Today’s Pronouncement of the Presidential Petition Panel For Yar’Adua/Jonathan and Against Buhari/Atiku - Some Quick First Impressions

mobolaji-aluko.jpg

First, I watched the live proceedings of the ruling of this Presidential petion on NTA (Nigerian Television) from the beginning to the end - from 4:00 am EST to about 8:0 am - and even recorded it for later play-back on my website www.nigerianmuse.com. You can listen on: http://www.nigerianmuse.com/

Secondly, outside of the substantive judgment itself, the televising of the court proceeding showed a serious lack of magesteriality of the severely cramped Court for such a serious court case. To see several state governors (Akpabio of Akwa-Ibom , Oni of Ekiti, Saraki of Kwara, Uduaghan of Delta, Amaechi of Rivers, Egwu, formerly of Ebonyi, etc.) and ministers/officials (Kayode of Tourism, Grange of Health, Alao of Housing & Environment; even Akuniyili of NAFDAC, etc.) standing at the back of the court; to see lawyers texting on their cell-phones were troubling. But annoyingly, to listen to the levity with which the Judge Fabiyi reading the judgment treating the whole thing - for example, once asking whether people were tired and whether he should go on, etc. - and his weakness of pronunciation (eg pronouncing “collation” like “coalition” throughout, or “inditement” as “inditment” etc. did not give confidence to a listener, and made me to wonder how he arrived at that awesome responsibility delivered with some tinges of gloating mischief.

Finally, Chairman Ogebe’s absence from reading the judgment in that important case requires explanation, serious explanation. It is almost Pilatic.

Now to the substantial case ….

That NOT a single prayer or relief was granted to either Buhari or Atiku - and that the decision was UNANIMOUS, not a single dissent - is most bizarre. In fact, Buhari’s case was destroyed almost before it started by nullifying all the depositions made before a particular Justice of the Peace who was found to be under his employment as one of his lawyers.

Granted that unfair Abia State indictment of Yar’Adua and Jonathan was correctly disposed of in their favor, and that the issue of corrupt practices was not fully canvassed by the petitioners, but for the Court to accept that

(i) the issue of no serial numbers on ballot papers was a substantial violation of the Electoral Act

(ii) that between the nomination period and April 16, INEC indeed “placed hurdles in Atiku’s way, which should not be so…”

(iii) there was evidence that the voters registers did not fulfill perfectly the Electoral Act

(iv) practice directions severely limited the taking of oral witnesses, allowing only front-loading of written documents.

and then go ahead to state that:

(i) the submissions of the petitioners were “plagued by want of evidence” because “documents do not speak”, “averments are not evidence”, and “no witnesses were called” etc.;

(ii) the petitioners could not “approbate and reprobate” on the issue of exclusion, since Ikimi, Obi, Lai Mohammed, etc. presented themselves to INEC AFTER the election as agents of “Atiku…flagbearer of the AC in the April 21 elections”, etc., meaning that Atiku was not “excluded” since exclusion means “ruled out, eliminated, etc….” In short, they relied almost solely on Atiku’s and his agents’ evidence against himself here on this issue of exclusion, even though BOTH Obi and Lai Mohammed testified to exclusion BEFORE all the court proceedings began…

(iii) these “infractions” and “miniature complaints” were “trivial…insignificant in number” and at best constituted “mild non-compliance” with the Electoral Law.

(iv) strike out Maurice Iwu’s name ENTIRELY in recognition of his person on the argument that he had already been included ex-officio as INEC Chairman;

were in many places contradictory and just very disturbing. They indicated a troubling over-reach, and in many pronouncements during the judgment a comical over-reach at that for such a serious case.

Judgment was pronounced against Atiku and Buhari, and for Yar’Adua and Jonathan to remain as President and Vice-President. The outcome means that the Presidential Election of April 21 was not perfect - but it was near perfect. At least the Justices indicated that there was not substantial evidence that it was not “near perfect.”

That is bizarre.

It is understandable that Counsels Olanipekun (SAN, for Yar’Adua) and Gadzama (SAN, for PDP) would hail the judgment as a watershed and monumental in the voyage of democracy for Nigeria, but I felt uncomfortable throughout the proceedings that the course of justice was not being served, because it appeared that both the Judges in their judgment and the Counsels later on were gloating. That did not serve the course of reconciliation, that did not conform with the street knowledge of gross flaws in the April elections. When injustice is so patently asserted in the face of glaring facts, even if the courts say - or imply - that their hands are tied by lack of evidence and through technicalities, then that presents a serious problem.

So I identify with Ricky Tarfa (Atiku’s lawyer) who indicated before the Justices that he did not agree with the judgment and that his clients would seek further justice, and with Mike Ahamba (Buhari’s lawyer) who implied in an ever-so-brief statement that the Justices should search their respective “bags of conscience.”

Wole Olanipekun returned - after his initial thanks - to throw a stink bomb into the court by bringing in the relevant “irrelevance”: of the recommendation of the elevation of the Chairman Ogebe to the Supreme Court just days to this judgment. He indicated that the insinuations were uncalled for. Only he believes that. I assert that that elephant in the temple of justice will not be moved, that clear feeling of impropriety and importuning, suborning of a major officer required to administer justice. Justice should not only be done, but even its appearance of being done should be above board. As Mike Ahamba stated in a short but angst-ridden interview with an NTA reporter afterwards, the justices might have actually VIOLATED their oaths of office when they ruled about lack of oral witnesses when in fact he had PLEADED in vain for a number of oral witnesses, no matter how limited.

Also outside the court, Buhari CLEARLY stated that he would be proceeding to the Supreme Court - and so should he.
We have not heard from Atiku yet, but his victories at the Supreme Court in previous should clearly motivate him accordingly..

On the whole, Compatriots, this is a sad day for justice in Nigeria. It is NOT the outcome of the rulings, but the WHOLE manner of the proceedings today - its un-magesteriality, the comicality and comedy, the levity attending the proceedings presided over by Justice Fabiyi - and then the REASONS adduced for the rulings that make it sad. When you couple it with the Ogebe elevation saga, his absence from court, the unanimity of the ruling, and all the rumors leading up to this judgment, one cannot but be saddened, and would only hope that the Supreme Court would in some way redeem the newly-battered image of the Judiciary.

There you have it.

Saddened for our country

Mobolaji E. Aluko, PhD, alukome@gmail.com , Burtonsville, MD, USA