The apex court, therefore, enjoined the Speaker to comply with the court’s decision that sacked Herman Hembe, a former member of the Federal House of Representatives representing, Vandikya/ Konshisha constituency, Benue State.
The Supreme Court had on June 25 sacked Hembe and Senator Sani Abubakar Danladi representing Taraba State and ordered that Mrs. Dorothy Mato and Alhaji Shuaibu Isa Lau be sworn in immediately in their stead.
The court also ordered the sacked legislators to refund all the monies collected as salaries and allowances from June 2015 when they were sworn in as legislators.
However, while Senate President Bukola Saraki has since sworn in Shuaibu Isa Lau, the Speaker of the House is yet carry out the court order possibly on the pretext that the sacked Hembe had filed a motion on notice asking the Supreme Court to reverse itself.
When the matter was called and representations made, counsel for Herman Hembe, Paul Erokoro SAN told the court that his motion was for an order of the court to correct and amend an error in its judgment in a bid to reflect the proper intention of the said judgment.
He said the court was wrong to have invoked section 22 of the Act to hear the appeal instead of sending it back to the tribunal for re-trial.
But in a swift response, the CJN Justice Onnoghen explained that “we invoked the powers of this court under section 22 of the Act, heard the matter and gave judgment
“So are you now asking us to review our judgment? Whether or not we are wrong, our decision is final; we cannot review our judgment. The Supreme Court is the final court for a reason that there has to be an end to litigation.”
The apex court also refused to grant an application to vacate the consequential order directing Hembe to refund his salaries and allowances.
The admonished the learned SAN and said “it appears you close your mind on the circumstances of this case that translated into the judgment of this court. This is a policy-making court where we make policies to guide society to move forward.
“When we use judicial process to perpetuate injustice, this court comes in to maintain decorum. There is no error, there is no accidental slip in our judgment, you can go to appeal to another court if there is any, but on our own part, we cannot review our judgment whether wrongly made or not, that is the order of this court.
Furthermore, the CJN stated that “If somebody has been in the House where he is not supposed to be and has reaped the benefits which it should not be, you mean we should close our eyes to this product of impunity? No, we cannot go back to that because the imposter has no right to it. Whatever he collected should be refunded. This court is sending a message to everybody so that right from the primaries, the right thing should be done,”.