ECOWAS COURT ORDERS REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA TO PAY $200,000 IN DAMAGES TO FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE FOR UNLAWFUL REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND INCARCERATION
The ECOWAS Court on Wednesday 27, February 2019, ordered Republic of The Gambia to pay $200,000 dollars in ‘nominal damages’ to its former Chief Justice, Justice Joseph Wowo, for the violation of his rights to fair hearing, unlawful imprisonment and removal from office on allegation of corruption, false information and the abuse of office.

A three member panel of judges of the Court Presided over by Honorable Justice Edward Amoako Asante ordered that $150,000 of the amount or its equivalent in Dalasi should be paid to the former Chief Justice as restoration mindful of the plaintiff’s claims of inability to secure employment and the time spent in prison after he was wrongfully tried and sentenced although he was subsequently cleared.

The balance of $50,000 will be paid to the plaintiff as legal fees since he has ‘not been working after his removal from office and may be constrained in meeting the financial obligations of his attorney.’  The Court also awarded costs against The Gambia as will be assessed under and by virtue of Article 66 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.

The Court held that the Plaintiff`s trial by a judge who was himself undergoing trial for corruption under the Chief Justice constituted a violation of his human rights to fair trial. The Court also held that the acts of the Defendant relative to the Plaintiff`s removal from office, trial and conviction were biased, lacking in independence, inconsistent with due process, in breach of natural justice and thereby constituted a gross violation of the plaintiff`s right to fair trial.

In suit no: ECW/CCJ/APP/06/18, Justice Wowo, a Nigerian who served as Chief Justice under former President Yahaya Jammeh sued the President for the alleged violation of his legitimate rights as enshrined in the African Charter, Articles 6&7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Section 24 of the 1997 Constitution of the Gambia.

He claimed that owing to his nationality, he suffered discrimination by most members of The Gambian Bar to the extent that the then President of the Bar, Ms. Ubna Farage and the Minister of Justice, MS. Amie Joof, sometime in 2013, made frivolous allegations of corruption against him which led to his removal from office without prior investigation.

The former Chief Justice, who had asked the Court for $20 million in damages, stated that he contested his removal through the security authority which initiated an investigation in to the matter whose outcome has not been announced.

Consequently, he called a press conference where he denied the allegations of corruption against him as false and noted that the then President erred in removing him from office without due process.

In reaction, he alleged that the then President perceived his action as an affront to his authority and publically threatened to send him to jail and subsequently instructed the then Minister of Justice to file a frivolous case against him alleging the abuse of office and spreading false information.

In this connection the Plaintiff said he wrote a letter in his capacity as the acting Chief Justice to the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) which investigated the allegation and exonerated him and surprisingly even commended him while two others who were indicted in the report were never charged.

He averred that during the trial, his Counsel filed a motion urging the trial Judge to recuse himself from the proceeding as he was himself on trial before the Chief Justice for corruption, a motion that was deliberately ignored by the trial judge. He alleged that the trial judge also ignored all the documents and testimonies of witnesses and instead convicted and sentenced him to two years imprisonment until his release under pressure by the governments of Nigeria and the United States.

The plaintiff therefore asked the ECOWAS Court for a declaration that his trial by a Judge who was undergoing corruption allegation proceedings before him is a violation of his human rights and for an order on the government to pay him $20 million dollars (Twenty million US Dollars) in damages and six percent interest per annum for violation of his human rights among others.

The Defendant however denied the allegations of the plaintiff and instead contended that the former Chief Justice was removed from office by the President in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission after investigation and due deliberations pursuant to the petition.

Other members of the Panel are Honorable Justices Gberi-be Quattara and Keikura Bangura

In this season of general elections, we need to enlighten on the three imperative steps that guide ascension to political offices in Nigeria via the ballot box and to posit clearly that it is neither a taboo nor a big deal for anyone or political party who is disatissfied with the outcome of an election to approach the courts by way of election petition or petitions.

Nigeria is a constitutional democracy founded on the sacred principles of rule.

Rule of law presupposes absence of arbitrariness and unwarranted recourse to self help remedy.

Simply explained, under the doctrine of rule of law, no one should take the laws into his or her hands.

Thus, any aggrieved person is reasonably expected to make a complaint to formal authorities (like the Police and or the Courts) for amicable settlement or judicial determination of the alleged wrong or wrongdoings.

With particular reference to seeking public office via elections, Nigeria has a rich array of rules that govern it as extrapolated from the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended and the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended and other adjectival laws relevant in this regard.

From the community reading of the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the 2010 Electoral Act as amended, the recognised tripod stages in an electoral contest in Nigeria are *nomination,* *election* and or *litigation.*

The Nigerian constitution does not approve of independent candidacy and as such, a candidate in a general election conducted by INEC must be sponsored by an INEC registered political party.

Double or multiple sponsorship of a candidate by parties is also outlawed and translates to disqualification under the Electoral Act.

For purposes of nomination by a party as a candidate in a general election, a person must belong to a political party and participate in the party primary which may be by direct or indirect election or by consensus.

Party primary is intra-party election and involves only party members and must be conducted in sync with the Party Constitution and Guidelines which must never offend or violate the provisions of the Electoral Act and or the 1999 Constitution as amended.

A person who emerges as candidate of the party is subsequently sponsored in the general election for that office by the political party forwarding his or her name and particulars to INEC.

It must be accentuated that in tandem with the hallowed doctrine of rule of law that  forbids self help remedy, any aggrieved aspirant in the Party Primary process is duly authorised, without prejudice to the principle of party supremacy, to approach any High Court of a State, High Court of the FCT or Federal High Court to ventilate on pre-election issues.

Appeals on pre-election matters are entered at the Court of Appeal and terminate at the Supreme Court.

At the conclusion of party primaries, the political parties are expected or required to forward the names and particulars of their candidates for the general  election to INEC.

Thereafter, a general election is declared by INEC as an umpire between the political parties that have sponsored candidates in that election and in the specific positions being contested.

A general election is an inter-party contest with clearly defined rules, guidelines and timelines abstracted from the 1999 Constitution as amended, the Electoral Act 2010 as amended and applicable INEC guidelines for the conduct of such elections.

Only registered voters vote in a general election by way of thumbprinting on the logo of the party of their choices.

At the end of voting, INEC declares the candidate of the party that has satisfied the constitutional requirements and garnered the lawful majority of the votes cast  winner and issues certificate of return to the victorious candidate of the party.

No person is expected or authorised to unilaterally declare the results in a general election other than by INEC.

It is unlawful and a punishable criminal offence to declare election results Suo motu, meaning, on your own accord.

When INEC declares the final result of an election, it becomes functus officio the exercise.

Candidates and or the political parties are at this stage free to accept the result and there will be no need for litigation or legal redress.

Where however the result is  rejected or disputed, the aggrieved candidate and or political party are not left in the lurch as a window of opportunity exists for presenting election petition(s).

In this circumstance, the next and final stage therefore is litigation and that is the exclusive preserve of the courts and more particularly the Election Petition Tribunals.

The various Election Petition Tribunals set up by the Chief Justice of Nigeria have the sole responsibility to entertain petitions arising from the conduct of the elections but have no jurisdiction in pre-election matters.

All State and National Assembly election petitions end at the Court of Appeal on a final appeal while the Governorship and Presidential election petitions terminate at the Supreme Court of Nigeria and these must be within the constitutional timelines allotted for determination of election petitions.

Once the final court delivers the final judgement in appropriate election petition cases and gives a seal of judicial approval to the victory or upturns the victory at the polls or makes preservative or consequential orders, appeals lie no where else because it is in the interest of justice and public policy that there should be an end to litigations and in this case, elections.

Therefore, it is an unfettered constitutional right consistent with the rule of law for a candidate or political party that is disatissfied with the outcome of an election result to present a reasoned petition before the appropriate Election Petition Tribunal in the manner and on grounds clearly suggested by our electoral laws.

With the foregoing, it is clear that Nigeria is not a jungle where humans beings are to be killed or maimed or properties destroyed with reckless abandon because of elections or anything else for that matter.

We are clear headed to unequivocally say to our politicians and all citizens at large that instead of resort to violence, killings and arson attacks over election outcomes or any other issue, they should kindly go to court as it is their unfettered constitutional right.

No party or its candidate should be held in derision or scorn for taking the civilized option of presenting election petitions instead of resort to violence or other self help remedy.

In this same light, no party or its candidate is expected to hold the country hostage because of threat of presenting an election petition as it is a routine and intrinsic part of the reality of our constitutional order consistent with the doctrine of rule of law.

We are optimistic that as the bastion of democracy, defender of the oppressed and the last hope of the common man, our courts are well able, ready and capable to give an aggrieved person the justice of his or her case because our law reckons that for every wrong there is a remedy- ubi jus ubi redium.

Let the rule of prevail while we grow our democracy!


A new normal is possible!



Prof Obiaraeri, N.O. Ph.D (Law), B.L., etc.

The Federal High Court, Warri has delivered Judgement in the case of Darlington Ugo Ehirim v. Federal Road Safety Commission Suit No. FHC/W/CS/90/2017.

The Plaintiff in an affidavit in support of his originating summons stated that he was stopped by FRSC officials while driving along Ajamimogha Road, Warri on his way to court. The Plaintiff had challenged the authority of the FRSC officials to be creating a long queu early in the morning while checking vehicle particulars. Plaintiff further stated that the FRSC officials, out of annoyance told him to park, which he obeyed. They seized his vehicle particulars and charged him to court on a purported charge of not wearing seat belt. The charge aagainst  the plaintiff was withdrawn upon the intervention of Kunle Edun, the then Vice Chairman of NBA, Warri( now the National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association).

Mr. Kunle Edun, acting as the Plaintiff's counsel and Chairman NBA Warri Human Right Committee subsequently filed an action against the FRSC at the Federal High Court, Warri seeking the following issues for resolution:
1) Whether the provisions of the Federal Road Safety Commission Act, 2007 ( particularly section 30 thereof that defines "public road") and it's subsidiary legislation; the provisions of section 118 of the National Road Traffic Regulations, 2004 (which defines "Highway") to the extent that public road and highways are defined to include all roads in States and local governments are constitutional in the face of of the clear provisions of sections 1(3) and item 63 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, regarding the power of the Defendant (a federal agency) to exercise jurisdiction regarding vehicular traffic monitoring and enforcement over Stares and Local Governments roads in Nigeria?

2) Whether by virtue of the clear provisions of sections 1(3) and item 63 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended; the Defendant has the vires, authority and/or power to arrest, detain and/or prosecute the Plaintiff or any person regarding any violation of traffic laws on any road that is not designated as a federal trunk road?

3) Whether there is any provision in the Federal Road Safety Commission Act (Cap F19) LFN 2010 or any subsidiary legislation made thereunder that entitles the officers of the Defendant to mount any form of road blocks (human or otherwise) on public highways in the purported exercise of it's functions under the said Act?

The Plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:
1) A declaration that by virtue of the clear provisions of section 1(3) and item 63 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, the Defendant lacks the vires, authority and/or power to exercise any jurisdiction regarding vehicular traffic, monitoring and enforcement in respect of States and Local Governments roads in Nigeria.

2)  A declaration that by virtue of the clear provisions of section 1(3) and item 63 Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, the Defendant lacks the vires, authority and/or power to arrest, detain and/or prosecute the Plaintiff or any person regarding the traffic violations on a State or Local Government road in Nigeria.

3) A declaration that the definitions of "Public Road" in the provisions of section 30 of the Federal Road Safety Commission Act, 2007 (Cap F19) LFN 2010 and "Highway" as contained in the provisions of section 118 of the National Road Traffic Regulations, 2004 do not extend to or includes States and Local Government Roads in Nigeria by virtue of the clear provisions of section 1(3) and item 63 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended; and therefore, it is ultra vires the power of the National Assembly to make laws regulating traffic on roads other than federal trunk roads.

4) A declaration that the Defendant's operations and jurisdiction are restricted only to traffic on federal highways or federal trunk roads by virtue of the clear provisions of section 1(3) and item 63 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.

5) A declaration that the stoppage of the Plaintiff's vehicle Reg. No. KJA 502 and the seizure of his driver's licence by the Defendant on the 15th day of June, 2017 along the Ajamimogha Road, by Herismor House, Warri (not being a federal trunk road) is unlawful and a violation of Plaintiff's tight to freedom of movement as guaranteed by the provisions of section 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.

6) An order of injunction restraining the Defendant by itself and/or through it's privies, agents, officials, subordinates or under any other guise from further harrasing, arresting, detaining abd/or prosecute the Plaintiff or any motorist in respect of anything done in connection with vehicular traffic and/or the use of States' it Local Giverment roads.
7) The sum of N10, 000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira)as exemplary and general damages.

The trial court agreed with all the issues raised by Kunle Edun, the Plaintiff's counsel and accordingly granted all the reliefs sought. The court also awarded cost of N200,000 00 against the Defendant.

🖕. Know your right my people. I understand these folks constitute a great nuisance in southeast roads