Date Published: 12/30/09

Soludo’s clearance antithesis to law and reason By Chimezie Elemuo

         Finally, Soludo is the PDP candidate for the February 6, 2010 election in Anambra State . Not a few people were baffled when the wise men at the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was in error by not lifting the injunction placed on Soludo’s candidature. Nothing that comes out of Anambra politics  surprises anyone any more. What surprises me is the manner of legal sumersaults by our courts. It is such that lawyers now wonder whether our law reports are replete with outdated legal principles. And do these legal principles change by the day? Lifting the injunction maintained by the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court held that the lower court erred by not ordering that the status quo be maintained. I am still at a loss. Which status quo should be maintained? How can one maintain a status quo that is being challenged? I can’t understand this new law. Since our legal principles change like the British weather, case law in our law reports are becoming more and more unreliable by the day.

         In matters like this, it is trite law that the essence of maintaining the status quo is that the res should not be destroyed. The question is: which status quo should be maintained? The law is that the status quo to be maintained is that that exist before the controversy or dispute arises. In this case, it is the status quo ante litem and not the contested status quo (please read the Supreme Court in Governor of Lagos State V. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) P.621). Is it that this case law does no longer apply? Is it a case of the Supreme Court overruling itself? More questions and more questions. The law is that that before granting, refusing or lifting an injunction as the Supreme Court  did, the contenting rights of the parties must be considered and that where a legal right exist, injunction would be granted ( please see Kotoye V. Central Bank of Nigeria ( 1989) 1 NWLR (PT.78) 419). May be, the Supreme Court waived this since according to it, Soludo “cannot be castrated.” Who deserved to be the bull lock? The aggrieved parties? Is that a new principle of law? I can’t stop asking questions.

         The Supreme Court opinioned that the ruling “is not a victory to any of the parties.”  I disagree. The ruling is a total victory for Soludo. What happens to the substantive suit? If the main suit drags up to the Supreme Court and it finds that Soludo’s selection was not proper, what happens? Will the Supreme Court at this time order that Soludo’s name be removed as PDP candidate or substituted? Can the Supreme Court at this point order that the PDP conduct its party primary election? The court cannot order that Soludo’s name be removed since it is the party that decides which candidate to field for an election. The court cannot order that Soludo’s name be substituted since there was no election in the first place. And nobody is claiming a ticket as the party candidate. Still the court will not order any primary election when by this time; it will be too late, null and void and negates ss. 34 and 35 of the Electoral Act. One had expected the Supreme Court to have maintained the injunction and order accelerated hearing in the substantive suit. I am more than baffled that the revered Oguntade, JSC, who held in Amaechi V. INEC & 2 Ors. ( 2008)  1 SC (Pt. 1)P.77-78, that “ if the political parties, in their own wisdom had written it into their Constitution that their candidates for election would emerge from their party primaries, it becomes unacceptable that the court should run away from the duty to enforce compliance with the provisions of the parties’ Constitution…. Indeed, the court, in its ordinary duties, must enforce compliance with the agreements reached by parties in their contracts….” Could come up with a ruling meant to render this earlier decision nugatory. This is a case of the law being an ass.

        The PDP may want to do away with godfatherism in Anambra politics, but this must be done through the channel provided by law. Anything short of this is fostering illegality in the polity. The PDP may not like the Ubas, but they are human all the same. I urge the Supreme Court to take a second look at this ruling and restore the injunction. After all, Oputa, JSC, said in Adegoke Motors V. Adesanya (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.109) at 274-275 that “we are final not because we are infallible rather we are infallible because we are final. The Justices of this court are human beings capable of erring…. Therefore, where it appears to counsel that a decision was reached per incuriam, he should have the boldness to bring it before this court and ask that it be reversed.”

Chimezie Elemuo is a Port Harcourt-based legal practitioner.

08070600117.