A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Abiodun Owonikoko, has stated that those persons who are criticizing the Supreme Court Judgement that saw the Senate President, Lawan, declared the rightful APC Senatorial Candidate of Yobe does not understand that there is a difference between civil case and electoral matters.<\/p>\n
Abiodun Owonikoko explained that the Supreme Court ruled that the mode of commencement of the case between Lawan and Machina at the lower courts was improper and as such prevented the Supreme Court from going into the merit of the case. Abiodun Owonikoko stated that the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court and the appeal court that initially handled the case lacked the jurisdiction to do so.<\/p>\n
For the reason given above, Abiodun Owonikoko disclosed that the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Lawan instead of ordering for a retrial of the case. Abiodun Owonikoko explained that had it been that the case was a civil case, the Supreme Court would have ordered for a retrial because of the fact that the commencement of the case was improperly done at the lower courts.<\/p>\n
However, for the fact that the case is an electoral case, the Supreme Court simply ruled in favour of Lawan without looking at the merit of the case. In a civil case where it has been established that the mode of commencement of the case at the trial court and Appeal Court was wrong, the Supreme Court will simply order a retrial.<\/p>\n
According to Abiodun Owonikoko, in election matters, the situation is different because election petition proceedings are special and they are regulated by special procedures which are adhered to. This special procedures makes it impossible for the Supreme Court to apply liberalism. Furthermore, Abiodun Owonikoko revealed that election matters are time-bound and this prevents the Supreme Court from ordering for a retrial.<\/p>\n