I have No Faith In You..Tambuwal Tells Presiding Judge

Speaker of House of Representatives .Aminu Tambuwal has written a petition to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, praying that his suit allegedly assigned to Justice Evoh Chukwu be re-assigned to another judge for likelihood of bias on Chukwu’s part.

In a petition against Justice Chukwu, Tambuwal who is billed to preside over plenary session when the House reconvenes tomorrow (Wednesday) barring any last minute changes, yesterday prayed the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Ibrahim Auta to reassign the case to a “neutral judge who has not made any judicial pronouncement on the issue, or made public his own opinion   on the issue at hand.”

In the petition seeking the reassignment of the suit with registration number: FHC/ABJ/CS/871/2014 to another judge, the speaker observed that the presiding Judge, Justice Chukwu, had in the past “made a pronouncement on similar issues, in similar cases, decided by him,” and submitted that the learned Justice is likely to habour “an iron cast judicial position or opinion in respect  to the suit.”

The document made available to journalists in Abuja yesterday read in parts: “My attention has been drawn to the above suit, which has been assigned to Court 8, presided over by Justice  Chukwu, and we wish to make the following observations:

“Sometime in 2013, the said Justice  Chukwu presided over the case of PDP and 12 Ors vs. INEC and 4 Ors, wherein he made a judicial pronouncement, which has been interpreted by some to the effect that there was no division in PDP. The above decision of Justice Chukwu was heavily relied upon and cited severally in the case of PDP vs. (1) House of Representatives; (2) the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 52 Ors, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/4/2014.

“Consequently, Justice A.F.A Ademola, relying on the said judgment of Justice Chukwu, even though, the said suit before him, had nothing to do with defection, ruled that there was no division within the PDP. And as such, the defendants in that case, who are members of the House of Representatives, who have similar cases as mine, currently pending in the Federal High Court Abuja, were not protected by proviso to Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution. He rested his decision on that earlier judgement of Justice Chukwu aforementioned. 

“The said judgment of Justice Ademola, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/4/2014 is subject of four pending appeals at the Court of Appeal Abuja judicial division via appeal no. CA/A/343/2014 and appeal no. CA/A/343A/2014 and CA/A/343B/2014 and appeal no. CA/A/343D/2014.

“My Lord, similar suits were variously instituted by various parties and are pending before the Federal High Court No. 7, presided over by Justice A.R Mohammed, in Suits No. FHC/ABJ/CS/621/2013; Between Senator Bello Hayatu Gwarzo & 78 Ors vs Bamanga Tukur & 4 ors  and are at various stages of proceeding pending before Court 7, presided over by Justice A.R Mohammed.

“My apprehension is further fortified by the fact that both decisions of Justice Chukwu and Justice Ademola as captured in the said suits are subject of appeal in the Court of Appeal.

Buttressing his position, Tambuwal made reference to the case involving Metropolitan properties Co. Ltd v. Lannan and Others, wherein Lord Denning said:

“In considering whether there was a real likelihood of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the justice himself or at the mind of the chairman of the tribunal, or whoever it may be, who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he would, or did, in fact favour one side at the expense of the other. The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless, if right-minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, and then he should not sit. And if he sits, his decision cannot stand ... The court will not inquire whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The Judge was biased.”

“In view of the above stated facts, I humbly urge my Lord to re-assign the said Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/871/2014 to a neutral judge, who has not made any judicial pronouncement on the issue, or made public,. his own opinion   on the issue at hand,” he prayed