The Supreme Court has just slammed a N40 million fine on Mike Ozekhome, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, (SAN), over what it considered a frivolous suit to overturn the election of Governor Hope Uzodimma. This was after it dismissed an application filed by the SAN on behalf of Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which sought the removal of Uzodimma from office.
In a previous editorial published September 2017, on this same subject, we warned against lawyers not only misleading their clients but also attempting to impugn the integrity of the apex court.
Nowhere in the world is the decision of the Supreme Court challenged as it is done in Nigeria. As the highest Court of the land, it is like an oracle. When it makes a pronouncement, it is said that one can only appeal to God. That is how sacred the court is and which is why in most advanced democracies, its judgements are accepted as constitutional amendment.
Not in Nigeria where attempts have been consciously and variously made to bastardise that status. The most recent of such infamy involved a member of the House of Representatives, who as a lawmaker, should know better than to take on the court on matters it has ruled on.
That supposed lawmaker who claimed to be representing Vandikya/Konshisha Federal constituency of Benue State, Hon Herman Hembe, had been stripped of that role by the apex court because he ought not to have been part of the electoral process in the first place given that he had usurped the ticket belonging to Mrs Dorothy Mato.
Instead of obeying the court ruling, he engaged the services of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) who had the temerity to file a motion asking the Supreme Court to reverse itself on perceived errors in its judgement. The Supreme Court rightly reminded the SAN that it had no jurisdiction over its own judgement.
This is not the first time it is happening that a judgement of the Supreme Court would be shamelessly called to question by lawyers themselves who know the rules. In the case of Lagos State government and the federal government over the withholding of its local government funds, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Lagos State and instead of obeying the court’s injunction, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, wrote to the court seeking clarification on the judgement. The apex court, in all civility, reminded the AGF that the judgement was written in English and, therefore, required no further clarification.
We also recall a case in which the Supreme Court, out of frustration, had to impose an N8 million fine on a counsel and not on his client for perceived abuse of court processes. The disgraceful altercation between the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Ignatius Katsina-Alu and President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, over election-related issues that amounted to insubordination but which Salami got away with, is still fresh in the court’s record. These cases did not only constitute a national embarrassment but they also cast a slur on the credibility and integrity of the Judiciary as a whole. They were enough proof of the lack of respect for the judicial process by those who ought to know because of the warped notion that the law is an ass.
In our opinion, these so-called members of the inner bar, the SANs, who should, in their conducts, protect the sanctity of the temple of justice that the Supreme Court epitomises, are the ones trampling on it with reckless impunity. And no one has thought it wise to call them to order and reprimand them. Not even the Ethics and Privileges Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). Apparently, in our view, they are seen as above the law even with the time- tested dictum that the law is no respecter of persons.
One of them, Paul Erokoro, had misled Hembe that he could compel the Supreme Court to reverse itself and return him to the House. He may have collected a hefty fee for that purpose. But Hembe himself, a ranking member of the House that makes the laws that the Supreme Court interprets, before this abysmal display of rascality, was expected to know the limit he could possibly go in the pursuit of what he understands as justice. It is obvious that he was trying to run away from refunding all the money he illegally earned as an impostor lawmaker even if it involves breaking the law. By this pronouncement by the apex court, he has succeeded in exposing his desperation. Not new to controversy, he is the same lawmaker who had a clash with the Director General of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Ms Arunma Oteh.
It is our considered view that the blame in all these faux pas should be put squarely on the door step of the lawyers who fail to advise their clients on the limits of the possibilities available to them. Also, we think that the Bar Association should see the urgency of putting an end to these reprehensible displays by its high-ranking members before they destroy the Judiciary altogether.
