A retiring justice of Nigeria’s Supreme Court, Uwani Musa Abba-Aji, has disclosed that some justices of the apex court remain subject to travel restrictions imposed by the United States, which she linked to a judgment delivered by a seven-member panel of the court.
Abba-Aji made the disclosure on Friday, November 6, during a valedictory session held in her honour at the Supreme Court in Abuja. She described the judgment at the centre of the restrictions as one that was widely misinterpreted, though she did not identify the case or state when the United States imposed the measures.
Restrictions Tied to Controversial Judgment
According to the retiring justice, the consequences of the panel’s decision have continued to affect its members. She said the judgment was misinterpreted and led to a travel ban being imposed on all members of the panel, adding that the ban still holds today.
Her remarks come against the backdrop of earlier allegations that the United States denied visas to the justices who delivered the January 2020 judgment that removed Emeka Ihedioha as governor of Imo State and declared Hope Uzodimma the winner of the 2019 governorship election.
Former Cross River State governor Donald Duke made the allegation in February 2023, claiming that the seven justices involved in the judgment were denied US visas when they applied to attend a judicial conference in the country. According to Duke, the justices’ aides who applied alongside them were granted visas while the judicial officers were denied.
The panel comprised Abba-Aji, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, the current Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, as well as Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, Olukayode Ariwoola, Amiru Sanusi and Amina Adamu Augie.
Background to the Imo Governorship Judgment
The January 14, 2020, judgment generated considerable controversy after the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the Imo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, which had upheld Ihedioha’s victory.
Before the judgment, the Independent National Electoral Commission had declared Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party the winner with 273,404 votes, while Uzodimma of the All Progressives Congress scored 96,458 votes.
In a unanimous decision by a seven-member panel, the Supreme Court held that results from 388 polling units had been unlawfully excluded from the final collation of the election. The court ordered that the votes Uzodimma claimed to have secured in the affected polling units be added to the results declared by the electoral commission.
Following the recalculation, the court declared Uzodimma the winner and directed the commission to withdraw Ihedioha’s certificate of return and issue a fresh one to Uzodimma. The decision drew criticism from opposition figures and civil society groups, some of whom questioned the court’s reliance on the disputed results from the 388 polling units.
Justice Abba-Aji Reflects on Judicial Sacrifice
Abba-Aji, who retires from the Supreme Court on November 7 after attaining the mandatory retirement age of 70, described the visa restrictions as one of the sacrifices she made during her judicial service. She said such inconveniences were a small price to pay to preserve the integrity of justice.
Reflecting on her time on the bench, she said it was filled with challenges, some of which she described as additional opportunities to stand firm on the side of justice regardless of the consequences.
She also recalled that in 2016, while attending a programme in Washington DC, she received a call asking her to report to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over a petition filed against her in Lagos State. She said the petition made her a regular visitor to the commission, where she answered questions about corruption allegations she maintained she knew nothing about.
According to her, the commission eventually cleared her of all the allegations after its investigation. She described the experience as difficult, noting that the allegations generated public criticism, but the conservative nature of the judiciary prevented her from publicly defending herself.
