A Discourse on the Legal Overhaul of the Pending Appeal Case Involving Senator Natasha Akpoti and the Nigerian Senate into an Academic Exercise.
By Edidiong Offiong James, LL.B (Hons.)
The recent legal standoff between Senator Natasha Akpoti and the leadership of the Nigerian Senate has sparked intense debate within the legal community. Following the expiration of her suspension, the Senator’s attempt to resume legislative duties was denied, citing a pending appeal on the legality of her suspension. This discourse examines whether the continuation of the appeal despite the lapse of the suspension period has rendered the case a purely academic exercise with no practical effect.
It is undoubtedly a matter of civic intuition and colloquial omniscience and also a venerable duration of natural justice aphorism, that justice is not just to be done by the courts of law but must be felt in the souls of the masses that justice is being done. This long standing principle of ‘Dharma’(universal justice) was given judicial blessing by a towering figure in the temple of Justice, Lord Hewart C.J., in the celebrated English case of R v SUSSEX JUSTICES, EX PARTE MCCARTHY ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] ALL ER REP 233). The legal scholar, robed in the majesty of law, stated thus: “Justice must not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The Judicial arm of government, as fondly regarded as the last hope of the man on the street, is saddled with the beating-heart purpose of entertaining the live grievances of the people and reaching a final, binding and conclusive decision to remedy the civil or criminal wrong suffered by the person(s) aggrieved. In actual true sense, this sacred role expected from our courts as the solemn sanctuary of ‘reason’ and ‘right’, and the grand architecture of our justice system is designed to be wielded before time draws a second breath. Regrettably, timely judgments by our courts appear to be impracticable within our geographical polity. A significant number of cases in Nigerian courts linger for what feels like endless months and stretch into donkey years before judgments are finally delivered. This prolonged delay desecrates the very sacred altar of equity, justice, and fairness particularly in light of the age-old equitable maxim that “delay defeats equity.” Moreover, any attempt to adjudicate such stale cases effectively turns the courtroom into a classroom, reducing the judicial process to a purely academic exercise devoid of the practical vitality required for meaningful enforcement.
The Supreme Court, in echoing its sound wisdom in the halls of law, authoritatively stated in A.G. FEDERATION V. A.G. ABIA STATE & ORS (2001) 11 NWLR (PT. 725) 689, made it clear that: “Courts of law are not established to engage in academic or theoretical exercises but to determine live disputes between parties.” One of the key requirements for a case to be deemed hypothetical or academic is that the subject matter before the court is no longer of any practical relevance. In UBA v UKACHUKWU (2004) 10 NWLR (PT. 881) 224, the appellant challenged the nomination of the respondent as a candidate for an election. However, before the Supreme Court could decide the case, the election had already been conducted, and a winner was declared. The Supreme Court held that since the election had been conducted and the dispute was no longer relevant, the appeal had become academic and was dismissed. The court, in PLATEAU STATE V. A.G. FEDERATION (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 967) 346, also painted the bold diagram of the lifeless hypothetical or academic case. Here, the Plateau State Government had challenged the declaration of a state of emergency in the state. However, before the case could be heard, the state of emergency expired, and normal governance was restored. The Supreme Court held that since the emergency rule had ended, there was no longer any issue to be determined. Proceeding with the case would serve no useful legal purpose, and as such, the case was dismissed. The Supreme Court also luminously and resplendently stated the ineffective meaning of the verdict obtained in a case that has transformed to be hypothetical in the decided case of ADEOGUN V. FASHOGBON (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 1115) 149. Here, the appellant challenged a government policy affecting his employment. However, before the case could be heard, the government changed the policy in a way that resolved the appellant’s concerns.
The Supreme Court held that since the policy had already been amended, there was no longer any dispute to be resolved, making the appeal an academic exercise. In situations where an appeal has lost its relevance due to changing circumstances, the proper course of action is for the appellant to withdraw it.
Henceforth, withdrawal of an academic appeal is not just a matter of legal procedure but also of judicial economy. Courts have limited time and resources, and they should not be burdened with cases that have no real impact on the rights of the parties.
In the present case, which the majority of right thinking Nigerians, together with myself adjudge as a broad daylight robbery of the law maker’s fundamental human rights, inalienably and benevolently granted and guaranteed by the ground norm of the land. The lone question here, drawing from the above outlined plethora of cases, is whether or not there exist any legal impact in respect of the pending appeal which seeks to determine the legality of the suspended lawmaker. Here, in answering the question, I wish to also emphatically stress that it would amount to time wastage as well as my writing ink in stating the obvious. The pending appeal had lost it very source of life, by virtue of the expiration of the said suspension. Enforceability of court judgement in my view breathes life to the Judgement delivered and written in mere white and black by the court. So to what use would the determination of the legality or otherwise of learned lawmaker’s suspension be, when the delay in the determination of such public interest case by the appellate court had made it a matter suitable for moot and mock trial practice, where the only form of enforceability would only be clapping.
In conclusion, this legal paper completely condemn the opposition of the distinguish Senator’s resumption of legislative duties. Such hindrance is an outright denial of the political right of voices of the people of get Senatorial District from being heard. In my final, I urge the Clerk to withdraw the letter opposing the lawmaker’s resumption.
Bon appetite.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Edidiong Offiong James, LL.B (Hons.) COUNTRY: NIGERIA CITY: UYO, ABUJA CONTACT: 08140144897
Photo credit: westafricaweekly.com
****************************************************************************************
This work is published under the free legal awareness project of Sabi Law Foundation (www.SabiLaw.org) funded by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (www.BezaleelChambers.com). The writer was not paid or charged any publishing fee. You too can support the legal awareness projects and programs of Sabi Law Foundation by donating to us. Donate here and get our unique appreciation certificate or memento.
DISCLAIMER:
This publication is not a piece of legal advice. The opinion expressed in this publication is that of the author(s) and not necessarily the opinion of our organisation, staff and partners.
PROJECTS:
🛒 Take short courses, get samples/precedents and learn your rights at www.SabiLaw.org
🎯 Publish your legal articles for FREE by sending to: eve@sabilaw.org
🎁 Receive our free Daily Law Tips & other publications via our website and social media accounts or join our free whatsapp group: Daily Law Tips Group 6
KEEP IN TOUCH:
Get updates on all the free legal awareness projects of Sabi Law (#SabiLaw) and its partners, via:
YouTube: SabiLaw
Twitter: @Sabi_Law
Facebook page: SabiLaw
Instagram: @SabiLaw.org_
WhatsApp Group: Free Daily Law Tips Group 6
Telegram Group: Free Daily Law Tips Group
Facebook group: SabiLaw
Email: lisa@sabilaw.org
Website: www.SabiLaw.org
ABOUT US & OUR PARTNERS:
This publication is the initiative of the Sabi Law Foundation (www.SabiLaw.org) funded by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (www.BezaleelChambers.com). Sabi Law Foundation is a Not-For-Profit and Non-Governmental Legal Awareness Organization based in Nigeria. It is the first of its kind and has been promoting free legal awareness since 2010.
DONATION & SPONSORSHIP:
As a registered not-for-profit and non-governmental organisation, Sabi Law Foundation relies on donations and sponsorships to promote free legal awareness across Nigeria and the world. With a vast followership across the globe, your donations will assist us to increase legal awareness, improve access to justice, reduce common legal disputes and crimes in Nigeria. Make your donations to us here or contact us for sponsorship and partnership, via: lisa@SabiLaw.org or +234 903 913 1200.
**********************************************************************************
