The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a motion filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission seeking clarification of its January 29, 2016 judgment which many claimed had sacked federal legislators from Anambra State, including Senators Andy Uba and Stella Oduah.
A five-man panel of the apex court led by Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, held that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion.
Justice Nyang Okoro, who read the lead ruling of the court, held that there was no ambiguity in the apex court’s judgment and could not be accommodated under Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court rules.
But despite declining jurisdiction to clarify the judgment, Justice Okoro, went on to highlight what the apex court decided and did not decide in the said verdict.
Justice Okoro who had delivered the judgment which was being sought to be interpreted, ruled for instance, that the apex court did not resolve the question relating to the legitimacy or otherwise of the list of candidates submitted to INEC for the 2015 National Assembly election by the various factions of the Peoples Democratic Party in Anambra State.
He ruled, “The competence of a court to exercise jurisdiction in relation to an action before it depends on certain conditions. One of such conditions is that the subject matter of the case is within the jurisdiction of the court and that there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction.
“Order 8 Rule 16 of this court, under which this application is brought states:’ the court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it, safe to correct any clerical mistake or some errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention. A judgment and order should not be varied when it correctly represents what the court decided nor shall the operative and substantive part of it be varied and in different form, substituted.’
“I must say this court, in an application of this nature, is guided by the above Rule. In view of the above guidance of this Rule, can this court assume jurisdiction to hear the motion seeking clarification of our judgment? I do not think so.
Post a Comment
Post a Comment