It seems to me that impunity in Nigeria has taken another dimension especially the disobedience to court Orders which if not handled properly, may well take us back to the days of khaki. At times, one is left wondering as to the level of re-interpretations of court Orders by individuals and authorities rather than implement decision already given by the courts. It is no longer news, that the House of Rep has a Standing Rule which unilaterally forbids decisions that are not given by the supreme court as is the case of the Katsina state House of Rep members even when there is no valid stay or injunction pending appeal. Again, the old and the new PDP now conduct what i call post-court Orders examination to ascertain whether or not to implement court decisions. The PDP is certainly not alone as other political parties are also culpable. Now, what does the law say? Section 287(1) of the 1999cfrn (as amended) says and I quote; (1) The decision of the Supreme court shall be enforced in any part of the federation by ALL(emphasis mine) authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the supreme court. (2)The decision of the Court of Appeal shall be enforced in any part of the federation by all authorities and persons , and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the court of appeal (3)The decisions of the Federal high court, National industrial court, a High court and all other courts established by this constitution shall be enforced in any part of the federation by all authorities and persons, and by other courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal high court, the National industrial court, a High court and those other courts, respectively. The principles of law stated in this section is known as the doctrine of STARE DECISIS or judicial precedent which dictates that all subordinate courts are bound to follow the decision of a superior court where the ratio decidendi has determined the matter before the court. The fact that a single decision of court exists in support of a principle of law does not deprive it of the weight of authority. In defining the doctrine as NOT TO DISTURB THAT WHICH IS SETTLED, the court in NAtional Electric Power Authority v Onah (1997) 1NWRL(pt.680) held that it means to stand by your decision and the decision of our predecessors however wrong they are and whatever injustice they inflict From the observation, it is scary that even when the courts could go this far to abide by its decision nomatter how bad they are, some institutions and persons have sworn to ensure that court decisions are not obeyed except that given by the Supreme court which is totally at variance with the provisions of section 287 cfrn (as amended). On whether filing appeal operates as a stay of execution as always claimed, the court in U.B.A Plc v Ekanem (2010) 6 NWLR, has made it crystal clear that filing of an appeal does not IPSO FACTO operates as a stay of execution of the decision appealed against. Having stated all this, I must state that Nigeria as a nation can never grow in isolation. Our institutions must be allowed to function for the benefits of WE the People of Nigeria. Our eyes must be on history.
Posted on: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:20:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015