Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, has called for an investigation into the circumstances leading to the long adjournment of an appeal in respect of the controversial Gwandu Emirate headship tussle by the Supreme Court of Nigeria to November 23, 2023.
The apex court had on November 29, 2021, ordered a two year adjournment to November 2023 for hearing in the three appeals challenging the five-year old order of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, which reinstated HRH Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo, as the 19th Emir of Gwandu.
Justices on the panel that ordered the two-year adjournment were Olukayode Ariwoola (presiding), Amina Augie, John Inyang Okoro, Abdu Aboki and Emmanuel Agim.
Reacting on the long adjournment, Ahamba urged the Bar to convene a discussion on the issue and to investigate the real causes of long adjournments and delay in dispensation of justice, particularly at the Supreme Court, with a view to finding a solution in the interest of Justice.
“Our courts are congested, the Supreme Court too is congested with appeals.
“Nobody can explain it, they say it’s workload, but one has to investigate the causes of long adjournments”.
According to him, “we must find out why it is so now. I hope the Bar will one day call for a discussion on the issue. The truth is that the Supreme Court is congested.”
Mr Innocent Daagba, an Abuja-based legal practitioner, called for the creation of regional Supreme Courts in the country to decongest backlog of appeals at the Supreme Court.
Daagba blamed the country’s procedural law and court system for the delay in justice dispensation.
He posited that when you unbundle the Supreme Court by creating Regional Divisions, cases like land disputes, chieftaincy matters etc, emanating from certain regions, will terminate at the regional Supreme Courts, thereby reducing appeals and workload at the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
“Some of us have been clamouring for the establishment of regional Courts of Appeal and regional Supreme Courts so that certain matters will terminate there, I feel for the Supreme Court, I believe it is the busiest in the world.
“By our constitutional making, every conceivable appeal goes to the Supreme Court, and this causes long adjournments, which in turn delay justice delivery”.
Daagba noted that long adjournment of cases by the Supreme Court may have been due to heavy workload, but he insisted that “Nigeria’s law is too procedurally inclined than substantive law.
He posited that due to the country’s procedural structure, every little interlocutory application, most times, find its way on appeal at the Supreme Court.
Though, Dikko noted that the Supreme Court is overworked due to heavy workload, however, he said “the procedural structure of law that allows appeal to be filed on every trivial issue is not helping matters”.
“We need to rework our court system. For instance, a land case in Benue, Ekiti or Ebonyi states, why can’t it terminate at the Regional Appeal or Supreme Court.
“Why bring it to the Supreme Court of Nigeria to encumber the apex court,” Daagba queried.
Ishaka Dikko, another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, admitted that justice delivery in the country is characterized by incessant delays due to the psyche of Nigerians, structure of the Constitution as well as the way and manner lawyers practice law in Nigeria.
“Quick dispensation of justice to my mind will remain a mirage in Nigeria until our constitutional structure is changed, and the psyche of Nigerians changed, and lawyers too change the way and manner they practice law in Nigeria”.
It would be recalled that the protracted Gwandu Emirate headship tussle commenced in 2005, and in what was described as “unusual” in legal circles, the Supreme Court had to adjourn its hearing on November 29, 2021, in deference to a fresh appeal filed by one of the appellants at a court below.
The November 29 sitting was for the court to hear a motion for substitution of the names of deceased kingmakers in the three appeals marked SC2/2013 (Attorney-General of Kebbi State and others against Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo); SC314/2016(Alhaji Muhammadu Iliyasu Bashar against Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo & anor); and SC266/2017(Governor of Kebbi State and others against Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo.
The briefs for the appeals were filed in 2019 and consolidated.
HRH Jokolo was deposed in 2005 and he promptly went to court to challenge his dethronement.
In 2014, a Kebbi State High Court 6, sitting in Birnin Kebbi, ordered his immediate reinstatement, having been satisfied he was illegally deposed.
In his ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Abbas Ahman, said the deposition was contrary to law and that due process was not followed.
Not satisfied with the judgement, Kebbi State Government and Jokolo’s successor, filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Kebbi State High Court.
In a unanimous judgement passed in April 2016, the three judges of the appellate court, led by Justice Tunde Awotoye, held that the 2005 deposition of the Emir by the then Governor of the state, Senator Adamu Aliero, contravened sections 6 and 7 of the Chief Appointment and Deposition Law of the State because the Governor neither made an inquiry into the allegation against the Emir nor consulted the Kebi State’s Council of Chiefs before arriving at his decision.
The Kebbi State Government and Jokolo’s successor approached the Supreme Court for a final decision.
Specifically, the appeals before the Supreme Court are aimed at reviewing the verdicts of the two lower courts to affirm or deny that Kebbi State Government contravened section 6 and 7 of the Chief Appointment and Deposition Law of the state because the governor neither made an inquiry into the allegation against the Emir nor consulted the state’s council of chiefs before arriving at his decision.