•Supreme Court of Nigeria
Lawyers and other Nigerians have hailed the Supreme Court judgments upturning the decision of the Appeal Court in governorship elections, saying the judgments justify the reason for ending election petitions at the apex court.
Human rights and constitutional lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) said the judgment of the Supreme Court yesterday has justified why election cases should not stop at appeal court.
According to him, the law should be reviewed to ensure all cases go to the Supreme Court, reports The Guardian.
A human rights lawyer, Mr. Abdul Ganeey Imran, the Convener of Centre for Law & Civil Culture in his reaction said the judgment clearly demonstrates that the judicial arm of government still enjoys some level of independence.
Imran said various judgments delivered by the apex court yesterday were nothing but a judicial stamping and recognition of the choices and wishes of the good people/electorates of those respective states.
He said, “The judgment of the Kano State governorship election in particular which affirmed the election of Governor Abba Yusuf is a further demonstration of the independence and impartiality of the judicial arm of government. This is because, majority of Nigerians are of the insinuation that the APC ruling party would influence the decision of the Supreme Court and ensure that the decision of the two lower courts, which nullified the election of the governor, would be affirmed.
“But the judgment clearly demonstrates that the judicial arm of government still enjoys some level of independence.”
Also, reacting, the 2023 governorship candidate of Labour Party in Lagos, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour wrote in his X handle:
“Today, the Supreme Court set a precedent: a governor or president can have multiple allegiances to states other than Nigeria and still be the chief security officer of Lagos or Nigeria.
“While I submit to this shocking decision of the Supreme Court, I worry for what this precedent holds for future generations being led by leaders with conflict of interest and loyalty.
“There is no Liberal Democracy that will accept to be led by an individual who has sworn an oath of allegiance to another country. Citizens should not have to contemplate the loyalty of their commander in chief or the chief security officer of their state. That said, as the court pleases.”
