The Minority Caucus in the House of Representatives has condemned the recent judgement of the Justices of Appeal Court in both Kaduna and Plateau states, describing it as unacceptable.
It added that it was proper to advise the Nigeria Judicial Council, and the leadership of the Appeal Court to as a matter of necessity review these judgements, and where possible ensure that justice prevails, considering the implications on the country’s jurisprudence, nascent democracy and national development.
Its Leader, Hon. Kingsley Chinda, in a statement issued Monday maintained that the recent judgments of the Appeal Court which removed opposition lawmakers from Plateau and Kaduna states in the House eroded public interest and called to question the impartiality of the judiciary.
He said despite the well established jurisprudence on pre-election matters, the Justices decided to side-track, neglect, and jettison established precedents clearly and explicitly delivered by the Supreme Court.
The minority leader maintained that since there were many pronouncements by the Supreme Court on pre-election and similar issues, it is binding on all parties.
Chinda recalled that in May 2023, in PDP versus Kashim Shettima, the Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, ruled that, “you cannot challenge a political party over structure even if it does not have the structure.
He said the Supreme Court dismissed Allied Peoples Mandate’s suit against the Independent National Electoral Commission on the same ground; while in October 2023, the Appeal Court, in strict adherence to established jurisprudence, dismissed a matter by All Progressives Congress’ candidate for a House of Representatives seat in Borno state against the Peoples Democratic Party.
Chinda noted that having laid this very necessary and useful background, one could safely conclude that the actions and decisions of the justices in Plateau and Kaduna states are a travesty, and calls to questions the time-tested and serially-proven attributes of the judiciary as an impartial, responsive and transparent body.
He said: “We are shocked that the Justices of the Appeal Court delivered judgements that are not only conflicting but negates proven and established legal precedence.
“With due respect to the justices, the grounds in which the Justices reached their unfortunate and regrettable judgments are totally unacceptable, ludicrous, capricious and outrightly unlawful. The obvious illogic which characterised the judgments falls short of our constitutional and electoral jurisprudence.”
“It is not only sad and painful; but shameful that the justices, in their warped wisdom, gave such patently prejudiced and inconsistent judgements without respect for existing substantive and procedural law.”
