By Okoi Obono-Obla
In recent times, some concerned individuals from Cross River State have been urging the State Government to return to the Supreme Court of Nigeria and file a motion seeking to set aside the judgment delivered on 12 May 2012 in the case Government of Cross River State vs. Government of Akwa Ibom State. That judgment, decided against Cross River State, resulted in the loss of the State’s littoral status and 76 oil wells.
The proponents of this move claim that fresh evidence has emerged, which they believe could serve as a valid basis for reopening the case. While it is true that judgments previously entered by the Supreme Court of Nigeria can be set aside, such applications are rarely successful. The jurisdiction to set aside a decision is discretionary and exercised sparingly by the court.
In Nigerian jurisprudence, fresh evidence may be considered grounds for setting aside a judgment — but this sets a very high bar. To succeed, the applicant must show that the evidence is:
– Relevant and Material: It must directly pertain to the key issues of the case and be significant enough to potentially alter the outcome.
– Unobtainable Earlier Despite Diligence: The evidence must have been undiscoverable at the time of the original trial despite the exercise of reasonable diligence.
– ⚖️ Capable of Changing the Verdict: Had this evidence been presented during the initial proceedings, it must carry sufficient weight to lead to a different judgment.
Examples of admissible fresh evidence include newly discovered documents, unavailable witness testimonies, or expert opinions that could not have reasonably been accessed during the original trial.
Though rooted in the principles of fairness and justice, the allowance for fresh evidence is balanced by the need for finality in litigation. Legal proceedings must eventually conclude to maintain trust in the system and promote stability.
Procedurally, such an application is usually brought via motion on notice before the same court that delivered the original judgment. The motion must be supported by a detailed affidavit, setting out the fresh evidence and justifying why it was not previously presented.
🔍 Ultimately, the court has wide discretion in granting or denying the application, guided by the principles of justice and the peculiar facts of each case.
Thirteen years have passed since the judgment in question. Considering the legal complexity, procedural hurdles, and the importance of judicial finality, I urge the Government of Cross River State to resist the temptation to revisit this decision. A renewed application would not only be unlikely to succeed but would also result in a waste of time, public resources, and judicial effort. It’s a case best left where the Supreme Court laid it — in precedent.
