Since the Supreme Court invoked Order 8 Rule 16 of its rule in Suit No: SC/CV/686/2021 and corrected a fundamental error on May 9, 2022; by removing Victor Ike Oye’s name from Page 13, Paragraph 1 of the Judgment, where he was categorically pronounced as National Chairman of APGA and replacing it with the name of Chief Edozie Njoku and also going further to say that Chief Edozie Njoku cannot be removed by any Court as it is not justiciable, Oye and his men have been running from pillar to post to thwart the Supreme Court Judgment to suit their inordinate narratives.
Unfortunately, it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for them to succeed. Of course, Supreme Judgements are usually unambiguous.
For the benefit of public conversation and to promote rational inquiry, Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rule states:
“The Court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it save to correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention.”
However, it is pertinent to ask, is this the first time that the Supreme Court would be reviewing its judgment? Absolutely not.
Clearly, the case of Innosson Vs GTBank suffices. In Suit No: SC/694/2014, Innosson and the GTBank, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier dismissal of an appeal by GTBank against a N2.4 billion judgment given in favour of Innoson Motors Nigeria Limited by the Court of Appeal in Ibadan, Oyo State.
A five-man panel, led by Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, held unanimously that the Supreme Court erred when, in a ruling on February 27, 2019, it dismissed the appeal marked SC/694/2014 filed by GTB. Therefore, the outburst from the Oye camp is a storm in a tea cup.
It was the above section of the Supreme Court Rule that Hon. Justice Mary Ukaego Peter- Odili relied on to deliver the leading Judgment as follows;
‘It needs be stated at this point that the dispute being who should be the Acting National Chairman of the 1st Respondent, APGA and whether the Chairman, Chief Edozie Njoku was validly replaced are within the confines of the internal affairs of the 1st Respondent which is not justiciable.’
Interestingly, other Hon. Justices of the Supreme Court in that panel corroborated Mary Odili’s Judgment. A community reading of the above Judgment implies that no Court could have removed Chief Edozie Njoku from office as it is not justiciable. This is fact.
Ignorantly, Oye and his men have continued to sulk and wail uncontrollably, thereby arguing that Edozie Njoku was not joined at Jigawa and the Appeal Court Kano. Of course, he was not joined and his name should not replace Oye’s name as a Respondent in the Supreme Court judgment. This is clearly stated in our letter to the Supreme Court titled, ‘REQUEST TO CORRECT THE MISPLACEMENT OF NAMES IN YOUR LORDSHIP’S JUDMENT IN SUIT NO: SC/CV/686/2021 AS CONTAINED IN PAGE 13, PARAGRAPH 1.
Apparently, but for cursory readership and perfunctory discernment, they would have grasped this from the Judgment of Hon. Justice Ibrahim Mohammed Saulawa on this matter. Hear him;
‘The Court has an unfettered jurisdictional competence, nay and onerous duty to undo the mischief done by a party in the abuse of judicial process, most especially in the instant case, where the 3rd Respondent reprehensibly resorted to Forum Shopping. This is to avoid an unwholesome situation whereby the Court would be presented with a Fait Accompli. Thus, this Court is cloaked with the jurisdiction to restore the parties to the position they ought to have been prior to the offending action.’
The offending action being referred to by the Hon. Justice Saulawa was the suspension of the Chief Edozie Njoku as the National Chairman. By ordering the parties to return to Status Quo Ante Bellum, Saulawa’s Judgment affirmed Chief Njoku as the National Chairman of APGA.
In his Judgment, Hon. Justice Lawal Garba Mohammed maintained;
‘Clearly, the facts and events relied on by the 3rd Respondent to initiate the action before the Jigawa State High Court had taken the matter beyond and outside the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, a feature which undoubtedly deprived it of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate over the action’.
‘With all the events happening and all the parties directly involved present in Imo State at the material time, the 3rd Respondent manifestly embarked on what has now become known in our Judicial Jurisprudence as ‘Forum Shopping’ by going to initiate the action in the High Court of Jigawa State instead of the High Court of Imo State, where all the facts and events giving rise to the cause of action are shown to have occurred or happened’.
Unarguably, from the onset, the matter at Jigawa State High Court to the Supreme Court was Owerri Convention. Therefore, Ozonkpu Victor Oye was never part of the Owerri Convention. It is absurd that he would be grandstanding, and as well be laying claims to being a beneficiary. This scenario is similar to a staff of Volkswagen insisting of being paid salary by Mercedes Benz.
The dream and delusion of Oye and his men to sustain the word-to -mouth dissemination that thrives compulsorily on evil news that Njoku forged the Supreme Court Judgment is a wild joke.
They have reported Njoku to the Force Criminal Investigation Department Headquarters (FCID) Abuja and instituted a case of forgery, impersonation and false information against him. It beggars disbelief that before Njoku could get to the FCID headquarters they had already sent false information to their followers that Njoku had been arrested and would soon be paraded on handcuffs. That never happened.
The crux of the matter is not whether Njoku was made a Respondent at the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. The idea of throwing about multitude of documents in the public space, to inject confusion and ride on its tide, will fail like they have failed in all the 17 Court cases on this matter since 2019.
The contention has been which convention is authentic; and who was the Chairman purportedly suspended by Jude Okeke.
Learned and Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court have laid this to rest, eternally and celestially.
Alleging that the Judgment of the Apex Court was forged is diversionary; just as raising dust as to whether Edozie Njoku was made a Respondent or not does not also arise; as this has no effect on the Judgment.
Facts are stubborn.
Okoro Chinedum Benedict
National Administrative Secretary,
APGA