Many SANs, including Saraki’s lawyers have critically complained about the CCT’s disregard for the authority of the Federal High Court.
Let us ignore the fact that they later shot themselves in the feet when they realised their mistake and ran back to institute exactly the same matter at the Court of Appeal.
Apparently, Saraki’s lawyers did not realise the following and may need to be schooled further on why their action at the Federal High Court was a nullity:1. When you are charged to a court….any court at all….and you wish to challenge it’s jurisdiction, you do so right in that same court.
2. If the CCT ignores your application and rules that it has jurisdiction, then you appeal its ruling.
3. The constitution has already clarified which court is capable of reviewing the Ruling of the CCT.
4. No where in jurisprudence, is a plaintiff permitted to sue a court as a party to the case, the only provision is to appeal its ruling.
5. The CCT is a specialized court similar to the Election petition Tribunals. Appeals from them go directly to the Court of Appeal. These tribunal panels comprise high court judges of coordinate jurisdiction.
6. An invitation of the high court judge to both parties, asking for them to show reason why they feel the high court should not issue an interlocutory injunction stopping CCT is no way an Interlocutory Injunction already.
7. Saraki’s disregard of a substantive court summon in the absence of an Interlocutory Injunction was a direct request for a bench warrant.
While it is very clear that the CCT has given Saraki and his lawyers utmost respect and regard by withholding the bench warrant, believing that as a responsible citizen, he will honour the summons on Tuesday, let no one be in doubt about the CCT’s utmost power to arrest, detain and lock behind bars, any accused person who shows open brigandage and disregard for the court’s authority, no matter how highly placed.