*PDP, Muftwang insist case is pre- election matter
By Our Reporter
The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear the appeal by Governor Caleb Muftwang against the Court of Appeal judgment that quashed his election as governor of Plateau State.
The hearing has set the stage for what some legal pundits believe is a superiority contest between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
Governor Mutfwang won the election in March and his election was upheld at the Tribunal but the Court of Appeal set aside the victory on the claim that the Governor was not qualified to contest the election, having not been validly sponsored by his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
According to the Court of Appeal, the PDP had no structure in Plateau State and therefore lacked the competence to sponsor Governor Caleb Mutfwang. The Court also held that PDP was in breach of an Order of Court that directed it to conduct congress to elect its officers in the Wards, local government areas and State in Plateau State, a claim the PDP has insisted does not exist.
According to Governor Mutfwang, the Order of Court was obeyed with the conduct of the Congress on September 21,2021 as found by the Tribunal; and even if the Order was not obeyed, the alleged disobedience does not form a ground for challenging his election.
Noting how the Court of Appeal decided the case using pre-election issues and the violation of the Supreme Court order that non-members cannot question the nomination of party candidates, constitutional lawyer, Daniel Bwala said the Plateau governorship election will be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to affirm its superiority over the Court of Appeal.
Noting how past Justices of the apex court had slammed lower courts for upturning settled law as determined by the Supreme Court, Bwala who spoke in an interview on Arise News said:
“It is important that the judiciary should set the records straight because once the Supreme Court has settled a matter you have no choice, you have to follow it.”
“Because there is a precedent, we are saying, how can the Supreme Court say this is it and this court did not abide by the decision of the Supreme Court because we are told that under the doctrine of judicial precedence that courts are bound by the decisions of superior courts.
“If the Supreme Court says…once the law is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court it becomes a law that cannot be changed except the legislature in the next legislative cycle pass a law to change it.
“That law is binding on authorities and also binding on courts below them and it becomes a final law and any disobedience to that attracts the anger of the courts.
“In the days of the late Hon Justice Noki Tobi they were very jealous in guiding the integrity of that their court. That if any court below them gives a decision that is contrary to a precedent that they have made they have not failed to chastise the lower court. That is because they want stability in the legal profession, stability in democracy because if the Supreme Court decides in a certain direction and courts below them decide on another way, it can create a great deal of instability, it can destroy democracy because what it means is that there is no order in judicial precedence in a country.
“And it is constitutional and not just a matter of the Electoral Act. Section 287 says that the judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts and the Supreme Court on that issue has settled it that pre-election matters cannot be entertained by election tribunals either at the trial level or at the appellate level. They set an example when pre-election matters were brought before them.
“Even at the Court of Appeal sitting as a trial court in the Presidential Election tribunal they said they lacked jurisdiction to entertain pre-election matters and when it got to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court maintained the same position. So, why should Plateau be different? It cannot be different because the decision of the Supreme Court has to be obeyed.”
 | ReplyForwardAdd reaction |
