Plateau State Conflicting Court Judgments Between Two National /State Houses Of Assembly
Yakubu Busari
The Plateau State National, State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal continues to rumble over conflicting and contradictory court judgments in the country and it has become a source of embarrassment and confusion among legal practitioners and the general public.
Political pundits are now developing unsettling minds that judicial precedents are playing less and fewer roles in court decisions. Statutes that are germane to matters at issue are being ignored while consideration of the facts of cases has become less dispassionate.
We saw a greater certainty in law as the prime advantage in the principle of judicial precedents is gradually being eroded by jurists delivering conflicting and contradictory judgments.
The ominous consequence is that the confidence of the public in the judiciary is waning rapidly. This is worrisome it constitutes a recipe for self-help and anarchy while panel two led by Williams Rotimi Olamide refused to dive into issues of locus standing or jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Meanwhile, there has been concern and apprehension over conflicting court orders have been expressed by relevant stakeholders time and again. Sometime in 2012, a former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Dahiru Musdapher, expressed concern over the conflicting judgments from the various divisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
In the case of Mohammed Tukur who delivered judgment on the same preelection matter in the Kaduna state election tribunal disqualified that the issue of sponsoring and nomination are strictly preelection.
“You would recall, In December 2015, the Ex-CJN, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, also lamented the disturbing trend at the Tribunal sitting down to the Court of Appeal in some election petition cases.
Indeed, he revealed the potentially corrosive effects of conflicting court judgments on the nation’s democracy, chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Mahmud Yakubu, lamented last week: “Within three months, we received 11 court judgments and orders, almost all of them conflicting, from courts of coordinate jurisdiction “.
In fact, on the 24th,25th & and 28th of August, 2023 William Rotimi Olamide entered judgment on Adamu Muhammad Alkali Vs Musa Agah Avia ,Hon. Ibrahim Baba-
& 7 ors ,Daniel Asama Vs Musa Agah &2 ors ,Hon .John Dafaan against Isaac Kwallu and senatorial districts Sen. Gyang Zi against Mwadkon Simon ,Suleiman Kwande Against Mwadkon Simon, and Chris Musa Giwa Vs Mwadkon Simon last month, we ere judgments harped on coordinate jurisdiction PDP structure in Plateau state, It is really a very big challenge.” Sadly, the steps taken by Bello Mohammed Tukur to rein in the ugly trend have been less than effective.
While inconsistent decisions by courts of concurrent jurisdiction are not new in the land, the brazen dimension they have assumed lately and the innuendo that the arbiter seems to be descending into the conflict arena caused the current outcry in the polity by Bello Mohammed Tukur in the following judgment , Hon.Vincent Bulus Against Yaknan Samuel Yarnap was dismissed,Hon .Dangdereng Davou Dung Vs Dachung Bagos ,Hon.Alfred Ajang Iliya Vs Bagos Dachung ,Hon.Gyandeng Peter Ibrahim Vs Engr Fom Chollom Dalyop and Ibrahim Bawa Kanje Vs Idris Ahmed Maje Wase , Senatorial seat Sen. Napoleon Bali Vs Simon Bako Lalong , were all sacked over PDP structure and noncompliance to a court order as alleged.
The recent judgments on the Plateau State National /State Houses of Assembly tussle and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leadership and national convention impasse have succinctly brought to the fore how undisciplined and reckless some judges have become.
Desperate politicians in furtherance of their quest to win the electoral contests at all costs, rather than appealing an unfavourable court decision, usually approach a court of coordinate jurisdiction in a different location with another version of the case, with a view to hoodwinking the judge and it generated condemnation.
The haste with which some court orders are given after a diametrically different one had been issued by another court is suggestive of vested interests. It is curious that the Federal High Courts which support handling preelection matters is beaming for conflicting judgment emanating from failed jurisdiction or refusing to be guided by binding judicial precedents from appellate courts let alone decisions of courts of equal jurisdiction.
To be sure, an earlier decision emanating from the appeal court and supreme court are necessarily binding on courts of concurrent jurisdiction. However, such a decision has a persuasive authority to the extent that another court of equal jurisdiction wherever it is located may not give a contradictory order in a similar case without alluding to the earlier decision and canvassing superior arguments for its different decision.
Sadly, this never happened as the tribunal seemed to have unwittingly encouraged forum shopping rather than urging aggrieved parties to appeal earlier decisions. Some, also in tandem with unscrupulous lawyers, had engaged in selfish and mischievous interpretations of the law.
Corruption, partisanship, and incompetence are mostly at the root of the variations in the decisions of courts of equal jurisdiction on similar cases. Some judicial officers are corrupt and are easy and pliable tools in the hands of unscrupulous persons who are ready to purchase justice.
There are also judges who appear to be discretely interested in cases brought before them, such that objective consideration of facts becomes impossible, while some are simply incompetent and may have made it to the bench through the influence of politicians. Whatever the causes of the prevailing challenge, it is intolerable and clearly avoidable.
Not surprisingly, the National Judicial Council (NJC) is being urged by many stakeholders to intervene and address the contradictions. But the NJC cannot investigate or sanction erring judges unless it receives a petition from an aggrieved party.
However, if and when its rules of engagement are changed to permit it to intervene without prompting, it would not be difficult for the NJC to overhaul the system because the judges and lawyers who are significant contributors to the judiciary’s current descent into the abyss are now fairly well known.
As a lasting solution to the dangerous trend, a paradigm shift in the attitude of some members of the bar and the bench is imperative. Politicians and crooked persons will always try to influence the court but it is the duty of the bar and the bench to institute and enforce measures to ensure that their members are upright and dedicated to upholding the fidelity of the courts.
Otherwise, the judicial process in the country will continue to be seen as a game of Russian roulette where just any outcome is possible.
Interestingly, panel 1 had superintended on two senatorial election petitions, in suits numbers EPT/PL/SEN/02/2023 Rt. Hon Simon Bako Lalong and All Progressives Party (APC) against Napoleon Binkap Bali and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the Plateau South Senatorial District and suits number EPT/PL/SEN/06/2023 between Golkuna Yohanna Gottom PDP, Petitioners against Diket Satso Plang APC; also before panel 1 were House of Representatives Petition in suit EPT/PL/HR/03/2023 Ajang Alfred Iliya Labour Party (LP) against Dachung Bagos Musa (PDP) Jos South & Jos East Federal Constituency.
Other suits before panel 1 were EPT/PL/HR/05/2023 between Bulus Vincent Venman (APC) against Beni Lar (PDP) Langtang North & Langtang South Federal Constituency; EPT/PL/HR/05/2023 between Fom Dalyop Chollom (LP) against Peter Ibrahim Gyendeng (PDP) Barkin Ladi & Riyom Federal Constituency; EPT/PL/HR/07/2023 between Ibrahim Kanje Bawa (PDP) against Ahmed Idris (APC) Wase Federal Constituency; EPT/PL/HR/09/2023 between Dandereng Gideon Dung Davou (APC) against Dachung Musa Bagos (PDP) Jos South & Jos East Federal Constituency; and EPT/PL/HR/11/2023 between Yaknan Samuel Yarnap (YPP) against Beni Lar (PDP), Langtang North & Langtang South Federal Constituency.
The Hon. Justice BM Tukur equally superintended over ten state houses of assembly matters instituted by different candidates and their political parties, with most cases awaiting judgment, which are EPT/PL/SHA/01/2023 between Daniel Nanbol Listic (LP) against Rimvyat Nanbol (PDP) Langtang North Central Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/03/2023 between Sunday Mark Na’ah (APC) against Danjuma Azi (PDP) Jos North West Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/05/2023 between Dachung Moses Dadon (APC) against Timothy Dantong (PDP) Riyom Constituency;
Also before the panel 1 are EPT/PL/SHA/07/2023 between Eli Bako Ankala (APC) against Ibrahim Agbalak (PDP) Rukuba/ Irigwe Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/09/2023 between Cirdum Nanbol Josiah (APC) against Rimvyat Nanbol (PDP) Langtang North Central Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/011/2023 between Daniel Naanlong Gapyil (APC) against Moses Sule Thomas (PDP) Mikang Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/13/2023 between Wallangko Sylvester Ibrahim (APC) against Maren Ishaku (PDP) Bakkos Constituency; and EPT/PL/SHA/15/2023 between Sanda Yakubu Yackson (APC) against Happiness Matthew Akawu (PDP) Pengana Constituency.
Panel two, under the chairmanship of Hon. Justice WR Olamide, has superintended over three senatorial matters in suit number EPT/PL/SEN/01/2023 between Chris Giwa (APC), petitioners against Simon Mwadkon (PDP) Plateau, North Senatorial District; EPT/PL/SEN/03/2023 between Yahaya Kwande Suleiman (PRP), petitioners against Simon Mwadkon (PDP) Plateau North Senatorial District; and EPT/PL/SEN/04/2023 between Gyang Yaya Zi (LP), petitioners against Simon Mwadkon (PDP) Plateau North Senatorial District.
Equally before panel 2 were the houses of representatives petitions in suit number EPT/PL/HR/02/2023 between Adamu Muhammed Alkali (PRP) against Musa Agah Avia (PDP) Jos North/Bassa Federal Constituency; EPT/PL/HR/06/2023 between John Moenwul Dafa’an (APC) against Isa’ac Kyale Kwallu (PDP) Shendam, Mikang, and Qua’an Pan Federal Constituency; EPT/PL/HR/08/2023 between Ibrahim Baba Hassan (APC) against Musa Agah Avia (PDP) Jos North/Bassa Federal Constituency; and EPT/PL/HR/02/2023 between Daniel Asama Agoh (LP) against Musa Agah Avia (PDP) Jos North/Bassa Federal Constituency.
The Hon. WR Olamide led panel equally superintended over nine Plateau State Houses of Assembly petitions, the hearing concluded in all matters while judgment reserved in suit number EPT/PL/SHA/02/2023 between Dayop Isa’ac Gyang (APC) against Gwottson Dalyop (PDP) Jos South Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/04/2023 between Nimchak Abel Nansak (APC) against Nannim Joseph Langyi (PDP) Langtang North/North Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/06/2023 between Laven Denty Jacob (APC) against Salome Tanimu Waklek (PDP) Pankshin South Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/08/2023 between Bendel Nancwat Domfa (APC) against Rims Nimchak Samson (PDP) Langtang South Constituency;
Other petitions superintended by Panel 2 include suit number EPT/PL/SHA/10/2023 between Adamu Abdul Yanga (APC) against Sani Abubakar Idris (PDP) Mangu North Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/12/2023 between Yusuf Dickson Chollom (APC) against Jwe Phillip Gwom (PDP) Barkin Ladi Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/14/2023 between APC against Bala Fwanje (PDP) Mangu South Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/16/2023 between Maiyaki Theodore Bala (APC) against Doeyok Cornelius (PDP) Qua’an Pan South Constituency; EPT/PL/SHA/17/2023 between Dagogot Karyit Owen (APC) against Paul Datugul (PDP) Qua’an Pan North Constituency.
