AFTER two years of the pendency of the appeal (on that and other issues) in the Supreme Court without any clear sight of its determination the 70-year-old client instructed the counsel to collect the sum awarded by the Court of Appeal. And the opposing party gladly obliged on the condition that the payment constituted full and final settlement regardless of outcome of the Supreme Court appeal. In all these sight should never be lost of the fact that it is the PCA who posts the JCA?s to the various divisions of the Court of Appeal. And it is well within his remit to move JCA?s across divisions on ad-hoc basis to hear and determine particular cases.
There is no doubt that a jurist who is driven by a sense of justice can hardly find a better pedestal than the PCA office to actualize justice; certainly not as JSC regardless of the rare privilege and exalted status of that office. The point is probably underscored by the well publicised criticism of Justice Uwaifo of his former Supreme Court brethren after they held that the term of office of Governor Peter Obi of Anambra State had not expired; and that it began only from the date he took the oath of office and accordingly sacked Andy Ubah who had purportedly won an election into that office. Justice Uwaifo stated specifically that there was no way he would have decided for Governor Obi?s position if he were still in the Supreme Court.
When, during a discussion at the time, a colleague said that Peter Obi was lucky that Justice Uwaifo had retired from the Supreme Court at the time of his case, I replied that it would not have mattered much in real terms even if he was still in the court. The most that would have happened if he was on the panel which determined the case was a majority rather than the unanimous decision handed down by the court, which would not make any practical difference to the outcome. A JSC who feels strongly about a legal issue or principle and hoping to use a case in the Supreme Court to make an appropriately trenchant statement in that regard must first hope that the CJN puts him or allows him to be part of the panel which decides the case. Secondly, he must then convince at least the majority of his learned brethren on the panel about the strength of his position otherwise which his would be a dissenting judgment, of interest only to legal scholars.
It is noteworthy in the present vein that in comparison with his United States counterpart, the CJN is in a much stronger position when it is borne in mind that with his power to constitute a panel of 5 or 7 from over 15 JSC?s he is well positioned to shape the outcome of a case, supposedly knowing the inclinations and philosophies of each of his brethren. The US Chief Justice has no such powers. All 9 Justices of the US Supreme Court are involved in the hearing and determination of all matters coming before that court.
If Mr. Ogebe was really honest that becoming JSC was entirely preferable to being PCA, why then did he pillory Justice Salami for ?usurping? the PCA due to his father? The Ogebe clan should instead have been paying homage to Justice Salami for paving the way for their patriach?s assumption of the undoubtedly exalted JSC status. It is instructive that the first couple of PCA?s, Dan Ibekwe and Mamman Nasir, were Supreme Court Justices who ?stepped down? to head the Court of Appeal. Then there is the English example of Lord Denning moving from the House of Lords, the then British equivalent of our Supreme Court, down to the Court of Appeal to become head of its civil division as Master of the Rolls. If Mr. Ogebe was unaware of these pieces of legal history then he was not likely to know that, though not in the public domain, the late Clement Akpamgbo, SAN, as with the case of Justice Nnamani and the Obasanjo military government, was apparently offered appointment as JSC when the IBB military government which he served as Attorney-General was departing. He declined the offer. Yet, Mr. Ogebe would assert without qualification that there has never been a case of any person declining a Supreme Court appointment in an effort to support his totally misconceived argument.
There is no doubt whatsoever that, in varying degrees, both Justices Katsina-Alu and Salami made some mistakes regarding their open dispute. But then they are only human. And to err is human. It is quite sad that their legacies would be overshadowed by their conflict of which there is no victor but all vanquished, including the judiciary as an institution. For any person to gloat at their fate, as Mr. Ogebe, obviously did smacks of sadism. Making the best out of a bad situation, commentaries on the matter should concentrate on serious interrogation of the system with a view to remedying lapses and forging a more confidence-inducing judiciary. For example, Mr. Ogebe took for granted the ?turn-by-turn? system of ascension of headship of the judiciary and its arms without adverting to the various problems inherent in it. Whilst the most senior judge should have a chance, even the best chance, of succeeding the CJ, PCA or CJN, it should not be automatic at all. All who are qualified by the constitutional terms, including eminent practicing lawyers and legal scholars, should be considered and possibly appointed, as is the case in the United States.
Similarly, underpinning his article is acceptance of unbridled propagation of the federal character concept as an article of faith in judicial appointments even when it is axiomatic that the practice is not always consistent with merit. Why do we not strike the following fair balance: each of the six geo-political zones to have one mandatory JSC while the remaining slots are filled strictly on merit? And mandatory 2 or 3 appointments for each zone for the Court of Appeal and Federal High Court, with the remaining slots filled strictly on merit.
Furthermore, there is a need to discuss restructuring the Supreme Court in substantial terms. Its docket is too large for a court of ultimate appeal and there may be need to circumscribe the right of appeal to the court. And the number of the Justices may need to be reduced to a number not exceeding 11 when it is borne in mind that the United States Supreme Court has only 9 Justices. In the same vein, if all the JSC?s were to participate in most, if not all, of the expectedly greatly reduced number of cases to the court, the powers of the individual JSC would increase automatically.
CONCLUDED
? Okoli is the immediate past chairman of the NBA, Lagos branch.
Google Neal Ardley Petrol prices Household bills Social care Snowboarding
No comments:
Post a Comment