A COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRECEDENCE OF FINALITY & LEGALITY: A CASE STUDY OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT AND THE PDP
In the realm of legal battles, especially those reaching the apex court, political parties often prepare for a protracted conflict, understanding that the ultimate peace (or victory) is secured through rigorous legal argumentation and strategic maneuvering.
The Supreme Court's judgment affirming Senator Samuel Anyanwu as the National Secretary of the People's Democratic Party (PDP) serves as a pertinent case study in examining the finality, legality, and implications of judicial pronouncements at the highest level.
At the heart of the legality of any Supreme Court judgment lies the principle of “stare decisis” the doctrine of precedent and the constitutional role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of justice.
The Nigerian Constitution vests the Supreme Court with original and appellate jurisdiction, making its decisions binding on all lower courts and, by extension, on all persons and authorities in Nigeria. Once the Supreme Court delivers a judgment, it is considered final and conclusive.
This finality is crucial for legal certainty, stability, and the effective administration of justice. Without it, litigation would be endless, and the rule of law would be undermined.
The legality of the Supreme Court's decision concerning Senator Anyanwu's position is therefore upheld in several fundamental tenets.
Firstly, the Court have meticulously reviewed all submissions, evidence, and arguments presented by the contending parties at all levels of the judicial hierarchy. This process involves interpreting relevant constitutional provisions, party guidelines, electoral laws, and previous judicial precedents that bear on the matter. The judgment is not merely an arbitrary declaration but the culmination of a rigorous analytical process, applying established legal principles to the specific facts of the case.
Secondly, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in such political party disputes typically revolves around issues of pre-election matters, internal party affairs, or the interpretation of party constitutions and electoral acts. When a case reaches this level, it often signifies that there have been conflicting interpretations or applications of law by lower courts, or that a significant constitutional question is at stake.
The Supreme Court's role is to provide a definitive and authoritative interpretation, thereby settling the dispute once and for all. Any challenge to the "legality" of such a judgment, post-delivery, often misunderstands the nature of judicial finality.
While judgments can be subject to review in extremely rare circumstances (e.g., where there's evidence of fraud or a fundamental error ex facie the record, a concept known as "slip rule"), the default position is that the Court's decision is the law of the land on that particular matter.
Furthermore, the concept of "legality" in this context extends beyond mere procedural correctness to the substantive justice of the case, as determined by the highest judicial authority. The Supreme Court's pronouncement effectively validates the process that led to Senator Anyanwu's emergence or affirmation as the National Secretary, within the framework of the party's rules and the nation's laws as interpreted by the Court.
For those who might feel aggrieved by the outcome of the Supreme Court judgement affirming Sen. Samuel Anyanwu as the National Secretary of the PDP, they should know that it is a situation of “No Victor, No Vanquish”, as Sen. Anyanwu has rightly stated that the People’s Democratic Party, PDP remains one United Family now that the legal recourse is exhausted at the apex court of the land.
Finally, the Supreme Court judgment in support of Senator Samuel Anyanwu as the PDP National Secretary stands as a legally sound pronouncement, by virtue of the Court's constitutional authority, its exhaustive review process, and the principle of judicial finality.
