The rotten underbelly of the Nigerian Judiciary has been exposed in the case involving Martins Amaewhule and 26 other lawmakers of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
Amaewhule and 26 partners had defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) at the floor of the Assembly.
Their defection from their party to another party as the constitution stipulates, rendered their seats vacant at the hallowed chamber, which should warrant INEC to conduct a bye election to fill the vacant seats.
INEC, allegedly waiting for the godfather has been dithering in conducting bye election, thus creating loopholes for politically selfish individuals to manipulate the system.
Relying on this lacuna by INEC, Martins Amaewhule and his 26 partners had gone to court to seek judicial interpretation of their defection, whether their seats had actually been declared vacant as the constitution provided.
Nigerian judiciary, highly corrupt and always subject to manipulation by powerful politicians, has been prevaricating in giving definite judgement on the matter.
The various courts have been sending wrong signals by giving very ambiguous and misleading rulings on the issue, prompting parties involved in the suit to give different interpretations that suit them.
The Court of Appeal recently gave a ruling in a suit brought by Martins Amaewhule and 26 other lawmakers challenging their defection, and the Court ruled that the parties to the suit should maintain “status quo ante bellum” that is, the situation as it was before the case was brought to court.
The Rivers APC had said the ruling of the Appeal Court restored Martins Amaewhule and co as still members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, adding that it granted all prayers sought by the defected lawmakers.
Supporters of Speaker Oko-Jumbo had ridiculed APC’s interpretation of the ruling, saying there was nothing in it that favors the 27 lawmakers.
According to them, the ruling of the Appeal Court rather than restoring Amaewhule and his 26 colleagues, reinforced Oko-Jumbo as the authentic Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, and that he remained as such.
Why was it difficult for the Judiciary (Appeal Court) to give a definite ruling that should not be misinterpreted by those who have interests in the suit?
If the court had stated in her ruling that by defecting to the APC from the PDP, the party they rode in to power, the 27 lawmakers had lost their seats, and therefore no longer members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, or that their defection did not follow appropriate procedures, and therefore were still members of the Assembly.
If the judiciary had done that, self-seeking politicians would not have come up with different interpretations to the ruling. The misinterpretation created confusion in the polity and elicited doubts in the ability of the judiciary to dispense justice to all manner of people.
There”re many other occasions in the past when the Judiciary was expected to defend democracy and save Nigeria, but she fumbled.
Take for instance, the 2023 Presidential Election: Even a blind man knew that Peter Obi won the election, but it was manipulated to favor Tinubu. The citizens had hoped that the Judiciary would restore democracy by declaring Peter Obi winner based on the weight of evidence of rigging presented, but the courts dashed their hopes. When the legal fireworks began, culminating in the case getting to Supreme Court, Nigerians were taken aback by the verdict of the Supreme Court. She had dismissed the case for lack of sufficient evidence, even when proofs of rigging were everywhere in the air.
Piqued by the Supreme Court’s scandalous decision, Nigerian citizens who knew that they voted for Peter Obi, had planned to invade the country in protest, but the shameless Nigerian security agents who had always defended politicians, instead of defending the country issued threats of mayhem which dissuaded the protesters.
Recently, in an open letter to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Ariwoole Olukayode, Zoe Solomon Tamunotonye, a lecturer, Development Expert and National President, Rivers Emancipation Movement (REM), lamented that in the past months, the Nigerian judiciary had delivered several questionable judgments, usurping the powers of the state high courts and unilaterally granting autonomy to local government councils without proper reference to the relevant constitutional provisions concerning federalism.
Such questionable judgments, he maintained had brought the judiciary to disrepute and queried whether the Chief Justice would leave behind as his legacy, a highly corrupt judiciary.
He had advised him to retrace his steps and make amends by setting machinery in motion for the reform of the judiciary under his watch and prevent it from giving further ambiguous and conflicting judgments. By so doing, he reasoned, Nigerian judiciary would become a beacon of hope capable of strengthening the democratic process.
