Rivers: It’s a judicial rascality to entertain case out of jurisdiction – Wahab Shittu

A legal luminary and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Wahab Shittu has described as a “judicial rascality” for a judge to entertain a case he or she does not have a jurisdiction.

The popular lawyer was reacting to the ongoing political tussle in Rivers State.

In its Thursday judgment, the 3-man panel led by Justice Jimi Olukayode Bada upheld the appeal as filled by Martin Amaewhule, who is a factional speaker of the River State House of Assembly.

The court also dismissed the decision of the State High Court that stopped 24 other members of the Assembly from accessing the complex or carrying out any legislative assignment in the name of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

While many legal luminaries in the country have described the appeal court’s decision as a step in the right direction, the nullified speaker of the state assembly, Victor Oko-Jumbo and two others are bent in seeking redress at the supreme court.

During Friday’s plenary session at Government House, Jumbo revealed that the Assembly was going to apply to the Supreme Court for a reversal of the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the jurisdiction of the Rivers State High Court to hear suit number PHC/1512/CS/2024.

Jumbo said: “We have instructed our lawyers and they have filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria Challenging the Judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 4th Day of July, 2024.”

But in his reaction to the development, Wahab Shittu, SAN said considering the judgment of the court of appeal on the matter, all actions and pronouncements ever made on behalf of RSHA by Victor Oko remain nullified.

He said the Rivers State High Court ought not to have made any jurisdiction over the mater in the first instance.

According to him, “for a judge to entertain a case he doesn’t have jurisdiction over is a judicial rascality.”

He added that: “Judges are repository of the legal knowledge. They are the custodians of our laws. They swear to uphold and to observe tenets of our laws, they should therefore adhere to the tenets as most judges are presume to know.”

Similarly, Barrister Shittu opined that Thursday judgment of Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that declared invalid the Peoples Democratic Party’s primary election held on February 22, 2024, which produced Asue Ighodalo as its governorship candidate, was understandable.

Justice Ekwo who declared in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/165/2024, brought by aggrieved delegates of the PDP as led by Kelvin Mohammed, in a representative capacity, voided the primaries on the grounds that, contrary to the provisions of the law, 378 delegates who were supposed to vote in the party’s election, were unlawfully excluded by the PDP.

Shittu said for the court to have said that the election should be nullified for excluding 378 participants, the case was clear enough.

According to him, “though I am yet to read the full text of the judgment, and I don’t know the process filled in the case, but looking at the law, the court has said there’s a wrong exclusion of 387 delegates; and because they are excluded, the entire process is void”.

He, however, geared a different angle to the case as he said that it was not yet a victory for any of the factions of PDP involved in the case.

In his words: “In my random test, the case was filled on 8th of February, 2024, while the primary was said to be held on 22nd of Feb, 2024. So, it means the suit was filled even before the primary.”

He stated further that: “section 24 sub-sections 14 of the Electoral Act say the outcome of a primary can only be challenged by only any of the aspirants”.

Citing the case of Oba vs Enugama in 2022 as decided by the Supreme court, Shittu said the apex court decided in that case that the delegates to a primary of election does not have a locus stand to challenge outcome of a primary.

He added that for this, the case may be viewed wider at the Apex Court.