"In just a sentence, the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal on October 30. The chairman of the panel, the chief justice of Nigeria, Tanko Ibrahim Mohammed, simply said: “We have examined all the briefs of argument and the exhibits for over two weeks, and we have all agreed that there is no merit in this appeal.” Their Lordships promised to provide their reasons later. The entire appeal didn’t last for too long. It was a brisk, hasty procedure."
"And this is where the problem lies. In the absence of a reasoned, written-down and properly articulated judgment, it is difficult to take on their Lordships on the merit of their submissions. When their reasons are finally available, it will be time to do a proper, extensive, judicial review. But what can be legitimately said at this point is that the Supreme Court has created in this case a problem of perception. Does the ordinary Nigerian think that justice has been done? For it is a trite principle that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to have been done. Does the ordinary, reasonable man believe that, given the approach adopted by the Supreme Court, there is fairness in the handling of the matter at the apex court? Professor Ben Nwabueze (SAN), in a widely circulated response, has argued that the Supreme Court’s treatment of the Atiku case raises issues of fairness and fair hearing. He insists that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal is “inconsistent with Section 36 of the Constitution (and) it is, by the self-executing declaration in Section 1(3), null and void.” Section 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution talks about the supremacy of the Constitution as the basic law. Section 36 is on the inviolability of fair hearing as a pillar of the justice administration process. Nwabueze’s contention is that the apex court erred in the eyes of the law by holding an examination of the appeal before it, “in secret”, as declared and admitted, without regard to Section 36 (3) of the Nigerian Constitution."
"Nonetheless, whatever concerns anyone may have in this matter, the case is now closed. The Supreme Court is the apex court. There is no further appeal beyond it, especially in election matters, which are, by the way, sui generis. The principal petitioner, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has already issued a statement dismissing the ruling of the Court. Both his statement and the eventual reasons of the Court would form useful historical documents. For now, we have Atiku’s statement before us. I think it drips with too much bitterness, innuendoes and cynicism. Atiku writes that: “Today, the nail has been put on the coffin and the gains we collectively made since 1999 are evaporating, and a requiem is at hand… In a democracy, you need a strong judiciary, a free press, and an impartial electoral umpire. Nigeria has none of those three elements as of today…” But even more telling is the opening paragraph of his statement, and here it is: “It is said that the Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible, but that it is infallible because it is final.”
"Nonetheless, Atiku’s lawyers have called for a reform of Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence. They have a point in that regard. There are too many knotty, controversial and unresolved issues to be dealt with, including access to vital materials by election petitioners, time limits for election petitions, administrative bottlenecks, and the use of technology. Atiku is obviously not convinced that he lost the 2019 presidential election. This is the overall indication of his statement. He has also pointedly refused to congratulate the APC candidate and incumbent president, Muhammadu Buhari. Every student of Nigerian politics should be interested in what this means and the implications for Nigeria’s future politics. Whatever that is, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar has two options before him: To start preparing for the 2023 presidential election, if his party’s zoning formula favours him, or to retire to the position of a statesman and help defend Nigeria’s democracy. However, beyond elections, the biggest challenge facing Nigeria is that of sustainable development and economic growth. It is the task that all stakeholders must now address, going forward, to correct the many anomalies that hold the country back. It is commendable that all parties involved in the Presidential Election Petition case, before and after, have resisted the temptation to resort to self-help."
Reuben Abati is the former Spokesperson to President Jonathan.
My Opinion
This essay is a masterpiece, and it is for the archives. However, I do not subscribe to the misgivings or theory of lapses in our "electoral jurisprudence." One, there is no way the constitution or our electoral act would have anticipated the coup that took place at the Supreme Court that culminated in the removal of Justice Onnoghen during the countdown to the Presidential election. Two, in every jurisdiction, locally and globally, access to the relevant documents in a particular case by the opposing parties is not debatable - it is an uncontested segment of our civil practices and procedures. Three, the evolution or integration of technology into the judicial or electrical process doesn't ipso facto require legislation to be legally effective, acceptable, or deployable during litigation. That is a consequence of cultural diffusion and modernism. You don't need laws to give effect to them. What took place throughout the hearing in the instant case was a complete aberration. It has nothing to do with inadequacies in our laws or legal process. And fourth, the decision of the Supreme Court to stay incommunicado on the case for two weeks, while allegedly working behind closed doors on the same case, was not because of the existence or otherwise of a lacuna in the enabling laws. It is a bald-faced lie, told in broad daylight to preempt any inference or accusation of arriving at a preconceived decision on the case before concocting and unleashing a patchwork of facts, evidence, and the laws to extend legitimacy to what is evidently a gross anomaly. How else can you explain and justify setting up a judicial panel overnight and reaching a verdict the following morning? Simple. 'Even though we don't have a written judgment readily available for your perusal and review, we've been on the case in the past two weeks and decided not to move you guys along.' Really? Yes, really. Says the Chief Justice. Never in Oputa's Court. What took place was the executive branch in action, suffocating a subservient accomplice - the Bench. Granted, we have some pockets of lapses and loopholes in some of our laws and statutes, but concerning this case, it wasn't about justice or the rule of law, but a very crude mob job.
No comments:
Post a Comment
The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.