(Continued from Tuesday last week)THE Supreme Court repeated this judicial feat in the case of Dapianlong vs. Dariye (No. 2) (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 373) 1, where it voided the impeachment of Governor Joshua Dariye of Plateau State, in spite of the constitutional embargo placed on courts' jurisdiction by section 188(10) of the Constitution. Onnoghen, J.S.C., who delivered the lead judgment, held in unmistaken terms on page 131 as follows:'It is true that section 188(10) of the 1999 Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of the impeachment of a Governor or Deputy Governor but that must be subject to the rule that the legislature or the House of Assembly complied with all the constitutional requirements in section 188 needed for the impeachment as the courts have jurisdiction to determine whether the said constitutional requirements have been strictly complied with or not.'As stated above, the ouster clause in section 188(10) was more tightly knitted than the limitation words of section 285(6) and (7) of the Constitution; yet the Supreme Court, in a bid to do substantial justice and also effectively police the powers of the Legislature, lifted the jurisdictional veil and voided the two unconstitutional impeachments in Oyo and Plateau States, respectively.One wonders why the Supreme Court has persisted in refusing to intervene in respect to section 285(6) and (7) of the Constitution ' when the Judiciary , if compared with the Legislature that the Supreme Court whipped into line, are supposed to know better.It is respectfully submitted that this is not the first time the Supreme Court will be called upon to rule on the legality or constitutionality of actions that are otherwise time-barred. For instance, even though section 2(a) of the various Public Officers (Protection) Acts/Laws that have dotted our statute books since pre-independence times have always placed 3-month limitation periods for the legality of actions taken by public officers to be challenged in courts of law, the Supreme Court, in a bid to stem abuse of public powers, has always held that for such limitation period to be utilised to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, the public officers seeking to take cover under the limitation periods must have acted within constitutional cum lawful limits. A few of such reported decisions will be cited here.In Ibrahim vs. Judicial Service Committee, Kaduna State (1997-1998) 4 All NLR 302 at 318-319, Iguh, J.S.C., delivering the lead judgment of the Supreme Court, held in unequivocal terms as follows:'It can therefore be said that section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Law, 1963 gives full protection or cover to all public officers or persons engaged in the execution of public duties who at all material times acted within the confines of their public duty. Once they step outside the bounds of their public authority and are acting outside the colour of their office or employment or outside their statutory or constitutional duty, they automatically lose protection of that law. In other words, a public officer can be sued outside the limitation period of three months if at all times material to the commission of the act complained of, he was acting outside the colour of his office or outside his statutory constitutional duty.'See, also, the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hassan vs. Aliyu (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 539) 1007 at 1036-1037.Indeed, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has always acted as the harbinger of the hallowed maxim ubi jus ibi remedium ' meaning that where there is a right, there is a remedy. Thus, in the case of Saleh vs. Monguno (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 332) 1411, instead of commencing his action by a writ of summons or an originating summons, the plaintiff commenced same by a motion on notice. Objection was taken that this was not one of the known means of commencing an action in the High Court. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging this otherwise fundamental flaw, still upheld the Suit in the spirit of substantial justice or providing a remedy where there existed a wrong!All these bold attempts above are aimed at inviting the Supreme Court to save Nigeria's tottering democracy. Our apex Court is the armour bearer of our salvation from the dark abyss of political and electoral fraud. It cannot shirk or shrink from this responsibility. It must not do so!The interpretation by the Supreme Court of section 285(6) and (7) of the Constitution has, however, gone very close to dimming the hopes of many Nigerians that the era of impunity and wantonness in the political and electoral process is very nigh to be torpedoed. The Supreme Court of Nigeria must rise to the occasion, by either overruling itself or holding differently on the issue of 180 days, especially on the matters it specifically ordered retrial. It is unimaginable that the apex Court was not aware of the 180 days' provision in the Constitution when it made those retrial orders!' I deeply respect the Supreme Court of Nigeria'.'Hon is an Abuja-based Senior Advocateof Nigeria (SAN).
Click here to read full news..
