By Sarafa Ibrahim
On Friday, the Appeal Court sitting in Akure, the Ondo state capital, handed a decision on the prolonged legal tussle on Osun local government. The three-man panel dismissed an application by the All Progressives Congress (APC) to revive an appeal that was dismissed by the same court on January 13, 2025, put up to challenge the verdict of the Federal High Court, Osogbo, in suit no FHC/OS/CS/103/2022 delivered on November 30, 2022 which invalidated the October 15, 2022 election held under the immediate past administration.
Since the decision was delivered, there has been a strenuous effort by some elements, mostly within the APC, to playdown the implication of the pronouncement of the appellate court to the public. So, what actually did the court decided and what was the implication of that decision?
To answer this question, let me cast your minds back to how it all started. In August 2022, the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSSIEC) under the Gboyega Oyetola administration announced plan to conduct election into political offices in the local governments on October 15, 2022. Between the time of the announcement and when the election will hold, there is only a gap of not later than 60-day notice as against not later than 360-day that enabling laws, particularly the Electoral Act, 2022 provided as well as a Supreme Court judgement delivered in 2010, which was given by the Osun states electoral empire.
That presented a legal question and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Action Peoples Party (APP) took to the courts for answers in two different suits. While the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) suits was marked FHC/OS/CS/94/2022, that of the Action Peoples Party (APP) was marked FHC/OS/CS/103/2022. It is interesting to note that each of the suits were prosecuted differently and so was the judgements in both cases delivered at different dates. Judgement in the PDP case was delivered on November 25, 2022 while the APP secured judgement on November 30, 2022.
In both suits, the court nullified the October 15, 2022 local councils poll on the basis of non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 28, 29, 30, 32 and 150 of the Electoral Act, 2022. Even more, the court held that the election was held in contravention to the decision of the Supreme Court in OSSIEC v. ACTION CONGRESS 2010) 19 NWLR (PT. 1226) 273 SC. As a consequence, the court ordered the beneficiaries of the election, most of which are members of the APC to vacate their seats.
While the APC appealed both judgements, it however pursued the appeal in the judgement against it in the suit filed by the PDP, and abandoned the appeal against the judgement in the suit by the APP. On January 13, 2025, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal challenging the judgement secured by the APP in suit no FHC/OS/CS/103/2022, for want of diligent prosecution, effectively affirming that decision which sacked the YES or NO officials.
In the other appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the PDP suit was premature and as such, struck out the originating summon. Interestingly, the appellate court did not make a pronouncement on the legality of the October 15, 2022 election, which was formulated in the issues 3 and 4 of the appeal as the panel deemed it an ‘academic exercise’.
By academic exercise, the Supreme Court in SC/VC/478/2021 held that “a case on appeal become academic when it would bring no benefit to any of the parties, or where there is no live issue in the claim. Also, in AG Plateau State V. AG Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346 @ 419: Nikki Tobi, JSC (of blessed memory stated the law as follows: “A suit is academic where it is merely theoretical, makes empty sound and of no practical value to the plaintiff, even if judgement is given in his favour. A suit is academic if it is not related to practical situation of human nature and humanity.”
Anyone would expect the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, to be acquainted to this judicial position, but it appeared that he is more concerned about political correctness than the intended purpose for which Section 150 of the 1999 Constitution created his office with the selective interpretation of valid and subsisting judgement of the court. Notwithstanding this fact, there still exist the judgement of the same Appeal Court in CA/AK/226M/2024 which dismissed the APC’s appeal challenging the judgement of the Federal High Court, Osogbo in suit no FHC/OS/CS/103/2022.
It is this same appeal that the APC attempted to revive but failed on Friday. The legal implication of that decision cannot be overstated. By that decision, the FHC judgement in suit no FHC/OS/CS/103/2022 delivered on November 30, 2022, which declared the October 15, 2022 local councils poll unconstitutional, null and void, is valid and subsisting.
By the operation of the law, the judgement is a judgement in rem, meaning that it is binding to all parties who participated in the nullified election, whether they participated in the litigation or not. In DIKE & ORS V. NZEKA II & ORS (1986) LPELR-945 (SC), the Supreme Court underscored this point most lucidly when it held that “A judgment is said to be in rem when it is an adjudication pronounced upon the status of some particular thing or subject matter by a Tribunal having the jurisdiction and the competence to pronounce on that Status. Such a judgment is usually and invariably founded on proceedings instituted against or on something or subject-matter whose status or condition is to be determined. It is thus a solemn declaration on the status of some persons or thing. It is therefore binding on all persons in so far as their interests in the status of the property or person are concerned. That is why a judgment in rem is a judgment contra mundum – binding on the whole world – parties as well as non-parties.”
Court pronouncements are not for cherry-picking as the Osun APC is apparently doing, they are rather meant to be obeyed. In fact, it goes against the very essence of democracy for a party, just as the APC has shown, to believe it can ignore a judgement of the court as long as it is against it.
To even have a lawyer in the mould of Mr Kunle Adegoke, SAN, to assume that the judgement in the APP suit should not have effect on the election of the APC chairmen and councillors, is a symptom of the problem with the Nigeria judicial system. In Nigeria’s jurisprudence, self-executing judgements are those that are clear enough to be carried out directly, and no additional directives or enforcement mechanisms are needed beyond what the court has stated. The FHC in a November 30, 2022 judgement, by voiding the October 15, 2022 local governments election and ordering beneficiaries to vacate their seats, made its judgement self-executing and doesn’t require any further directive from any quarters for it to have effect.
That judgement was what the Appeal Court affirmed in the January 13, 2025 decision when it dismissed the appeal filed against it. It was that dismissed appeal that the APC tried to revive but was unsuccessful as the Court of Appeal held that “… the appeal lacks merit and, it is accordingly dismissed.” Any sincere lawyer would know the implication of that decision but it appears political correctness is being given preference at the expense of rule of law. Quite unfortunate.
The law is settled that a judgement of the court remains binding until set aside by a superior court. This was particularly emphasised by the Supreme Court in NGERE & ANOR v. OKURUKET & ORS (2014) LPELR-22883(SC), where the apex court held that “The judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction subsists until upset on appeal. While the judgment subsists, every person affected by it or against whom an order is made must obey it even if it appears wrong. Judgments take effect immediately they are delivered and every Court has inherent power to proceed to enforce judgments at once. The enforcements on delivery can only be interrupted by a stay of execution provided there is an appeal.”
Going by the Friday’s decision of the Court of Appeal, the October 15, 2022 local governments election remained nullified and as such, beneficiaries sacked. Those contesting this reality are simply being insincere or perhaps, carried away by the impunity that the arrogant belief of a federal might impress on them. This sends a dangerous signal that this democracy may be heading for the rock because no society can survive without adherence to judicial pronouncements.
The AGF has a duty to the nation’s law and ensuring fair and unbiased reviews of judicial pronouncements. Doing otherwise, as events since the crisis started has shown with the cold attitude to the judgement in the APP suit that sacked the APC chairmen and councillors, will totally erode whatever faith is left in the country’s legal system and reduced it to nothing but the fantasy of partisan interests. That will be a terrible thing for this country and history will not forget those who abused the trust of their office to reduce our legal system to almost nothing as a result of selfish interest. The whole world is watching and so, is history.
•Sarafa Ibrahim writes from Iwo, Osun state. He can be reached via neyoclass09@gmail.com
