawrence Ewhruojakpo, by Chris Uche (SAN).
Counsel for the Independent National Electoral Commission, Taminu Inuwa (SAN), took a neutral position, saying the commission would abide by whatever decision arrived at by the apex court.
The disputed apex court’s judgment was delivered barely 24 hours to the inauguration of the APC’s governorship candidate, Lyon, and his running mate, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, scheduled to hold on February 14.
The five-man panel of the court led by Justice Mary Peter-Odili disqualified Degi-Eremienyo’s candidacy and ruled that the disqualification had rendered the joint ticket held by him and the governorship candidate a nullity.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Ejembi Eko disqualified Degi-Eremienyo’s candidacy for presenting false information about his educational qualifications in his Form CF001 submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission as a candidate for the 2019 election.
The former deputy governor-elect was said to have presented certificates with different names and inconsistent with the name on the Form CF.001 submitted to INEC.
Members of the Supreme Court panel who heard the review applications on Wednesday were Justices Sylvester Ngwuta, Mary Peter-Odili, Olukayode Ariwoola, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, Inyang Okoro, Amina Augie, and Ejembi Eko.
Among top figures present at the Wednesday’s hearing were Governor Diri, APC’s National Chairman, Adams Oshiomhole, the disqualified APC’s former governor-elect, Degi-Eremienyo, and PDP’s National Publicity Secretary, Kola Ologbondiyan.
Parties’ arguments
Arguing Lyon’s case at the hearing, Chief Afe Babalola (SAN), said that contrary to the contention of the respondents, the Supreme Court had the power to set aside its February 13, 2020 judgment.
He contended that his client was not asking the court to review its judgment but to set it aside.
He said, “The issues which I addressed in the documents include, among others, whether or not the Supreme Court can set aside the judgment delivered on 13th February 2020. The answer is yes, this court has inherent Juris and power to set aside its judgment.
“There is a difference between a review and setting aside.
“At page 22 of our brief, my lordships will see our argument.”
He argued that he asked for the setting aside of the judgment because it amounted to a nullity as the procedure adopted by the court and the judgment was delivered in breach of its client’s right to a fair hearing.
He said, “The judgment of this court delivered on February 13, 2020, amounts to nullity. It was delivered in breach of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.
“At page 41 of the address, the procedure adopted by this court in delivering the judgment does not have the character of legitimate adjudication.”
Also, arguing the case for the APC, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), maintained that the apex court had jurisdiction to correct its human errors in the disputed judgment.
“That this court has the jurisdiction unqualified. The area of our own application is very narrow and they are not disputing it,” the senior lawyer said.
He clarified that his client was not accusing the court of fraud, but to overrule itself as a result of the error in the verdict.
He noted that the Supreme Court in affirming the Federal High Court’s judgment where the case originated from, erroneously stated that the said trial court nullified the APC’s governorship ticket in its judgment.
He said, “We are saying that your lordships have the power to overrule yourselves.
“They asked for nine reliefs , in the wisdom of the trial court, only six reliefs were granted.”
He noted that the refusal of the Federal High Court to grant the plaintiffs’ request to nullify APC’s ticket for the election was not appealed against by the plaintiffs.
He noted that Diri’s lawyer, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), admitted against his own interest that the Federal High Court never said the joint ticket held by the APC’s governorship and deputy governorship candidates were nullified.
He said that by the principles laid down by the apex court, “the law does not permit your lordships to tinker with the decision of the trial court not appealed,” adding that “the court does not have the jurisdiction to tinker with it beyond the frontiers of the judgment of the trial court.”
“We say with respect that this was a human error, it was a slip by this court,” Olanipekun said.
In his reply on points of law, he said the Supreme Court could not have relied on section 187 of the Constitution to affirm an order not made by the trial court.
He also faulted the interpretation given to the February 13, 2020, judgment by the Independent National Electoral Commission to award zero votes to APC, to declare the PDP and its candidates as the winner of the poll.
Replying to the applications, Diri’s lawyer, Oyetibo, described them as “an invitation to violate the Constitution, particularly section 235.”
He added, “This court is the final court, but these applications are inviting this court to sit in appeal over its judgment.
“The attitude of the Supreme Court to this kind of application is to dismiss it summarily.”
He added, “Once, this court has given full blown hearing and given an order, the order reemains forever.
“The court cannot change the operative and substantive part of its judgment.
“Honestly, it will be scandalous if these applications are granted.
“If the court deletes a portion of the judgment as APC has requested, will your lordships redeliver it?”
He added that ‘when this court gives a judgment, it is deemed in law to be correct,” adding “it is a principle of see no error, hear no error and smell no error in the case.”
He faulted the argument by Babalola on the difference between reviewing and setting aside a judgment.
“Can the court set aside a judgment without reviewing it?” He asked.
He added that granting the applications “will engender political instability in the country.”
Diri’s lawyer, Yunus Usman (SAN), also maintained that the Supreme Court could not review its final judgment following a full-blown trial.
The application constitutes “gross abuse of not just the process but also of the court itself”.
Urging the court to dismiss the applications, Usman said they lacked in merit, as ” the court does not have constitutional, statutory, or inherent power to review its final judgment after a hearing on merit”.
Chris Uche (SAN), who represented the deputy governor, Lawrence Ewhruojakpo, also described the applications as an “outright abuse of court process”.
He added, “Once this court delivers judgment in a final case, it becomes functus officio.”
He urged the court “to decline this dangerous invitation to violate the constitution which will open a floodgate for endless applications for review of the court’s judgment and this will erode the dignity and the pride of this court as the final court.”
 deliver its judgment on the applications for a review of its February 13, 2020 judgment which overturned){kind=link}