A denial of the right to fair hearing without a remedy: The odd judgement of the Court of Appeal in Oyo State's Governorship Petition

Oyo Governorship: Appeal Court rules in favor of APC but leaves Makinde in Office

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/362257-oyo-governorship-appeal-court-rules-in-favour-of-apc-but-leaves-makinde-in-office.html
( Source: Premium Times)

Commentary

If the media reports are true, then it will be weird that the Court of Appeal found that the right to fair hearing of the appellant has been breached but yet failed to provide a remedy for this breach.

Of course we know that Sec. 134(2) of the Electoral Act provides that the Election Petition Tribunal must deliver its judgement within 180 days from the filing of a petition. We also know that every successful proof of a petition should be accompanied by any of the three relief( i.e nullify the election, order a fresh election, or declare candidate with the highest number of valid votes elected) provided for in section 140(1)-(3). However, I do not think the Supreme Court should be incapacitated regarding any appeal to it on this matter.

Admittedly, the easiest route for the SC will be to find against the appellants( i.e. APC) and reverse the CA on appeal, thus reinstating the decision of the EPT. However, for the sake of the jurisprudential development of our electoral law, a concurrent finding for the appellants must force the SC to devise a remedy.

Or how does the highest court in the land leave a successful party without a remedy, due to circumstances not occasioned by him. As for any likely remedy, what becomes of a reconstitution of a new EPT to determine something as serious as the breach of a constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing? Uncommon but that is why the SC exists, for novel issues like this, though within the expansive ambit of the law

Felix Omosele
(c) 2019