Keyamo Faults Nwabueze’s Claims On S/Court Verdict On Presidential Poll

Minister of state for labour, Mr. Festus Keyamo, SAN has faulted criticisms of the Supreme Court judgment on the presidential election dispute between President Muhammadu Buhari and Atiku Abubakar saying that the foremost constitutional lawyer was moved by emotion in his claims.

Keyamo writing in his personal capacity observed that the claim that the Supreme Court panel was not constituted before the circulation of the briefs of the parties was in itself not unusual. While citing past cases, he said that it was the practice of the Supreme Court to circulate the briefs of the parties to all the justices of the Supreme Court even before the constitution of a panel.  

Keyamo who was spokesman of the Buhari 2019 campaign further averred that the jurists would have read the briefs and come to the conclusion even before they were named that there was no case in the appeal lodged by Atiku.

He said:

“Prof. Nwabueze’s assertion that the Supreme Court went on a recess on the 30th of October, 2019 during the hearing of the Presidential Election Petition appeal whereupon they reconstituted the panel is, simply put, not correct. The purpose of that recess was, as widely reported, to enable the counsel to the Appellant decide on consolidating the seven interlocutory appeals with the main appeal pursuant to an application by the Appellants’ lead counsel who asked the court to allow all counsel to adopt their briefs, both in the main appeal and in seven other interlocutory appeals.

“Finally and in reply to the learned Professor’s rhetorical inquiry as to the makeup of the panel in question and the timeline of the appointment of its members, it is important to note that the Supreme Court is under no legal obligation, neither has it been the practice, to publish or furnish the names of members of the panel to hear an appeal to the parties before the hearing of the appeal. The practice of keeping the identity of members of such an important panel anonymous has ostensibly been put in place to encourage neutrality and also to discourage contesting parties or members of the public from attempting to reach or compromise the Honourable Justices.

“What is more, each Justice of the Supreme Court is entitled to a case file and copies of all the Briefs filed by the parties in any matter, a practice which is defined by the filing of sufficient copies of processes at the registry of the Court to ensure that all the Justices of the Supreme Court are afforded copies of the processes filed in all matters upon the filing of same.

“Therefore, the logical inference from the foregoing is that each and every Justice of the Supreme Court is sufficiently equipped to serve in any panel as constituted by the Chief Justice of the Federation. And it is not out of place for the Justices to hold conferences over matters in Chambers, having read the Briefs, and express their opinions on such matters, even before the sitting in open court.

“Therefore, there cannot be any question mark about what happened at the Supreme Court on 30th October, 2019. When the CJN had earlier announced, days before, that no Panel had been constituted to hear the Appeal, it could not have meant that all the Justices were not with the case files and were not studying same. The seven-man Panel that eventually heard the Appeal could have been constituted that morning and could have met even one hour before the sitting in open court to express their opinion on what they have read in the Briefs two weeks before then.

“In conclusion, rather than crucifying my lords at the apex court for hearing the appeal on the 30th of October, 2019 and deciding same on the same date, my lords ought to be commended for coming to court prepared and hearing and dismissing the Appeal with dispatch.”

Send Us A Press Statement Advertise With Us Contact Us

 And For More Nigerian News Visit GWG.NG