Tinubu didn’t interfere in Supreme Court’s judgments – Ex-AGF Aondoakaa
Former-Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Michael Aondakaa SAN, has urged individuals expressing gratitude to President Bola Tinubu for not intervening in the Supreme Court judgment in Kano and other cases to refrain from undermining the public’s confidence in the judiciary.
Aondakaa emphasised that the matter was solely within the judicial domain, adding that as a true democrat, Tinubu could not have interfered.
Aondoakaa, in a telephone conversation with The Nation, also recommended that the National Judicial Council (NJC) promptly take measures to ensure that justices adhere to the precedents set by the Supreme Court, aiming to prevent instances of miscarriage of justice.
He said: “Politicians simply do not like giving credit to whom it’s due. Dragging Mr. President into a purely judicial matter is unfortunate. The President is not supposed to interfere in judicial matters especially as it relates to elections.
“As a true democrat who fought for democracy even during the military era, Tinubu could never have thought of interfering. Those thanking the President for not interfering are eroding people’s confidence in the judiciary. They are doing the President a disservice by implying that he chooses those to support.
“Nigerians should rather thank the justices of the Supreme Court for acting promptly and preventing Nigeria from sliding into a one-party state. The justices of the Supreme Court are men of integrity who cannot be compromised.”
In the case of Plateau state where some People Democratic Party (PDP) lawmakers lost their seats to the All Progressives Congress (APC), the former AGF opined that “any judgment given with lack of jurisdiction is in nullity. The Court that gave that judgment has inherent jurisdiction to set aside the judgment.
“Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the Election Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of the Primary elections conducted by the PDP, the lawmakers should approach the Appeal Court, Plateau Division with the judgment of the Supreme Court and have the judgment set aside.
“Since the tribunal had no jurisdiction, the Appeal Court also had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The lawmakers can therefore file an application at the Appeal Court except for the time-bound nature of electoral matters.”
Addressing the apparent legal irregularities in judgments and the neglect of judicial precedents by many justices in the Appeal Court, the legal expert recommended “judicial education through seminars and workshops, along with judicial discipline,” as essential tools for aligning judgments across various divisions of the Appeal Court and ensuring strict adherence to judicial precedents.
He insisted that unless there’s any basis for deliberate malice, involving the National Judicial Commission (NJC) does not arise.
