A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Prof. Itse Sagay, among others, on Tuesday expressed support for Mr. Femi Falana’s opinion critisising the judgment of the Supreme Court which quashed the conviction of a former chairman of the board of the Nigerian Ports Authority, Chief Bode George.
Some lawyers contacted by our correspondent on Tuesday declined to comment on the judgment, with some others saying that they had not read the judgment.
However, in separate telephone interviews with our correspondent, Sagay; civil rights lawyers, Messrs Bamidele Aturu and Jiti Ogunye; as well as the Chairman of Ikeja branch of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Onyekachi Ubani, were categorical in saying that there was no merit in the Supreme Court judgment.
Another SAN, Chief Felix Fagbohungbe, said Falana’s analysis of the judgment “may be on course.”
But Yusuf Ali (SAN), who said he had yet to read the judgment, cautioned that care must be exercised in criticising the judgments of court.
“I have been hearing a lot of insinuations about the judgment. But people should know that judgments are always based on the facts and the law; and people who do not know about the operations of law should stop commenting on it,” Ali said.
Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, had on Sunday faulted the Supreme Court judgment delivered on Decmber 13, arguing that the apex court’s decision was based on wrong legal foundation.
Describing the Supreme Court judgment as “highly errorneous,” Falana argued that the court was wrong to have quashed the conviction of George and five other former board members of the NPA.
He argued that contrary to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the Lagos High Court did not convict George and others of contract splitting, but that they were convicted of abuse of office and disobedience of lawful order.
Sagay expressed firm support for Falana’s analysis, adding that the judgment of the Supreme Court was not based on merit but on mere technicality.
He said, “I hardly ever disagree with Femi Falana because he doesn’t say anything without thorough analysis, research and information. So, I definitely will not disagree with him at all.
“My personal comment on that judgment is that I am not satisfied with it because the court admitted that there was contract splitting and that was the basis of the conviction. The court was only saying that contract splitting was at the time of the conviction not a criminal offence.
“So, for me, it was a technical judgment. It was as if the court was looking for technicality to hang the acquittal on. It was a technical judgment; it was not based on merit.”
On his part, Aturu described the judgment as perplexing, adding that it would encourage corruption in the country.
He said, “The decisioin of the Supreme Court is perplexing. It is going to encourage corruption in Nigeria. It was one of the low points of the judiciary in 2013.”
Ogunye expressed the same opinion, arguing that George and others were not convicted for contract splitting.
He said, “We endorse and share the legal opinion of Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, on this issue.
“They were convicted of abuse of office and disobedience to a lawful order issued by constituted authority, contrary to section 104 and section 203 respectively of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State and sentenced accordingly.”
Ubani, who expressed frustration that the judgment of the Supreme Court could no longer be appealed against, said the verdict left “a sour note.”
“If you read the write-up of Mr. Femi Falana, you could see that the people were not charged with contract splitting but that they were charged with abuse of office and disobedience of lawful order.
“Contract splitting only came up in the proof of evidence as the particulars of the offences. Hinging the entire judgment on contract splitting is too technical and I don’t think that is the intendment of justice in that case,” he said.
Fagbohungbe said while Falana’s analysis of the judgment might “be on course,” he explained that the judgment of the apex court, though, might be final, “it does not mean that the Supreme Court is infallible.”
Copyright PUNCH.
No comments:
Post a Comment