William Shakespeare opined that there is no act to read a man’s mind construction on his face. I align myself to this stand. I am not a witch and therefore unable to know the outcome of their meetings. One has to contend with the activities of man in broad daylight. To this end, I will not seek to read the judge’s mind’s constructions on his face and or seek to give the agenda of witches of which I assumed he is not one.
In relation to the Presidential Election Tribunal of which this article is meant to provide a narrative, one remembers an American Jurist who said “if the law is on your side, shout about the law, if not on your side, but the facts, shout about the facts and if neither is on your side pound the table” I assume as either the facts and or the law is not on the side of the losing petitioners, they pound on behalf of witches.
If there are impeachable grounds of the judgement by all means elucidate on them. The evidence adduced, the timing of their presentation and the governing laws including the evidence act which constraints the quality of evidence acceptable to the court. Moreover, precedents set by superior courts on matters arising. The conduct of the court itself, the litigants and us Nigerians.
I had sought to see these proceedings through the lens of my own professional experience without Nigeria and determined it was unhelpful to my own understanding but to read the judgement through the prism of Nigeria legal systems. That is the only standard to be used in any reasonable analysis of these proceedings.
Osunbor won the governorship election in Edo state in 2007 and it took about eighteen months for Oshiomole to overturn that election. In one of Buhari’s appeals, the tenure of the president was almost coming to an end for the Supreme Court to reach its decision that he had lost both the elections and his appeal. This is the background to current electoral act which places strict time restrictions on litigation of appeals.
You have 21 days from declaration to appeal to present your full appeal. No matter arising is allowed following your initial submission. The documentations following elections are in triplicate, one copy to INEC, to polling agents of the parties and the police. So if you allege disputation of the polls, and you are relying on polls documentation, INEC is not your only source. And in any event, if there are obstacles in obtaining verifications from appropriate authorities, the high court is available to obtaining immediate relief. These are to be done within 21 days.
What you can’t do which is what the Labour Party lawyers did was attempt to further better their case outside of the 21 days. All and any evidence so incurred will be dismissed as so dismissed in their case. Seeking to obtain verification documents and witness statements from INEC’s Chairman Yakubu outside of the 21 days is and was injurious to the matter before the Tribunal.
The evidence act, electoral act were not put in place just post the elections, they were in place at least one year to the election. Therefore ignorance of the law can’t be tolerated. No new law or new precedent set in the course of this litigation.
The politics of the occasion favour the Labour Party but this is a legal matter with rules and defining framework and Nigerian jurisprudence simply not equipped to handle. We have no Lord Denning to push the envelope of legal development. We have a very restrictive and conservative legal system and the Labour Party was aware of the judicial process before subjecting itself to it. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
The mischief the electoral act sought to cure has now thrown up another set of questions. The presumption of regularity placed on INEC by previous court judgments is inhibiting proper consideration of the apparent flaws of this body. The case management by tribunals leave much to be desired. Why were the flaws of Labour Party submissions not attended at the evidential hearing rather than at judgment. Why admit 10 witnesses only to dismiss 8 of them as not complying to evidence act being witnesses after the fact of 21 days of submissions of cases.
The lawyers to the Labour Party appear to me conducting general litigation case in an electoral matter case where the rules are different. To this end it was legal malpractice.
The judges were not better and soured the victory of the victorious parties. They became litigants in person and acting without the brief of the Respondents. They came into the arena to punch the Petitioner’s lawyers seeking to rub in faces, they own belief of their superior minds. This is of course characteristic of the average Nigerian and these are Nigerians, what does one expect in the circumstances. I was left with a sour taste in my gut. Their delivery was unashamingly partisan. Unfortunate for such an occasion rather than a beer parlour.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 