By Sarafa Ibrahim
There is are two letters circulating on the internet. The two letters were signed by Joshua Ibrahim Ali, Esq, who identified himself as the Special Assistant to the Hon. Chief Judge and purportedly conveyed the decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to transfer suit FHC/OS/CS/94/2025 from the Osogbo division to the Abuja division of the court.
The nature of the letters offend known legal principles and put to serious questions the interest of Justice Tsoho in the Osun local governments crisis. For a starter, judicial authorities are vested in judges and cannot be exercised through proxy as the letter clearly indicated. More so, the procedure for transferring cases between divisions of the Federal High Court is clearly stated in the enabling laws guiding the activities of the court.
There is nothing in the Federal High Court Act that empowers the Chief Judge to arbitrarily transfer cases from the division it was filed after hearing has commenced. Section 22 of the FHC Act which deals with transfer of cases between divisions explicitly places that power in the hand of the judge hearing the matter either on their own initiative or and upon an application from a party involved in the matter.
Understandably, the Chief Judge may want to rely on under Order 49 of the Federal High Court (Civil Proceeding) Rules for his action but the thing here is that court rules cannot override provisions of an Act of National Assembly. It is a settled principles of law that where there is a conflict between court rules and an Act of the National Assembly, the legislation of the parliamentary takes precedence.
While court rules are important, they cannot override a valid Act of the National Assembly. This essentially implies that the provisions of the FHC Act is superior and have a binding force on the courts, hence, should guide the process for transfering cases if there is any reason for such.
One of the reasons envisaged by the FHC Act for the transfer of cases between divisions is in the interest of justice. But it is hard to agree that that is the case here because the manner of the transfer has the likelihood of bias written all over it. There is no better example of the lack of fairness in the whole process than the realisation that the information on the transfer, which was addressed to the attorney standing for the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) in the matter, was kept away from the lawyer of the applicant until several days after the case was heard in Abuja.
Impartiality is at the core of the principles of natural justice and adjudicators must not give any likelihood of bias in deciding a case before them. In essence, an arbiter is not expected to have any other interest aside that of justice in a matter, as any semblance of bias in a judicial process will severely dent public trust and confidence in this judiciary.
The duty of judges and the courts is to serve as important safeguards and guardians against clear breach of the law and uphold constitutionality. That can only be possible when the process in adjudications are fair and doesn’t present any undue advantage to a party.
The biggest problem with the dimension that the Osun local governments legal conundrum is taking at the FHC is that the court is seen as a refuge against what is wrong, not a partaker. Put simply, there is nothing that justified the hurried transfer of the case from Osogbo to Abuja, except for purposes that can never be the interest of justice.
The excuse of ‘urgency’ pushed by the defendant(s), is at best, a cover for something sinister. This is because most of the defendants failed to file processes in the suit since May when it was instituted by the plaintiff and it is not surprising that the Osun state chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) could connect the dot and rightly expressed fears that moving the case to Abuja may have been to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
The signs are too glaring for any keen observer not to see, and the implication on our democracy will be devastating and hugely distort legal principles for generations to come. What is at stake is beyond Osun state or the political parties involved, but to demonstrate that our judiciary can actually decide issues outside political influence.
Moreover, the All Progressives Congress (APC) YES or NO officials have punctured the argument of urgency advanced by the defendants in their application as they are now back before the court to contend that their tenures extend to 2028. Although their claims has no basis whatsoever in the law because it is a settled law backed by several judicial precedents that elected officials tenure start counting from the day they take oath of office, the fact that the APC YES or NO officials, which the Attorney-General of the Federation and other defendants are clearly rooting for, showed that their push was nothing but self-serving.
In the past, most notably during military rule, the court has shown shown an admirable desire to do what is right notwithstanding pressure from the ruling class. That earned it not just the confidence of the public in dispensing justice without fear or favour, but also establish it as the hope of the common man.
The big question now is whether the public can still trust on the court to do the right thing. This will mean standing by known laws and removing any doubt in the minds of parties and the general public of the likelihood of bias in resolving disputes.
- Sarafa Ibrahim writes from Osogbo, Osun state.
