A former Minister of Women Affairs and Social Development, Pauline Tallen, has urged the Court of Appeal in Abuja to set aside the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court asking her to tender an apology to the judiciary for describing a court judgment as a “kangaroo judgment.”
The court had, in a judgment on December 18, 2023, given Tallen 30 days to tender a public apology to be published in The PUNCH and The Guardian newspapers, or risk being barred from holding any public office in Nigeria again.
MetronewsNG reports that the verdict followed a marked CV/816/2016 filed against the ex-minister by the Nigerian Bar Association.
The NBA spokesman, Akorede Lawal, explained that Tallen criticised the court after the Federal High Court in Yola, on October 14, 2022, nullified the candidature of Aishatu Dahiru, alias Binani, as the governorship candidate of the All Progressive Congress in the state in Adamawa State.
The suit against Binani was filed by Nuhu Ribadu, now the National Security Adviser.
Tallen was said to have described the court verdict in the case as “kangaroo judgment,” to the annoyance of the NBA, which dragged her before the court.
“Consequently, the court declared that the said statement of Dame Pauline Tallen (the defendant) was unconstitutional, careless, reckless, disparaging, a call to disobey the judgment of the court, and therefore contemptuous of the Federal High Court of Nigeria.
“The court also granted, among other reliefs, an injunction restraining Dame Pauline Tallen (the defendant) from holding any public office in Nigeria, unless she purges herself of the ignoble conduct by publishing a personally signed apology letter to Nigerians and the judiciary on a full page of The PUNCH and The Guardian newspapers,” the NBA said in a statement.
“The court ordered that the injunction restraining the defendant from holding any public office in Nigeria shall become perpetual if she fails to abide by the order directing her to publish an apology letter within 30 days.”
However, dissatisfied with the verdict, Tallen through her lawyer, Joe-Kari Gadzama (SAN), stated that the principal declaratory reliefs sought by the NBA ought not to have been granted by the trial court for lack of credible and admissible evidence.
Citing Marigold v NNPC (2022) LPELR 56858 (SC) and Akinlade v. INEC (2020) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1754), Tallen also said the respondent’s affidavit in support of the Originating Summons was incompetent, having been deposed to by a lawyer who participated in the proceedings.
Tallen contended that the NBA lacked the legal standing to take her to court since they were not involved in the case where she made the comment.
She said, “The respondent was not a party to Suit No. FHC/YL/CS/12/2022 before the Federal High Court, which judgment the appellant was credited to have described as a kangaroo judgment.
“There was nothing before the trial court to justify the holding and conclusion of the learned trial judge that the respondent has the locus standi or the standing to bring the action.
She also said the newspaper publications referred to by the trial court could not prove the truth of the allegation against her.
“The newspaper reports exhibited by the respondent are inadmissible to prove their contents.
“Newspaper reports and or publications express the author or reporter’s opinion or report of an occurrence without a guarantee of its accuracy, “ she said.
She urged the appellate court to set aside the trial court’s decision on the preliminary objection M/251/2023 filed on April 19, 2023.
