The Supreme Court has upheld a judgment permanently barring former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Michael Kaase Aondoakaa (SAN), from holding public office in Nigeria, bringing to a close a legal battle that lasted about 15 years.
The case, instituted by Akwa Ibom politician, Hon. Emmanuel Obot, stemmed from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primary election for the Uyo Federal Constituency seat in December 2006. Obot had emerged as the party’s candidate but was later substituted, leading to years of litigation over the disputed nomination.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on December 10, 2021, in Appeal No. SC.939/2015, the apex court dismissed Aondoakaa’s appeal and affirmed the concurrent decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which held that the former Attorney General acted contrary to the rule of law by attempting to obstruct the enforcement of valid court judgments.
The lead judgment, delivered by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, upheld the findings that Aondoakaa, while serving as Attorney General under the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, issued official letters aimed at preventing compliance with court orders directing that Emmanuel Obot be recognised as the rightful winner of the election dispute.
According to the Supreme Court, such actions were inconsistent with the constitutional responsibilities of the nation’s chief law officer.
The court adopted the Court of Appeal’s description of the conduct as “a most sordid low in the administration of justice.”
The apex court consequently affirmed the perpetual injunction restraining Aondoakaa from occupying the offices of Attorney General of the Federation, Minister of Justice, or any other public office in Nigeria.
The court also upheld the High Court’s award of N50 million in exemplary damages against the defendants and further awarded N2 million in costs in favour of Emmanuel Obot.
In addition, the Supreme Court urged the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to subject the former Attorney General to its disciplinary processes over the findings made against him.
The judgment has been widely described as a significant reaffirmation of judicial authority, accountability in public office, and the supremacy of the rule of law, reinforcing the principle that public officials are bound to respect and enforce court decisions rather than undermine them.
The decision effectively concludes one of Nigeria’s longest-running political and legal disputes arising from an electoral nomination contest.