Supreme Court Ruling Sparks Debate on Electoral Appeals Process

In a series of tweets on his handle (@jibrinSAN), legal luminary Jibrin Samuel Okutepa SAN shared his reflections on the recent Supreme Court judgments regarding the governorship elections in Plateau and Kano States.

The apex court’s decisions have stirred a significant debate, particularly concerning the role of the Court of Appeal in electoral matters.

The judgments in question involved the nullification of the election of the Governors of Kano and Plateau States by the trial Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, respectively. The Supreme Court’s subsequent reversal of these decisions has raised questions about the efficacy and finality of the Court of Appeal in electoral disputes.

Okutepa expressed concern that while the Supreme Court is burdened with numerous cases, designating the Court of Appeal as the final authority in parliamentary election appeals may not be the ideal solution. Currently, only presidential and governorship appeals reach the Supreme Court in electoral disputes, leaving National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly appeals limited to the Court of Appeal, as stipulated in Section 246 of the 1999 constitution.

The legal expert argued that the limitations on the right of appeal in parliamentary election petitions may result in individuals with nullified elections having no immediate remedy. He emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of respecting decisions of superior courts, stressing that judicial precedents are crucial for the stability and predictability of litigation outcomes.

Okutepa applauded the Supreme Court for its recent decisions but expressed reservations about certain decisions by the Court of Appeal that, in his view, undermine public perception and contribute to speculation about ulterior motives. He called for a thorough examination of the laws limiting the right of appeal in parliamentary election petitions, citing concerns that the Court of Appeal might be swayed by reasons not grounded in justice or fidelity to precedents.

• Politics Without Governance: A Bleak Reality in Nigeria
• Peter Obi Celebrates Nigerian Debate Team’s Triumph
• Fake Kenyan Lawyer, Successful in 26 Court Cases, Finally Apprehended
• Competence or Political Compensation: The Debate Surrounding Ministerial Appointments
• Supreme Court Sets Dec 15 for Ruling on Nnamdi Kanu’s Detention Appeal

• Obi donates N75 million to Enugu’s Congregation
• Troops Disrupt Transnational Drug Syndicate, Seize 296 Wraps of Illicit Substances
• It’s better to have a circle of rich than be only rich person in a circle – Davido
• Supreme Court Ruling Sparks Debate on Electoral Appeals Process
• Supreme Court Reinstates Kano, Plateau Governors, Affirms Six Others
• Worshippers Stand Firm: Loyalty to T.B. Joshua Remains Unshaken
• Ali Nuhu appointed as MD of Film Corporation
• Atiku Expresses Readiness to Lead Opposition Coalition in 2027
• Supreme Court Judgment Prevented Crisis in Kano – NNPP
• Supreme Court Reserves Judgment in Rivers Governorship Appeal

The legal expert concluded by asserting that individuals removed from office based on decisions later deemed outside the jurisdiction of the trial Tribunal and the Court of Appeal should not be left without remedies. He suggested that the state, as the employer of these judges, should bear the consequences of wrong decisions that infringed on the rights of lawmakers. Okutepa invoked the legal maxim that where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy, advocating for justice for those affected by the decisions in Plateau State.