Elder Statesman,Pa Edwin Clark says the judgement delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja and the Court of Appeal panel cannot stand as they were obtained by fraud.
In a post, the nonagenarian Ijaw Leader, citing the judgement in the case of 27 lawmakers in Rivers State House of Assembly explained that a judgement obtained by fraud lacks integrity, disposition,character and competence
According to him, there is strong evidence that” former speaker,Martins Amaewhule and others ceased to be members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, and as a result, they no longer have the legal representation or Locus Standi in Justice Omotosho’s case.”
Consequently,he asked the Inspector General of Police to investigate Amaewhule and his colleagues for lying severally under oath claiming to be members of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP and the All Progressives Congress APC in different instances.
His statement reads:
Firstly, it is necessary to explain to the public that a judgement obtained by fraud has nothing to do with the integrity, disposition, character, and competence of the justices, and in fact, they are not aware whether the judgement, the writ, is obtained by fraud or not. It is what the litigants or parties to a case present in their pleadings that the trial judge would concentrate on in writing his judgement. Anything different from the originating pleading will definitely amount to a different judgement. So, the onus is on litigants to present truthful and factual statements and evidence before the courts. Like it is said, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as they would swear when taking an oath.
Judgement obtained by fraud is where facts which should have been presented to a court of law to arrive at the correct decision are not presented or are fraudulently presented, or the plaintiff was wrongly described and caused the court to arrive at a different or wrong decision; or if such facts are either deliberately hidden from the court, ‘judgement was obtained by fraud. There are several cases which fall under the phrase ‘judgement obtained by fraud’ that have been deliberated upon by eminent judges, both in the House of Lords of England and here in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
I wish to also cite instances within and outside Nigeria, when issues of ‘Judgement obtained by fraud’ were exhaustively examined by the Supreme Court of Nigeria and superior courts in Britain. These include that of L. C. Power and others Vs. Chief Akin Olugbade and others, reported in (1974) All Nigerian Law Report, pages 226-234 and presided over by Elias, CJN, Coker, and Ibekwe, JJSC; Jones co Vs Beard H. L. Judgement obtained by fraud (1930) Page 48 4, A 11 R, Jurisdiction to order a new trial; Preston Banking Co. Vs. Williams Allsup, Jurisdiction to set aside judgment obtained by fraud. C.A. (1891-4)688; Mac Carthy Agard (1933 2KB 417), where a defendant was wrongly described in the writ-the judgment therefore was in the wrong form-a mistake due to the defendant’s fraud.
Fortunately, the judges have the ability to correct any judgment they delivered based on fraud, when the correct facts are brought before them because they have the power to do so.
Applying this principle to the Originating Summons filed by the former Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly (RSHA), Rt. Hon. Martins Amawhule, and 26 other members, there is nothing in the Originating Summons to show that the former Speaker Rt. Hon. Amawhule, as a result of differences amongst members in the Rivers State House of Assembly and the bombing of the complex, when the former Speaker was planning to impeach the newly elected Governor of Rivers State, Sir Siminalayi Fubara.
The question of impeachment of the former speaker, Martins Amawhule, and the reason for his impeachment was not before the Court of Appeal because they were not pleaded. At this juncture, therefore, it has become very necessary to follow up the development of the case filed by the former speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly (RSHA), Martins Amawhule, and his colleague members of the RSHA, before they defected on 11th December, 2023. And defection is a constitutional issue. Section 109 (1)(g) of the 1999 constitution as amended says that one automatically loses one’s seat once the person defects from the political party that sponsored them to another political party.
Therefore, Martins Amawhule and his colleagues who defected lost their seats the moment they defected. The then Leader of the RSHA, Edison Ehle, did not join in the defection and was elected the Speaker of the House. Edison Ehie, in carrying out his constitutional roles as Speaker of the RSHA, then filed a suit in the Court before Justice Danagogo, who, giving his ruling on the matter, stated that Edison Ehie is the Speaker. Edison Ehie, as Speaker of the RSHA, announced the defection on the floor of the House. He also informed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of the situation in the House. The matter, thereafter, became a public event.
Meanwhile, the former Speaker, Martins Amawhule, had earlier brought a suit and originating summon against the President of the Senate, the Deputy Senate President, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Majority and Minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Inspector General of Police, the Governor of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara, the Attorney General of Rivers State, the Commissioner of Finance for Rivers State, the Accountant General of Rivers State, and the Rivers State Civil Service Commission, even after he and his ‘friends’ had defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the party which sponsored them to the All Progressives Congress (APC). This case died a natural death when there were no longer plaintiffs in the matter, because to continue such a case, he must be the Speaker or even a member of the RSHA.
But strangely, the same Martins Amawhule and his colleagues, who had all defected, instituted another case in another court before Justice Okorowo, and swore to an affidavit to support their suit, where in paragraph 9, they admitted their defection from the PDP to the APC. The proceedings in this case were not transparent, and Justice Okorowo even helped the plaintiffs to stop INEC from taking further actions, such as conducting elections to fill the vacant positions, before he earned promotion to the Court of Appeal. The records are there.
The case continued until January 22, 2024, when Justice James Omotoso appeared to deliver his judgment. But unfortunately, Justice Omotoso’s judgment had died since December 11, 2023, when the members, including the former Speaker, Martins Amawhule, and his colleagues defected from the PDP to the APC. The defection was made public by the members waving APC flags and singing APC songs. They were later officially received by the APC Care-Taker Committee headed by Tony Okocha in Port Harcourt, on Wednesday, December 13, 2023.
The then Speaker, who is the second plaintiff in Justice Omotoso’s case and his colleagues, who defected from the PDP to the APC, instituted a new and fresh suit in another federal high court presided over by the Justice Okorowo. The first sitting under him took place on December 15th, 2023 and went forward. He helped the plaintiffs by writing to INEC. This was the situation in this case before Justice Okorowo earned his promotion to the Court of Appeal.
Thereafter, Justice Omotoso came up with his judgment on January 24, 2024. But little did he know that his case died on December 11, 2023, when the plaintiffs in the case defected to the APC, thereby losing their seats in accordance with Section 109 (1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That situation has not been reversed by any court of law.
It must be remembered that some of us who have practiced law for about 60 years, still know the rudiments of law. From the date of 11th December, 2023, to 22nd January, 2024, to date, these persons are no members of the RSHA and and therefore they have no locus standi to bring any action against the Rivers State House of Assembly, hence the case before omotoso died a natural death.
Therefore, the judgment allegedly given by Justice James Omotoso is null and void, and was obtained by fraudulent practice.
Similarly, the panel of Judges of the Court Appeal that sat on the so- called Justice Omotoso’s judgment had nothing to say, other than abusing, insulting, intimidating and threatening the governor of Rivers state, Siminilaye Fubara for “probating and reprobating, and blowing hot and cold”, and that he “has no moral right to come back to the Appeal Court or the Supreme Court”. As a matter of fact, the statement by one of the Judges was uncalled for.
I repeat, there is strong evidence that between Monday, 11th December, 2023, and Monday, 22nd January, 2024, the Plaintiffs i.e. the former speaker and 27 other members ceased to be members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, and as a result, they no longer have the legal representation or Locus Standi in Justice Omotosho’s case.
Therefore, Justice Omotosho’s judgement is a nullity and entirely obtained by fraud. It is therefore most unfortunate that the Court of Appeal who heard the Governor’s appeal against Justice Omotosho’s judgement, carried its anger against the Governor to create a scene, and did not say anything about the issue in court.
What is before the nation, is a former Speaker of a State House of Assembly, in the person of Martins Amawhule, who lied a number of times, on oath.
I strongly and sincerely appeal to Inspector General of Police (IGP) to investigate the misuse of oath by former Speaker Martins Amawhule and his colleagues, as they lied severally under oath. In some of the paths, they claim to be still members of the PDP, whereas in others, they claim otherwise and to carry out a thorough investigation into why a former Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Rt Hon. Martins Amaewhule with the 26 members who defected with him to the APC made an issue before the ongoing Justice James Omotoso case, but decided to file another action in another court, even though they are no longer qualified, because they are no longer members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, as Omotoso rightly observe the case of the 17th Defendant, Edison Ehie, that he is no longer a member of the Rivers State House of Assembly and therefore his views could not be entertained. Little did he know that his remainig four fingers were looking at him together with the imaginary fingers of his plaintiffs, the former speaker and 26 other former members, that they were no longer members of the assembly.
I repeat, Martins Amaewhule and 26 other members who defected seized to be members immediately they defected on Monday 11th December 2023, and are no longer members even until today.
The panel of the Court of Appeal that allegedly sat on the Omotoso’s case did not know that there is no valid court judgement from Justice Omotoso before them.
The Plaintiffs who were members of the Rivers Assembly has lost their seats as members of the Rivers State House of Assembly when they defected to the APC from PDP that sponsored them.
I pray our most respected Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, should seriously investigate why Justice Omotoso was not put on the know of defection who was still handling the Original case on the 29th November 2023, but later went to Justice Okorowo to institute another action in the same Rivers State Federal High Court Division.
Justice Okorowo earned his promotion to the Court of Appeal and handed it over to Justice Peter Lifu, who then abandoned the case because of his alleged annual leave and later returned on the 29th of October 2024 and on the 30th of October, he went to Court and struck out the case for no just course.
Your Lordship, The Chief Justice of Nigeria, this is a very serious matter, because if not properly investigated, it will tarnish the image of the Judiciary in the country.
A situation whereby anybody can just go to court and sue for whatever they like and then go back again for the case to be struck-out without any reason. It is unacceptable.
You can now imagine the disgrace brought upon themselves, I mean the panel of the Appeal Court Justices who shouted against the Rivers State Governor, for no just course because there is no valid case from Justice Omotoso for them to review, becaue that case died since 11th December 2023 and the former Members of the House were just manipulating and deceiving Justice Omotoso, giving him the impression that they are still members of the Rivers State House of Assembly. What a shame.
Finally I also wish to appeal to our most respected and honoured Chief Justice of Nigeria to stop the Judiciary from being patronised with Government money as was done by the former Governor of Rivers State, where he built court houses for Judges. Today, we only hear of the judiciary and Chief Nyesom Wike, the former Governor of Rivers State and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Now he has carried the same thing to the FCT, where our most revered and respected Chief Justice of Nigeria and who has been sworn in as the boss of the Judiciary, standing with the same Wike in the bushy area which he said he recovered from Julius Berger for the building of Judges Quarters. Some of us who have been in the bar for almost 60 years to see a fomer charge and bail lawyer directing and speaking with impunity about his plans for the Judiciary in FCT is out of place.
Please, tomorrow it might be Kano or Kaduna for one reason or the other. No, this is unacceptable.
We are praying the almighty God to give you the courage, strength and wisdom to return the judiciary to what it was when justices like Justice Ademola Adetokunbo, Justice John Idowu Conrad Taylor, Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, justice Taslim Elias, Justice Dan Ibekwe, Justice Kayode Eso, Justice Ishaq Bello and Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, the first female Chief Justice of Nigeria served.
A critical analysis of Hon. Nyesom Wike’s recent actions, as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), in using public funds to enhance the judiciary’s welfare raises concerns around governance ethics, potential conflicts of interest, and the impartiality of the judiciary in Nigeria. Wike’s steps to improve judicial welfare may appear, at face value, to support an independent judiciary, but closer examination suggests potential motivations that may undermine this independence, creating a problematic overlap between political power and judicial influence.
- Use of Public Funds and Conflict of Interest
Hon. Wike’s decision to allocate public funds to improve the judiciary’s welfare suggests a blurring of lines between state resources and personal influence. His political position inherently entails an interest in various legal and administrative matters within the FCT, which would naturally involve the judiciary. When public officials use state funds to court specific institutions, it can create undue expectations or implied obligations on the part of the beneficiaries to support or favor the official’s interests in future legal proceedings. - Implications for Judicial Independence
The principle of judicial independence requires that the judiciary operates without any undue influence from other branches of government or individuals within positions of power. Wike’s actions may appear to undermine this principle, as it could be perceived that he is seeking to cultivate a favorable perception among judicial officers, ultimately compromising their ability to remain impartial, especially in cases where he has vested interests. By directly engaging in the welfare of the judiciary, Wike’s actions could introduce a bias where the judiciary feels compelled, consciously or unconsciously, to act favorably towards his interests. - Perceived Political Manipulation and Influence
The judiciary in Nigeria has historically faced challenges around perceived bias and political manipulation. When a high-ranking political figure like Wike engages in improving judiciary welfare, there is a risk that the public perceives this as an attempt to exert influence over judicial decisions. This perception can lead to public distrust, as citizens may question the impartiality of judgments in cases involving Wike or his affiliates, viewing him as potentially holding an elevated influence over judicial processes — a “primus inter pares” (first among equals) status that is inappropriate for a democratic society. - Potential Consequences on Public Trust,
Judicial independence is critical for maintaining public trust in the legal system, especially in a country like Nigeria, where citizens already harbor skepticism about corruption and favoritism within governance structures. Actions like Wike’s, if seen as an attempt to buy judicial goodwill, could further erode public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to deliver fair and unbiased rulings. Public perception that the judiciary may be beholden to particular political actors discourages faith in the judiciary’s role as an arbiter of justice and accountability - Ethical Concerns in Governance
Hon. Wike’s strategy, if intended to gain an upper hand in judicial matters, raises ethical questions regarding the use of public office for personal or political advantage. Ethical governance should emphasize impartiality and the proper use of public resources for collective, rather than personal, interests.
When public officials appear to leverage state resources for influence, it highlights the need for stronger checks and balances in governance to prevent abuses of power.
In conclusion, while improving judicial welfare is commendable, the motivations behind such actions must be transparent and free from personal or political intent to avoid compromising the judiciary’s impartiality. Hon. Wike’s actions suggest a troubling potential for influence-peddling that could undermine democratic principles and public trust in the judiciary, particularly if his actions continue without accountability or oversight.
To protect the judiciary’s independence, there must be clear boundaries that prevent the use of public funds to foster personal or political interests, ensuring that the judiciary remains a fair and impartial institution for all Nigerian citizens.
Thank you and God bless.
Chief (Dr) Edwin K Clark OFR, CON
