Welcome to Part 2
The PEPT Judgement has been described by neutral legal minds from other jurisdictions as a judgment not based on law, facts and evidence pleaded and adduced but on innuendos sprinkled with implicit bias.
– A rogue judgement is one in which the adjudicator would usually frame the wrong issue. The forefeiture argument against APC’s candidate at the PEPT sat squarely within section 137(1)(d), specifically as canvassed by the Lawyers but in order to conflate it with section 137(1)(e) which talks about “ convicted” and “ ten years”, Justices of the court of appeal framed the issue around section 137 broadly, instead of framing it around 137(1)(d) specifically blurring the specificity of that issue.
– Same with APM’s case on double/invalid nomination. Nomination and sponsorship were unilaterally declared Pre-election matters by the PEPT when the constitution says otherwise. In section 285(14) where the constitution lists pre-election matters it uses the words ‘ASPIRANTS’. The constitution further mentions ‘CANDIDATE’ in the same section lending credence to the fact that the framers of the constitution understand that there is a difference between ‘Aspirants’ and ‘Candidates.’ The Electoral act 2022 went further to define both words in section 152.
How the word ASPIRANT became a blanket that covers both aspirants and candidates is befuddling. If Justices of the court of appeal cannot differentiate between the words ‘candidate’ and ‘aspirant’ then it becomes obvious they have been promoted beyond their station and this portends even graver danger for our system.
– At the Kano Tribunal, we see a clear departure from the ‘WISE’ words of Justice Mistura, where she mentioned that the tribunal cannot go into the market place to look for evidence for the petitioners. Yet, in Kano we see the Judges in their full regalia descend into the market place for their preferred petitioner and checking even the gutters too for evidence. The fact that the unstamped ballots tendered by the APC were not listed POLLING UNIT by POLLING UNIT seemed not to matter anymore since the petitioners were of the APC stock.
All of a sudden the Justices remembered The law is that where there are credible Documentary Evidence, there is little or no need for oral evidence unlike the position their colleagues took at the PEPT. Then the Judges use of uncouth words like GANG OF RED CAP WEARERS, BANDITS IN POLITICS to describe the KWANKWASIYYA MOVEMENT which the respondents belong to. They even went as far as likening them to a VIOLENT and TERRORIST CULT. They also used phrases like ‘WHERE A PARTY PURPORT TO HAVE HIS EYES ON THE JUDICIARY AND REMOVE SAME FROM HIS CASE…YOU ABANDONED YOUR CASE AND CONCENTRATED ON DISTRACTING YOURSELF BY HAVING YOUR JAUNDICED EYE ON JUDICIARY.’
This words being uttered by Judges would make the sane and ordinary Nigerians wonder if biased motor park touts have not invaded our Judiciary already. What is next in the hall of infamy? a Justice Oluomo?
– In Enugu tribunal’s judgement on PG 103-109: the court was of the view that although Mbah attached his NYSC Certificate to Form EC9 and submitted/presented it to INEC, but because he did not fill the NYSC Certificate in the form EC9, he didn’t intend to use it to aid his qualification to be Governor.
The constitution is clear on the presentation of a forged certificate (even if its a vocational training certificate or share certificate) to INEC being a ground for disqualification
READ ALSO : The JUDICIARY WILL BURN NIGERIA by MissPearls – Part 1
The disingenuous attempt of the Judges to insert Mensrea (Intent) is akin to pasting a Mercedes Benz Logo on a Toyota Car. Their going further to pronounce that to prove forgery you MUST attach the original certificate when the issuing authority NYSC already clarified that the original certificate was destroyed is nothing short of shifting the goalpost in the middle of the football match when it’s apparent the petitioners will score a goal.
They also discountenanced the oral and documentary evidence from Labour Party because Labour Party witnesses in Enugu who testified that what INEC entered into from EC8B was different from from form EC8A were not accredited agents of Labour Party. This is akin to cutting off a man’s leg and asking him to walk.
-In Lagos we could see obvious injustice and a rehearsed repeat of the Enugu state scenario when the judge cited that the forged certificate presented by Sanwoolu was not a ground for qualification and disqualification under section 177 and 182(1)j. This is in flagrant disregard to the constitution in 182(1)(j) which states that you should be disqualified if you’ve presented a forged certificate to INEC.
The more shocking one was when in Rhode-Vivour’s case, which is a straightforward one revolving around Oath of allegiance where Sanwoolu’s deputy governor Hamzat admitted to having sworn an oath of allegiance to the USA, the Judges turned it to a question about citizenship which was never mentioned just so that they could rule in favour of their anointed APC.
-In Plateau State, four PDP National Assembly members were sacked based on invalid nomination ‘DUE TO LACK OF STRUCTURE’ this is against the standard set by their colleagues at the PEPT that nomination is a pre election matter and despite the confirmation of their colleague Judges of a presence of structure for the PDP in the same state for another set of HOR members.
– At the presidential election tribunal, INEC was given a pat on the back for botching an electoral process they requested so much money for, made firm commitments to Nigerians, plus breaking all the promises and representations made locally and internationally.
Not even so much as a reprimand from our honorable Justices. Justices were also seen to be displaying open bias, love and affection in favour of Lawyers of the APC. Justice Bolaji specifically declared that Wole Olanipekun SAN who was representing a side in the tribunal’s hearing had the Interest of Nigeria at heart.
– We have also heard from other tribunals across the country Judges striking out witness statements on oath for frivolous reasons like not voting on Election Day and other spurious reasons.
– These judgements make it seem like of majority of the Judges on the tribunals have lost sight of Justice. Rumours abound that they even lobby to be placed on election tribunals as they are seen as money making ventures.
– To add to the aforementioned, the news that petitioners must deposit the princely sum of 1 million naira only before they can even lodge their petitions at the tribunal is also worrisome. A poor petitioner cannot afford this. Is this a barrier to prevent people from accessing Justice or a pointer that Justice is for sale?
– It is worrisome that for elections which are indexed to substantial compliance (where the bar of what constitutes substantial is subject to discretion) the election petition tribunals subject petitioners to strict compliance with a maze of processes, rules and regulations where the smallest errors are given fatal outcomes and technicalities are promoted over and above substantive issues and evidences are struck out on the flimsiest of excuses.
– It would also appear that the Judges sitting on the tribunals have no knowledge, feign ignorance or are deliberately mischievous and willful about the ills the electoral act 2022 was supposed to cure with its technological innovations.