A prominent Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mike Ozekhome, has stated that Supreme Court of Nigeria’s judgement on Local Government autonomy is enforceable.
Recall that the Supreme Court had ruled that payment from the Federal allocation account to the Local Government in Nigeria be paid directly to the council’s account.
The Supreme Court judgement, delivered in July, upturned the longstanding arrangement of paying the Local Government Councils allocation into a joint account with the States. By the arrangement, the State Governors controlled how the allocations are shared between the State and the LGAs.
In delivering the landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal and unconstitutional for Governors to receive and withhold funds allocated to Local Government Areas in their States.
Notwithstanding the wide applause that greeted the judgment across the country, many critics has warned that the judgment is not enforceable.
Responding to the critics on Thursday in Abuja, Ozekhome stated that contrary to the held view of the critics, that the judgement is binding and must be enforced nationwide.
He pointed that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 162 of the Nigerian Constitution was unambiguous. And, therefore, left no room for delay in its implementation.
He said, “Many people, both Nigerians and non-Nigerians, have asked me whether the Supreme Court erred in its interpretation of Section 162(3), (4), (5), and (6) of the 1999 Constitution. And what can be done about the allegedly incorrect judgement.”
“My response is simple. The judgement of the Supreme Court is not just enforceable; it is superior to the written provisions of the Constitution. The law is not merely what is stated on paper; it is what the courts interpret it to be.
Referencing an opinion of an American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Ozekhome quoted, “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.”
The SAN further argued that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 162 of the Constitution prevails over the plain text. This is even as the law only comes to life through judicial interpretation.
Addressing concerns about the enforceability of the decision, Ozekhome referenced Section 287(1) of the Constitution. The section mandates that decisions of the Supreme Court “shall be enforced in any part of the Federation. By all authorities and persons. And by Courts of subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court.”
He noted that the judgement remains enforceable regardless of contrary opinions anyone may hold about its interpretation of the Constitution.
He said, “Even if the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 162 is considered flawed, the judgement remains binding on all. Until it is either overturned by a higher authority or the relevant section of the Constitution is amended.”
The SAN warned that no person or authority has the discretion to selectively obey or disobey a court judgement.
Ozekhome, therefore, cited a 2007 case, Michael Balonwu & Ors v. Governor of Anambra State & Ors. Where the court held that “an order of the court, whether valid or not, must be obeyed. Until it is set aside.”
“The rule of law demands that court judgments be respected and enforced. This is regardless of whether one agrees with them or not,” he said.
source: Premium Times
Follow us for more news on our WhatsApp News Channels @
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaC505jB4hdZ5Yx9g82U