PREMISES AND CONCLUSION TOWARDS IMO SUPREME COURT REVIEW: MNEMONICS FROM BAYELSA SUPREME COURT REVIEW. Written by KEMKA S. IBEJI
KEMKA S. IBEJI |
...the applicants failed to point out errors, stating that the judgment is final for all ages. #JSC
...vexatious, frivolous, and constituted a gross abuse of court process. #JSC
...granting the applications would open a floodgate for the review of decisions of the Supreme Court. #JSC
...the applications amount to an invitation for the apex court to sit in appeal on its earlier judgment in violation of the Constitution. #PDP Counsel
The common take home from the proclamation of the Supreme Court today are;
1. Approaching the Supreme Court for review of her judgment is not unlawful and unconstitutional
2. There are conditions under which the Supreme Court can be prayed for a reconsideration of her own judgment
3. The applicants failed to fulfill the requirements for such review and could not point out an error in the judgment
4. It therefore amounted to being vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of court process
5. And if frivolities are allowed, there will be floodgate as such. As frivolities can only begat more frivolities
6. To establish aura of veneration and discourage more vexatious, frivolous and abuse of court process as such, the court wielded its sticks of sanctions and punishments hence the awards
7. An appeal means continued litigation but there must be an end to litigation hence the status and stature of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter.
Now the questions are;
1. Is Imo State call for a review vexatious?
2. Is it frivolous?
3. Is it an abuse of court process?
4. Is it an appeal?
5. Is it pointing out an error in the Supreme Court judgment?
The Supreme Court is very clear on the provisos for possible knock on her doors for a review and on giant condition for such is if there is clerical error. Another one is if the the judgment was acquired fraudulently. For if none of this two and/or any of the others is the point for the call to review, it becomes vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of court process.
There is clerical error in the judgment of the Supreme Court for the Imo State Governorship Election. Firstly, summation of the 388 polling units results and the prior votes of Sen. Hope Uzodinma does not grant him victory. It can only grant him a runoff as that could not give him the statutory spread required by law to be announced winner. That clerical error misled the Justices of the Supreme Court into the judgment. When this error is corrected, Justice will be done.
There is another clerical error in the judgment when you go through the processes and the results of the 388 polling units to find out that 276 out of the 388 polling units had results granting votes beyond the number of PVCs collected. If and when this clerical error is pointed out and reconsidered by the Supreme Court, a case of over voting will be proven. Here is a double jeopardy viz; clerical error and fraud.
There is another error in the judgment in seeing that the document of the judgement has result of the election where total number of votes cast and voided were more than the total number of accredited votes. This error when resolved will help the Supreme Court reconsider their Consequential Order.
More errors are eminently immanent in the case of Imo State that will absolve it from any abandonment into the realms of applications that are vexatious, frivolous and abusive of the court process.
It does not lack merit and therefore cannot be either trashed or dismissed without a harm to the entire Imo State, Nigeria and the world of justice and judicial precedence. In this regard, Imo State review on the tables of the Supreme Court Justices have merit and shall be effectively, efficiently and judiciously dispensed. It is for the survival of justice and the safety of posterity.
There are clear evidence of misstatements and clerical errors.. So the supreme court judgment is much likely to be reversed.
ReplyDelete