Gabriel Giwa- Amu, Lagos lawyer and human rights activist, on Monday in Lagos, literally took critics on the Supreme Court judgment delivered on the governorship elections of Rivers and Akwa Ibom States to the cleaners.
He was reacting to the plethora of criticisms that upheld Udom Emmanuel and Nyesom Ezenwo Wike, as Governors of Akwa Ibom and Rivers State respectively by the apex court.
It could be re-called that a cross section of persons within and outside the country said the elections that ushered in Udom and Nyesom were marred by monumental boycotts, rigging, killings, maiming and all manner of electoral malpractices.
However, the radical lawyer in a statement said the procedure for deferment of reasons in a judgment is allowed by law, even as the expectations of Nigerians may not be in tandem with the outcome of the judgments.
His words: At the Supreme Court level, the rationale for most of the judgments and rulings it delivers is “justice delivery” arguing that the apex court is not interested in the facts or demeanor of witnesses, but if the lower courts have followed the procedure established by law in arriving at the judgment appealed against
According to him, the Supreme Court is often misunderstood as it often assumed erroneously that it enjoys the powers and competence of a trial court, or a court of first instance and an appellant court at the same time” Amu said
Rather, the apex court ordinarily does not tamper with the facts of a case; it mainly concerns itself with whether justice has been delivered by the lower courts.
He stressed that the mere fact that the evidence before the lower courts was not controverted, does not automatically mean victory before the Supreme Court.
Amu further disclosed that if an appellant say fire burns, that in the estimation of the Supreme Court is not disputable but did it burn you the appellant to entitle you to bring this action, is taken into consideration when passing or delivering judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks