“In what circumstances can the Supreme Court correct her errors since they are ontologically and epistemologically infallible and final in construct?”.

The Pope in his supreme apostolic authority is said to be infallible. In Catholic Dogmatic Theology, the infallibility of the Papal office is more than the de facto absence of error. It is a positive perfection, ruling out the possibility of error. If the Pope acts or speaks in his infallibility capacity, he is said to be officiating ex cathedra.

Justice Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa (a devoted catholic) in a decided case transposed and domesticated this doctrine of infallibility to the Supreme Court: Adegoke Motors vs. Adesanya, 1989 13 NWLR, pt.109, 250 at page 275). It was in this landmark case that Justice Oputa states: “We are final not because we are infallible; rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this Court are human beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be short-sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. It is also true that this Court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions. Similarly, the Court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes. When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this Court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such a decision be overruled. This Court has the power to overrule itself (and has done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error.”

From the above Socratic wisdom of Justice Oputa, Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha’s application requesting the Nigerian Supreme Court to review and reverse her 14th January decision which stripped him of the governorship stool in favour of His Excellency Hope Uzodinma was because he and PDP critically think that the Supreme Court erred in her finality and infallibility. For the general population, the Supreme’s decision in this election petition appears to be a cocktail for anarchy and distrust. For some still, the Apex decision is terse, in tandem with the law; ad rem and consistent with what were canvassed by the parties. Kanu Agabi (SAN) was hired to lead this novel revolution at the Supreme Court.

Review is certainly not an appeal in disguise. Reviewing Supreme Court’s judgment can be entertained when there is serious injustice in the judgment. The power of review can be exercised for correction of glaring mistake. Review is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character makes it necessary to do so. The Supreme Court as the apex court is sacrosanct. It is a settled principle of law that parties are not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court merely for a rehearsal of decision. When the Supreme Court accepts to review her judgment it does not mean that the Supreme Court will run through anew the legal proceedings for a fresh judgment. In reviewing Ihedioha vs. Uzodinma Supreme Court’s decision it is also possible to return the same verdict with a different but elegant legal reasoning so as to control flood gates or slippery slope.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court may overrule or depart from her previous decision if a case present at hand is similar or has the same material facts/circumstances. The circumstances of the previous case are a guide in a later case. After reading Agabi’s final written address which was 98% sermon and moral appeal to the consciences of the Supreme Court’s Justices, it was easy to figure out that Agabi was struggling to find a coherent argument to sustain the review. It appears he has lost the legal fireworks required to keep alive the review he was proposing.

Substantially, the respected senior colleague failed to engage the law as a persuasive tool before the Supreme Court. For instance he magically introduced a rerun in his final written address while a rerun never formed a prayer at all stages of the tribunal. With all due respect to Kanu Agabi and all the legal team of Ihedioha, the final written address/prayers were couched in the most circumlocutions verbiage that I have seen in any court process claiming eminence of that magnitude. It was enigmatic pity that Agabi’s final written address was the best produced by over 8 Senior Advocates.

However that may be, if the Supreme Court justifies her decision, they may have succeeded in setting precedence. That is:

1) An election can be won where the numbers of votes cast exceed the number of registered voters.

2) Over voting is permissible in an election.

3) A result tendered by a police officer in the course of an election is admitted in any court as a valid exhibit regardless.

4) Computation error does not vitiate section 179 of our constitution in interpreting 2/3 spread.

As we conclude, the finality and infallibility of the Supreme Court presupposes that the Supreme Court should exercise more thorough and rigour in their finality. The Supreme Court should not be seen to deliver gawky decision. Parties are circumspect as to how the Supreme Court will be persuaded to think in reviewing or reversing her earlier judgment. All Hail The Supreme Court.

Harry Fanon is a philosopher and a jurisprudence lawyer writing from his Ahiazu Cave.

Wriiten By Harry Fanon (Esq.) [email protected]