Date Published: 12/17/09

Supreme Court clears Soludo for 2010 Governorship Poll

The Supreme Court has vacated the injunctive orders of the Court of Appeal against Charles Soludo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

In a unanimous ruling, the apex court accordingly ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission [INEC] to accord Soludo with all the necessary rights and privileges available to all political candidates for the February 6, 2010 scheduled governorship election in Anambra State.

Justice George Oguntade, who delivered the ruling of the court, held that the order of the Court of Appeal restraining Soludo from parading himself as the candidate of the PDP for the said election was very much unnecessary.

Responding to the ruling, an elated Professor Soludo, who was at the court complex, said it was victory for democracy and the people of Anambra State.

The Supreme Court said the appellate court was wrong to have granted the orders, which by implication prevented Soludo from participating in the election.

Justice Oguntade said what the Court of Appeal ought to have done in the circumstances of the case was to issue an order for the status quo to be maintained pending the determination of the appeal.

He said the ruling of the court was not a victory for anybody, adding that what the court did was to hold a balance of things before the restraining order was made.

Justice Oguntade said in his ruling: “I have carefully given consideration to the facts relied upon in support of the appeal. It is my view that the submissions made by Mr. Taiwo Abbey for the respondents to the effect that the appeal was not properly before us is grossly untenable. The trial court had declined jurisdiction to hear the matter. What was before the Court of Appeal in the substantive appeal was therefore the issue as to whether the trial court is clothed with jurisdiction to hear the suit.

“The Court of Appeal must first of all determine the issue of jurisdiction, because a court without jurisdiction cannot make a valid order. The Court of Appeal, has the discretion to properly make a preservative order, but it did more than that by preventing a candidate to exercise his right of participating in an election.

“I’m unable to agree with Taiwo that the appellant need to have sought the leave of court before filing the appeal. The order of the Court of Appeal has in fact prevented the 2nd appellant (Soludo) from participating in the election. The lower court should have given an order to maintain status quo.

It is for the above reasons that I’m granting the order setting aside the order of the Court of Appeal.

Justice Oguntade who said he was impressed by the legal arguments canvassed by Mr. Abbey, however, said he should not be too legalistic but to bear in mind, the justice of the case.

“I’m impressed by your legal arguments but you should not be too legalistic, you should consider the justice of the case. How can somebody who won at the trial court come out worst at the Court of Appeal in the name of a restraining order? He asked.

Other Justices on the panel agreed with the Ruling of Justice Oguntade.

Before the ruling, the court did not keep parties in the dark as to what it had in mind about the case.

For instance, when the matter came up and counsel to both parties announced their appearances, the court wasted no time in condemning the ruling of the Court of Appeal that was the subject matter of the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Justice Oguntade had while adducing reasons as to the decision of the court to hear the matter and deliver it’s ruling in a speed that it did said:
“We stand here for justice and this matter appears very urgent so we are going to decide the matter today. We got all the papers and processes filed in Chambers today, yet we have studies them in Chambers.”

Appealing to counsel to the respondents to calm down and allow the principle of justice guide his thought, Justice Oguntade condemned the ruling of the Court of Appeal, describing it as an attempt to castrate Soludo.

“What the Court of Appeal did yesterday was a strange occurrence in the legal profession. It was wrong in every angle of the law. You know it and you must not defend it. (Referring to counsel to the respondents). On what principle of law was the decision of the Court of Appeal based.

“The order was a strange one and I cannot understand it. What is the meaning of that order at this stage of the proceeding? You cannot stop anybody. No case is in support of that ruling of the Court of Appeal. No appeal court (Supreme Court) worth its salt will affirm what the Court of Appeal did yesterday. You cannot castrate Soludo at this stage of the contest. But if you insist on an adjournment then we must vacate the order.”