Amaechi v. Governor of Rivers State & Ors (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

This appeal No. SC. 911/2017 was commenced on 7-8-2017 when the appellant herein filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 8-5-2017 in Appeal No. CA/PH/342/2015 affirming the judgment of the High Court of River State delivered on 20-8-2015 in Suit No. PHC/189/2015 dismissing the appellant’s claim.

The appellant, by motion on notice filed on 25-6-2018 applied for extension of time to seek leave to appeal against the above-mentioned judgment of Court Appeal, leave to so appeal, extension of time to so appeal and leave to rely on the record of appeal compiled and transmitted on the basis of the initial notice of appeal filed on 7-8-2017. On 16- 3-2021 this application was granted. Pursuant to the grant of this application, the appellant filed another notice of appeal on 29-3- 2021.

​All the parties filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs as follows – appellant’s brief, 1st and 2nd respondents’ brief, 3rd respondent’s brief, 4th to 10th respondents’ brief, appellant’s reply brief to 1st and 2nd respondents’ brief, the appellant’s reply brief to the 3rd respondent’s brief and appellant’s reply brief to the 4th to 10th respondents’ brief. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed reply on points of law in response to the appellant’s argument against their preliminary objection.

The appellant’s brief raised the following issues for determination –

“ISSUE ONE
Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that there is no distinction between a judicial commission of inquiry and a commission of inquiry? (Ground one).

ISSUE TWO
Whether the 30-day time limit given to the 3rd respondent by the 1st respondent to conduct and conclude its inquiry was rightly adjudged by the Court of Appeal and did not implicate a denial of the appellant’s right to fair hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As amended)? (Ground two).

ISSUE THREE
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly construed and applied Section 2(1) of the Commission of Inquiry Law (Cap. 30), Laws of the Rivers State regardless of the overriding specific provision of the Constitution as to how a Governor can be investigated in his official capacity? (Grounds three, four and five)

ISSUE FOUR
Whether the Court of Appeal rightly held that 3rd respondent can competently investigate and probe the appellant who is no longer in the public service of the Rivers state Government because of his official executive decisions as Governor of the State? (Grounds Six & Seven)
ISSUE FIVE
Whether the Court of Appeal rightly held that the adverse and injurious pronouncements made by the trial Judge against appellant in respect of the claim in litigation constituted a mere obiter dicta and therefore could not be appealed against? (Ground eight)

ISSUE SIX
Whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal was wrongly dismissed because the appellant has not made out a case for him to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought in the trial Court? (Ground 9)”.

The 1st and 2nd respondents’ brief raised the following issues for determination –
“1- Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it came to the conclusion that the Commission of Inquiry which was instituted by the Governor of Rivers State, subject matter of the appellant’s complaint was properly set up

and constituted under the Commission of Inquiry Law (Cap. 30) Laws of Rivers State of Nigeria, and that the same does not constitute an infringement of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), including the appellant’s right to fair hearing” (Ground 1, 2, and 3, Appellant’s Grounds of appeal.)

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held by reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of FAWEHINMI v. BABANGIDA (2003) 3 NWLR (PT 808) 604, that the Commission of Inquiry Law of Rivers State is an existing law under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), that the context provisions of the said law are valid and constitutional and that the Governor of Rivers State, the 1st respondent, acted properly in setting up the Commission of Inquiry, subject matter of the appellant’s compliant? (Grounds 4, 5, 6, appellant’s Grounds of Appeal).
3. Whether in resolving Issue No. 8 as it did, the Court of Appeal took a stand which was inconsistent with its earlier resolution of Issues Nos 1-3 and liable to be set aside? (Ground 7, appellant’s Grounds of Appeal)
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish the allegation of bias against the learned trial Judge such as to render the decision of the learned trial Judge liable to be set aside? (Ground 8, appellant’s Grounds of Appeal)

5. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it came to the conclusion that the appellant did not make out a case to warrant the grant of the reliefs he sought before the trial Court and that the learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the appellant’s case? (Ground 9 appellant’s Grounds of appeal)”

The 3rd respondent’s brief raised the following issues for determination-
“1. Whether on the facts of this case, the Court of Appeal was right to hold that there is no distinction between a Judicial Commission of Inquiry and a Commission of Inquiry? (Ground one)

2. Whether the 30 days time limit given to the 3rd respondent to conclude its inquiry amounted to a denial of the appellant’s right to fair hearing? (Ground two).
3. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly construed and applied Section 2(1) of the Commission of Inquiry Law (CAP 30), Laws of Rivers State regardless of the provisions of the Constitution as to how a Governor can be investigated in his official capacity? (Grounds three, four and five);

4. Whether the Court of Appeal rightly held that the 3rd respondent can competently investigate and probe the administration of the appellant who is no longer in the Public Service of the Rivers State Government as Governor of the State? (Grounds six and seven);
5. Whether the Court of Appeal rightly held that the pronouncements made by the Learned Trial Judge which the appellant has complained of a re Obiter Dicta which could not be appealed against? (Ground Eight);
6. Whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal was wrongly dismissed because the appellant has not made out a case for him to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought in the Trial Court? (Grounds).”

The 4th to 10th respondents’ brief raised the following issues for determination-
“1. Whether the appellant was denied the right to fair hearing to present his case to the 3rd respondent? (Ground 2).