ESQ Legal Practice Magazine JUNE 2014 EDITION | Page 55

against Pinochet.
Specifically, the allegation was
that Lord Hoffman and his
wife were strongly connected
to Amnesty International, an
organization invited by the
court to address it as amicus
curiae. On December 10, 1998,
Pinochet's lawyers lodged a
petition asking that the order
of 25th November, 1998, be set
aside and the opinion of Lord
Hoffman be declared as to be
of no effect.

considered its past decisions
in R v. Gough (1993) AC 646
and Webb v The Queen (1994)
181 Crim LR 41.
In Nigeria, our Supreme Court
also has powers to set aside its
own judgment. It is worthy of
note that the exercise of its
powers to reverse itself is
rarely invoked by the
Supreme Court in Nigeria. It is
usually an uphill task to
convince the Court to consider
such reversal. The general
principle of law is that a
8] THE PETITION
judgment, order or decision of
A new panel of the House of
a court is presumed to be
Lords was constituted. It had correct unless and until that
none of the Judges that took
presumption is rebutted and
the decision of the 25th
the judgment is set aside. it
November, 1998. It was now
subsists and must be obeyed.
heard by Lord Browne
See the case of Babatunde v
Wilkinson, Lord Goff of
Olatunji (2000) 2 SC 9.
Chievely, Lord Nolan, Lord
Even though it may be a tough
Hope of Craighead and Lord task the Supreme Court has
Hutton. Oral judgment was
always stated its preparedness
given an 17th December, 1998 to reverse its own decision in
while reasons given on 17th
appropriate cases. See the case
January 1999. The Court set
of Samauel Oke v Lamidi
aside the order made on the
Aiyedun (1986) 4 SC 81, Ukpe
25th of November, 1998 and
Orewere & Ors v. Rev. Moses
directed a re – hearing before Aberigbe & Ors (1973) 1
a fresh panel. The Court heard ANLR pt 14 pg 1, Attorney
very detailed submissions by General of Federation v.
lawyers on both sides and
Guardian Newspapers 1999 5
55 I EsQ legal practice

S.C (Pt III) 59.
The rationale behind this
power was graphically and
elegantly stated by Oputa JSC
in Adegoke Motors Ltd v Dr
Adesanya & Anor (1989) 5 SC
113, (1989) 3 NWLR (pt 109)
250 @ 274. The learned jurist
said inter alia "We are final not
because we are infallible,
rather we are infallible
because we are final. Justices
of this court are human
beings, capable of erring. It
will certainly be short –
sighted arrogance not to
accept this obvious truth. It is
also true that this court can do
incalculable harm through its
mistakes. When therefore it
appears to learned counsel
that any decision of this court
has been given per in curiam,
such decision shall be
overruled. This court has the
power to over – rule itself (and
has done so in the past) for it
gladly accepts that it is far
better to admit an error than
to persevere in error."
9] THE SECOND APPEAL
The second House of Lords
appeal on the Extradition of
Pinochet from the United

Kingdom to Spain began
almost immediately after the
first appeal decision was set
aside. A new panel was set up
to now include Lords Browne
Wilkinson, Goff of Chievely,
Hope of Craighead, Hutton,
Saville of Newdigate, Millet
and Phillips of Worth
Matravers, a full panel of law
lords. After taking fresh
arguments judgment was
delivered on 24th March 1999
and reported in (1999) 2 All ER
99, the Times Report of 25th
March 1999 and also at (1999)
2 WLR 827. In allowing the
appeal, the House of Lords
again reversed the decision of
the Divisional Court of the
Queen Bench Division and
held that General Pinochet
could righty be extradited to
Spain to face criminal charges
and prosecution. The court
specifically held that;
The requirement in Section 2
of the Act of 1989 that the
alleged conduct which was the
subject of the extradition
request be a crime under
United Kingdom law as well
as the law of the requesting
state was a requirement that
the conduct be a crime in the

www.esqlaw.net