Rejoinder by Africastallestman to Professor Ben Nwabueze’s “WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SUPREME COURT ON 30TH OCTOBER 2019 IS A FARCE, NOT A VALID HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL LODGED BY FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT ATIKU AGAINST THE VICTORY OF PRESIDENT BUHARI IN THE 2019 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AS DECLARED BY INEC.”

Rejoinder by Africastallestman to Professor Ben Nwabueze’s “WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SUPREME COURT ON 30TH OCTOBER 2019 IS A FARCE, NOT A VALID HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL LODGED BY FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT ATIKU AGAINST THE VICTORY OF PRESIDENT BUHARI IN THE 2019 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AS DECLARED BY INEC.”

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE SUPREME COURT ON OCTOBER 30, 2019 IS LEGAL UNDER SHARIA LAW.

Professor Ben Nwabueze is a Civil Lawyer, Alhaji “dr.” Tanko Mohammed, the Chief Imam of Nigeria is a Sharia Judge by Technicality.
Under Sharia Technicality, anyone in the cockpit of an aircraft is the pilot – the 911 Terrorists proved this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanguardngr.com/2019/07/what-cjn-told-the-senate-on-technicalities-in-law/amp/

Therefore, Prof. Nwabueze’s objections are null, void, and ultra vires under Sharia Law and may attract a fatwa!

The other Supreme Court Justices have also converted to Islam and are now Sharia Judges.
No public hearing is required under Sharia Law to decide a case.
In Saudi Arabia, secret trials are the norm and the “guilty” are routinely beheaded on the streets of Riyadh!
If not, the other Supreme Court Justices would have resigned.

They decided to dismiss the Atiku/Obi appeal at a Loya Jirga where the proceeds or proceedings of the appeal, were divided to the satisfaction of every Judge.
Jubrin or Muhammadu or his proxy was present at the Loya Jirga.

According to the UN, there are more Sharia Lawyers than Civil Lawyers in Nigeria, hence Muhammadu or Jubrin Buhari was cheered when he suspended the Nigerian Constitution and removed Walter Onnoghen for security reasons.

Buhari’s rule of law comments, a drift towards dictatorship

Security of his Presidency and the security of the foreign cows and cow herders, who may be deported by Atiku to Senegal, Niger, Mali, and Chad.

Anyone dissatisfied with the decision of the Supreme Sharia Court may appeal to Allah!
This is the phone number:
+966 0 555 7777.
It is an unlisted number – God’s.
International rates apply.
You may leave a message.

Africastallestman urges Nigerians, to abolish the Legislature and Judiciary and save money on Governance.

EXECUTIVES IN NIGERIA.

ADDENDUM:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SUPREME COURT ON 30TH OCTOBER 2019 IS A FARCE, NOT A VALID HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL LODGED BY FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT ATIKU AGAINST THE VICTORY OF PRESIDENT BUHARI IN THE 2019 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AS DECLARED BY INEC

by

Professor Ben Nwabueze

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Tanko Muhammad, was reported in the Vanguard newspaper of October 31st 2019 to have said as follows:
“We have examined all the briefs of argument and the exhibits for over two weeks and we have all agreed that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Reasons to be given on a date to be announced.”
The important point to emphasise about the above-quoted statement by the CJN is that the decision dismissing the appeal as lacking merits was not taken at the sitting of the Supreme Court on 30 October, 2019; the decision had been taken during an examination of “all the briefs of argument and exhibits for over two weeks” before the sitting on 30th October, 2019.
The question arising is as to whom the word “WE” in the CJN’s statement refers. Can the “We” be a reference to the Supreme Court? Can the Supreme Court function as regards the hearing of the appeal before the seven man panel to hear the appeal was appointed and the names of the members announced to the public? When exactly was the appointment of members made?
The Vanguard newspaper report of October 31st 2019 contained the further statement to the effect that “the CJN announced a brief stand-down to reconstitute the panel.” This further statement introduces an element of mystery as to when the panel was appointed. It may be taken that the panel was appointed on the 30th of October when it was reconstituted according to the CJN.
The issues before us are governed by section 36 of the Constitution, which provides in subsection (1), as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, a person shall be entitled to a FAIR HEARING within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.”
Is the “examination” referred to by the CJN in the statement quoted above “the fair hearing” required by section 36(i) of the Constitution. Fair hearing requires among other things that it must be done in the presence of the parties. The “examination” referred to in the CJN’s statement was certainly not done in the presence of the parties. The examination “of all the briefs of argument and the exhibits for over two weeks” before 30th October, as announced by the CJN, could not be the fair hearing required by section 36 of the Constitution. No “examination” of all the briefs of argument and exhibits as announced by the CJN in the statement quoted above can constitute a fair hearing required by section 36 of the Constitution in the absence of the parties.
Furthermore, not only is the hearing required to be conducted in the presence of the parties in order to be a fair hearing, section 36(3) requires it to be held in “public”. Section 36(3) is quite clear and unequivocal on this point. It says:
“The proceedings of a court or the proceedings of any tribunal relating to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of this section (including the announcement of the decisions of the court or tribunal) shall be held in public.”
As the examination referred to in the statement by the CJN was not held in public, it is not the hearing required by section 36(3) of the Constitution. Secret hearings and trials are abhorrent to democracy. What happened in the Supreme Court on 30th October, 2019 is therefore a farce, not a valid hearing and determination of the appeal lodged by former Vice-President Atiku against the victory of President Buhari in the 2019 Presidential election as declared by INEC.
Finally, the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal for lacking merits is a law within the meaning of section 1 of the Constitution and, being inconsistent with section 36 of the Constitution, it is, by the self-executing declaration in section 1(3), null and void. Section 1(3) is a self executing declaration and does not require anything else to bring it into effect. In other words, the decision dismissing the appeal is null and void without further ado.
Whether or not the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal is a law within the meaning of section 1(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is under and subject to Constitution as the “supreme law of the land binding on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria”, including the Supreme Court.
Professor Ben Nwabueze

Lagos
31st October, 2019

Advertisements

Comments always welcome.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.