EMMANUEL ONWUBIKONigeria’s highest court of justice known as the Supreme Court of Nigeria has been in the news in recent times for the ugliest of reasons.
The ugliness of the public perception infamy attained few days back by the Nigerian Supreme Court is in such a way that within few hours of the emergence of the two unrelated but similarly controversial judgments, public perception jumped to a frenetic negativity in such a way that public trust, confidence have started waning and the generally accepted rationale for the introduction of the court system which is to deliver judgments in such ways and manners that justice would not only be done but must be seen to have been done has almost vanished at the altar of miscarriage of justice embodied in those two judgments that we are commenting about. I must say from the beginning that the decisions of the Supreme Court is final. In as much as we can’t do anything about the nature of those judgments, but we must say that there are deeper traces of infallibility in those pronouncements.
Join our WhatsApp ChannelThe gist is that the Nigerian Supreme Court delivered two highly contentious and unpopular judgments first on the political differences in Rivers state between the governor Mr Siminalayi Fubara and his estranged political godfather and current minister of the Federal Capital Territory Mr Nyesom Wike.
Nyesom Wike who is believed to be waging the war of attrition against his estranged political godson through his stooges who are 27 in number and were the members of the Rivers State House of Assembly who parted ways with the governor leading to the division of the Rivers state legislature, has been in jubilant mood since that judgment that favoured his stooges emerged.
As briefly stated above, the Supreme Court favoured the FCT minister and virtually stripped the serving governor of Rivers state of many of his influences and political relevance.
Since that judgment was delivered about one week ago, Rivers state has become a hotbed of intensive political infighting just as armed thugs have already shot some supporters of the governor dead and then an amorphous bunch of guns wielding hooded boys, made a video threatening to rain fire and brimstone on Rivers state should the Wike’s supporters whose political relevance has been reinforced by the Supreme Court’s verdict, carry out their threats to impeach the first ever Ijaw born governor.
I will return to narrate extensively some aspects of that dangerous judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria that has ignited political uprising in Rivers state.
The second most ridiculous judgment that has just dropped off the shelves of the Nigerian Supreme Court, is that incredible verdict that insists that a Christian farmer who was attacked by armed herders in his Adamawa state based village farm but he fought back and the chief aggressor died from his wounds, should face the public execution only for exercising his right to self defence.
This judgment has stood logic and commonsense on their heads.
As aforementioned, I will give some aspects of that Supreme Court’s ruling on the political crisis in Rivers state that has now ignited the biggest flames of political warfare between the sitting governor and his erstwhile political godfather who is fighting through political surrogates who are the 27 renegade members of the then factionalised Rivers state House of Assembly.
The rebellious group of legislators who openly announced their defection on public television and widely celebrated for their illegality including some statements of felicitations from the National headquarters of the All Progressives Congress in Abuja, have now been licensed by the Supreme Court’s contentious and illogical judgment to take over the Rivers state House of Assembly which they have done and have already started stoking the embers of divisions and issuing threats against the governor and some of his key appointees even as Rivers State is now in a state of war.
There is a climate of fear and uncertainty escalated by the miscarriage of justice that oozed out from that Supreme Court’s ruling which I will list out some citations in the next few lines.
But before i give the Supreme Court judgment, we need to be reminded that there was already a controversy that the FCT minister who never hid his endorsement of the cases against his successor in different federal High courts in Abuja, Court of Appeal before they were consolidated into one by the Supreme Court, had openly donated expensive FCT lands and has already commenced the building of living quarters for Judges and Justices of Federal High court and the Court of Appeal and on the day the foundation laying of these controversial free houses for judges and justices were conducted by Nyesom Wike who is behind the 27 members of the Rivers state House of Assembly waging war for him against his estranged political godson, the Chief Justice of Nigeria Justice Kekere-Ekun was reportedly present. Wike maintains that there was nothing unethical about the housing estates for judges and justices. Many senior lawyers have criticised the donations to the judiciary by the FCT minister.
There were widespread suspicions that the donations of houses and lands to Justices handling cases involving the loyalists of the financial backer of the litigant who are against the Rivers state governor may influence the outcome of the Supreme Court decision.
That decision has happened and Rivers state is never the same. Below are lines making up the summary of the contentious 62-page judgement which was distributed generously last Thursday to the media, including several pages of advertisements in some national dailies that ran on Friday.
In it, the Nigerian Supreme Court made unbelievable claim as if the justices are monks insulated from watching television, that there was no iota or shred of evidence to support the claim of defection made against the 27 members of the House of Assembly from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The lead judgment was actually written so provocatively in favour of the All Progressives Congress which the FCT minister works for and who is obviously the sponsor of the rebellious bunch of Rivers state legislators waging war against their sitting governor.
In the judgement signed by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the Apex court said that the Rivers State governor, Siminalayi Fubara, who raised the allegations of defection against the 27 lawmakers on his own volition withdrew the allegations at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
By not supporting the defection claim against the Amaewhule-led leadership, the apex court held that in the eyes of the law, no defection has taken place and consequently the status quo in the House of Assembly must remain.
“The 8th respondent (Fubara) had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore, no question about any member having lost his seat in that House due to defection can validly arise. There must be a House of Assembly for any constitutional processes therein to take place.
“The daim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House on the basis of an alleged defection is a continuation of his determination to prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House. It Is an engagement in chicanery.
“Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise. Section 102. of the Constitution that provides that “A House of Assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership and the presence of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate such proceedings”, cannot be relied on to validate the proceedings of a House of Assembly in the absence of over 90% of the members or to justify a vacancy created by the illegal exclusion of a member of the House or to justify the contrived illegal exclusion of 27 members and officials from the House and illegal shutting down of the House by destroying the legislative building and House of Assembly complex and blocking access to the place by legislators and officials of the House.
“A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the Government of a State under the 1999 Constitution. In this case, the Executive arm of the Government has chosen to collapse the Legislature to enable it to govern without the Legislature as a despot. As it is there is no government in Rivers State.
“The doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked to justify the continued existence of a deliberately contrived illegal or unconstitutional status quo. It cannot be invoked to justify and protect the illegal actions of the 8” respondent and his despotic rule of Rivers State without a House of Assembly.
“It applies to genuine situations that were not contemplated in the provisions of the Constitution or any law, which situations require the taking of some legitimate extra constitutional or extra-legal actions to protect public interest.
“The 8″respondent’s fear of impeachment by the House Assembly is no justification for his attacks on the House of Assembly, the Constitution, the Government of Rivers State and rule of law.
“Political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the Governor of a State or any person. What the 8” respondent has done is to destroy the government because of his fear of being impeached.
“In the light of the foregoing, I hold that Cross-appeal No SC/CV/1175A/2024 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
“The part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is hereby affirmed. The said judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No.. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is hereby restored.
“For avoidance of doubt it is hereby ordered that the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation should forthwith stop releasing and paying to the Government of Rivers State, its organs, departments and Officials any money belonging to Rivers State until an Appropriation Law is made by Rivers State House of Assembly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution.
“The Rt Honorable Martin Chike Amaewhule and the other 26 members should forthwith resume unhindered sitting as Speaker and members respectively of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
“The Rivers State House of Assembly Should resume sitting with all elected members forthwith.
Then what seemed like the most absurd judgment to have ever emanated from the court system in Nigeria was the confirmation of the death sentence on the Adamawa-born Christian farmer who fought off an attack by Fulani herders and succeeded in taking out the chief aggressor.
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, which blamed the appellant for fighting back to stay alive instead of running away, according to the judgment of the first court of instance in Adamawa state.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria, on Friday, March 7th, upheld the death sentence of Sunday Jackson, a farmer in his 30s, for killing a Fulani herdsman in what he claims was an act of self-defense.
READ ALSO: Fubara vs. Lawmakers: Political War That Could Reshape Rivers State
The ruling has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates, who argue that it reflects a disturbing trend in Nigeria’s justice system, where citizens defending themselves against violent attacks are increasingly facing harsh penalties, while their attackers often evade accountability.
The case dates back to an incident in Adamawa State, where Jackson was attacked on his farm in Codonti Forest by Buba Bawuro, a Fulani herdsman who had trespassed with his cattle. According to Jackson, Bawuro pulled a knife and stabbed him multiple times during the altercation. In a struggle, Jackson managed to seize the knife and fatally stab Bawuro in the neck. Jackson was subsequently arrested and charged with murder, despite his consistent assertion that he acted in self-defense. In 2021, a Yola court sentenced him to death by hanging, a decision the Supreme Court has now affirmed.
Human rights lawyer Emmanuel Ogebe, part of Jackson’s defense team, expressed deep concern over the implications of the ruling. He highlighted the broader issue of Nigerians being criminalized for defending themselves in a country where violent attacks by Fulani herdsmen have resulted in thousands of deaths. Dr. William Terence Devlin, an American human rights leader supporting Jackson, echoed these sentiments, stating that Jackson was merely protecting himself and his livelihood from an aggressor.
The case has also raised serious questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s legal process. Jackson’s trial was marred by delays and procedural irregularities. After the final arguments were presented on August 27, 2020, the judgment was not delivered until February 10, 2021—167 days later, far exceeding the 90-day limit mandated by Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution for the delivery of judgments. Lawyers argue that this delay likely contributed to a miscarriage of justice, as the trial judge appeared to confuse key facts and substitute personal opinions for evidence.
Furthermore, Jackson’s defense team has pointed out that the trial judge misinterpreted the constitutional right to self-defense, suggesting that Jackson should have fled rather than fought back, despite evidence that he was stabbed and momentarily incapacitated during the attack. This reasoning has been widely criticized as illogical and inconsistent with universal legal principles that uphold the right to stand one’s ground in the face of imminent danger.
Jackson’s supporters argue that the case should never have gone to trial, as it was a clear instance of self-defense. At most, they contend, a charge of manslaughter would have been appropriate. Instead, Jackson has spent over a decade in prison, including six years awaiting trial for a case that involved only five court sittings. His prolonged incarceration and the subsequent death sentence have been described as a gross travesty of justice, so say many commentators.
The National Association of Court Management, a US based group gave us a broad idea on the functionality of the universal court system.
That organisation summed up the rationale for establishment of courts as follows: “Purposes and responsibilities of courts should never be confused with efficiency or even the constitutional means of the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the inherent powers of the courts. Courts exist to do justice, to guarantee liberty, to enhance social order, to resolve disputes, to maintain rule of law, to provide for equal protection, and to ensure due process of law. They exist so the equality of individuals and the government is reality rather than empty rhetoric.
National Association of Court Management also said: “Carrying out the fundamental purposes and responsibilities of a court requires all court leaders, regardless of their specific position, to ensure their respective courts:
Protect fundamental constitutional and legal rights and promote the rule of law.
Provide access to all who seek court intervention.
Support the timely and fair disposition of all cases.
Recognizing that court leaders perform diverse functions in an array of environments, the following are goals that court professionals should aspire to meet:
Ensure the court’s mission and vision statements support the fundamental purposes and responsibilities of courts.
Provide education on the purposes and responsibilities of the court for court staff.
Promote the independence of the judiciary through its budgeting process and independent policy-making functions.”
Now, if we ask ourselves the hard question of whether the aforementioned twin judgments from the Nigerian Supreme Court meet any of these objectives listed above, the answer is certainly a big NO.
Rather, the Supreme Court gave us two judgments of fire and brimstone. It will take a very long time for faith, trust confidence in the Nigerian justice sector to be restored amongst the greatest percentage of the people of Nigeria. To think that someone who fought back an attacker intending on killing him, would now be killed for successfully exercising his constitutional right to self-defense. And to remember that this judgment of the Supreme Court has come at a time of widespread attacks by armed herders all over Nigeria, one is then left to wonder whether these judges reached this strange determination because either of them or their family members have become the victims of the widespread violence by armed herders in Nigeria.
Emmanuel Onwubiko is the founder of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria and was a National Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission Of Nigeria.
