The case may as well rest with the final verdict by the Supreme Court upholding Yar’adua’s election. But the circumstances and the sincerity of the whole episodes may for long linger in the minds of ordinary Nigerians; those whom by some bold decisions of the apex court to correct some fundamental wrongs suggested justly wrong that same may be with the presidential election appeal.
The case may as well rest with the final verdict by the Supreme Court upholding Yar’adua’s election. But the circumstances and the sincerity of the whole episodes may for long linger in the minds of ordinary Nigerians; those whom by some bold decisions of the apex court to correct some fundamental wrongs suggested justly wrong that same may be with the presidential election appeal.
Curious enough, the Supreme Court in it's own wisdom have chosen to differ in opinion and verdict with the rest of the world, by allowing the biggest electoral wrong on earth to stand ostensibly for want of evidence under the guise of technical justice. What was more controversial was apart from the size of the dissenting minority, is the caliber of the majority judges. For when the name of the Supreme Court rings; Kutigi, Niki Tobi, Dahiru Musdapher and Katsina-Alu stand atop the judicial ladder; as learned Justices of wisdom.
They were the architect of some landmark judgments against some acts of tyranny and unfavorable decisions of the then expiring regime of Olusegun Obasanjo. They courageously sacked Andy Uba and Omehia, reinstated Obi, Ladoja and Dariye. They restored dignity to the apex court and revived people’s confidence in the judiciary. However, there failure to correct this electoral wrong inflicted on us and our nation by a cabal clique may erode whatever that was left in them of integrity. That single verdict in the face of cogent evidences and compendium of facts has unintentionally endorsed electoral irregularity and may further urge politicians to seek redress outside the hallowed chamber and go the way of Kenya .
In his lead judgment; Justice Niki Tobi, conscience-stricken, played the defensive and the emotional by saying, ‘justices would not succumb to media and internet blackmails in giving judgment. The supreme court does not give judgment base upon public opinion’. He went further to discredit the appeal by saying, ‘how can the court of appeal or this court determine the illegality of the ballot paper without seeing one in court.’ This only seems to contradict his earlier statements that says,’ I verily believe that the ballot papers used for the conduct of the elections were illegal and not cognizable under the electoral act, 2006.’ How comes he concluded that way. Justice Tobi often punctuates his judgment with ‘can the appellant say in reality he proved his case?’ as if he was a defendant to Yar’adua submitting his closing argument. This impartiality was exposed by justice Oguntade in his minority judgment by saying “the reasons for the court below appear to be curious. They proceeded on the basis that the elections conducted with ballot papers unauthorized by law was valid; and then turned around to ask the petitioner/appellant to prove that the same election was invalid for non compliance. They unwittingly put the cart before the horse. That was a strange way to reason for a court.’ Justice Oguntade’s reason was simple, ‘ a court could not first assume that a disputed act was valid and then place on the plaintiff the onus of proving the invalidity of such act when was what in dispute was the constitutive elements of which would lead to the pronouncement of the validity of the Act..’ It was tantamount to acquitting a confessed thief and asking the owner to prove his case. The minority judgment exposed another error in the verdict by reasoning that; ‘for when a provision of the law requires an act to be performed before taking further steps and that the act is not performed, the further steps taking may amount in law to a nullity.’ And since the law requires that ballot papers be serialized and bind in to booklet and that was not done, any action that follows it which in this case was the election is null and void. The minority judgment expatiates further that ‘ when ballot papers are not serialized and bound as required by law, the principle of transparency in election is compromise and the election no matter how otherwise properly conducted loses credibility.’ This according to Justice Oguntade is because ‘the numbers on them represent the signature if INEC vouching for their authenticity. It is akin to a signature on a bank cheque. No bank would honor an unsigned cheque’. Therefore what was in contention was not the legality or otherwise of the winning votes figure rather the illegality of the whole process that produced the said figures. Since unserialized ballots are legally fake electoral materials and ballot papers convert to votes, the votes are as well fake and inadmissible. Hence no genuine vote was cast in the April sham and the whole candidates recorded nil. This is the fundamental issue on which the election will never stand. Yet the court went ahead to say that those invalid votes were valid and Buhari should contest or deny the validity of the illegal-ballots-turned-valid votes. How controversial! Ordinarily, no court of justice should uphold that. For the judiciary is but a bank of justice that honors nothing illegal or invalid. By doing the opposite, the bank of justice is declared bankrupt because its principal officers have taken justice to an altar of sentiment for political sacrifice.
The judgment is a clear endorsement for electoral fraud that is being overseen by Maurice Iwu. The court dwelled from non compliance to substantiating, from evidence deposition to witness testimony, trying to extract one technical flaw or the other to discredit the well presented appeal. It declared an electoral emergency on the nation with a psychic curfew on the masses not to vote again. But whoever come across a ballot paper in the next election should help us preserve one so that the Justices ‘might see one in court’ and subsequently annul the election. Whatever, we make bold to ask how bankrupt is the bank of justice? Perhaps the revolutionaries may know the size of a bail out. For we cannot continue this way; Things have to change.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
By Ahmed M.. Hussein
Ahmed M.. Hussein writes from the Faculty of Medicine, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. And can be reached via [email protected]
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });