The Commerce Africa African Reneissance
Related Articles
Senior lawyers yesterday backed the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal’s verdict affirming the victory of President BolaTinubu saying it was legally sound.
Those, who spoke included Dr. Joseph Nwobike (SAN) and Dr. Fassy Yusuf.
Nwobike said the PEPT’s judgment agrees with the established principles of law that govern election litigations in the country.
He noted, however, that parties who are dissatisfied with the decision are at liberty to proceed to the Supreme Court to test the Tribunal’s judgment.
Already, the Labour Party (LP) has rejected the panel’s decision.
Nwobike said: “The learned justices on the tribunal’s Bench examined and resolved all the issues of law and fact in favour of the Respondents after considering the evidence led and the applicable laws.
“For instance, the tribunal decided that the second respondent was qualified to contest the presidential election and that the order for forfeiture made by the Court in Illinois, United States (U.S.) was not a conviction within the contemplation of the provisions of section 137 of the Constitution of Nigeria.
“The tribunal held that the petitioners failed to prove that the President was convicted in the U.S as alleged in their respective petitions. The Tribunal equally decided that INEC has the discretion on how to transmit election results.
“In my view, the judgement accords with the established principles of law that govern and underpin election litigations in Nigeria. I believe that the parties will proceed to the Supreme Court to test the decisions of the Tribunal. I will encourage all the parties and their supporters to abide by the decisions of the courts in this and all regards.”
Dr. Yusuf’s views were similar. The judges, he said, did a commendable job.
Yusuf said: “From the judgment, it goes beyond every iota of doubt that we have a judiciary that we can all be proud of in this country.
“I must commend the sagacity, the industry and the mastery of the law exhibited by the Justice of the Court of Appeal in the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC). With patience and delivery of three judgments lasting for over 12 hours, to my mind, is unprecedented.
“Fundamentally, the judgments are pointers to the desirability for lawyers to be dexterous and to be great professionals in handling briefs.”
He admonished lawyers to be circumspect about the kinds of briefs they collect.
Dr. Yusuf said: “Some briefs are ab initio frivolous, vexatious and dead on arrival. We the legal practitioners must be circumspect in handling such matters. In our own interest, that is in the legal profession, in the interest of society and the interest of the nation, we must be patriotic and nationalistic.
“Not all briefs are worth being considered. We all now know that there are politicians who mean well and those who do not mean well for this country.
“Legal practitioners must not see any brief as an opportunity to go to court or as an opportunity to make money.
“The society should be seen to be bigger than any one of us and this nation needs to move forward. I hope this will end election cases from the last general elections. Otherwise, they would have to go to the Supreme Court and I hope they would not be dissipating energy.”
But another SAN, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, called for “sober reflection” saying the judgment showed how difficult it is to upturn an election victory.
In his view, the law makes it practically impossible for a petitioner to upturn a presidential election result in court.
Adegboruwa, in a statement, said: “The verdict of the PEPC was not totally unexpected, given the stark realities facing us as a nation and the state of the law.
“The principles of presumption of regularity of elections and that of substantial conformity make it extremely difficult to prosecute elections successfully.
In this particular case, the burden placed upon the petitioners in order to upturn the election was practically insurmountable. To make matters worse, INEC practically fought the petitioners to a standstill, as if it was an interested party in the whole process.
“I honestly don’t think anyone expected a different verdict from what was delivered in Abuja, particularly the lawyers. The tension was completely unnecessary.”
The lawyer emphasised always that the focus of anyone hoping to birth a true change in the country’s electoral history “should be on the electoral umpire.”
He called for a truly independent INEC.
Adegboruwa said: “Without first unbundling INEC to make it more independent, non-partisan and effective, anyone declared ‘winner’ will most often coast to victory in the election tribunal.
“Today’s (Wednesday’s) verdict should be a reason for sober reflection by all, especially for the parties in court, their lawyers and all lovers of democracy. The petitions could have been decided purely on points of law and within a few days of the election.
“There can be no real victory in the resolution of the legal issues by the court when the fabric of our democratic engagements seems to have been hijacked and compromised.
“Part of the lesson in this process is for us to go back and review the electoral process and the litigations following it. INEC as it is presently constituted cannot birth any credible election in Nigeria.
“In all, maybe there was too much expectation that the status quo will be upturned, whereas many of the principles of law canvased had long been settled by the apex court.”
He urged all parties to tow the path of peace.
“While encouraging all parties to continue in towing the paths already defined by law for the ventilation of grievances, we owe Nigeria an urgent duty to dismantle INEC, urgently,” Adegboruwa said.
