I have just finished watching the live proceedings of the ruling of this Presidential petition on NTA (Nigerian Television),   from the very beginning to the end - from 4:00 am EST to about 8:00 am -  and even recorded it for later play-back on my website www.nigerianmuse.com.  You can listen to it on:

    http://www.nigerianmuse.com/nigeriawatch/2007/Recording_of_the_February_26_Presidential_Petition_Appeals_Court_Ruling_in_Abuja_Nigeria_between_Atiku_Buhari_and_Yar_Adua_Jonathan


My first observation is outside of the substantive judgment itself, namely that the televising of the court proceeding revealed a serious deficit of magesteriality of the severely-cramped Courtroom deployed for such a serious court case as this.  To see several state governors (Akpabio of Akwa-Ibom, Oni of Ekiti, Saraki of Kwara, Alao-Akala of Oyo,  Uduaghan of Delta, Amaechi of Rivers, Egwu, formerly of Ebonyi, etc.) and ministers/officials (Kayode of Tourism, Grange of Health, Alao of Housing & Environment; even Akuniyili of NAFDAC, etc.) standing at the back of the court; to see lawyers texting on their cell-phones, and talking in low tones to each other, etc. were troubling.  But most annoyingly, to listen to the levity with which the Judge John  Afolabi Fabiyi read the judgment, treating the whole thing almost like a joke - for example, once asking whether people were tired and whether he should go on, etc. - and his weakness of pronunciation (eg pronouncing "collation" like "coalition" throughout, or "inditement" as "inditment" etc.) did not give confidence to a listener, and made me to wonder how he arrived at that awesome responsibility that he delivered with some tinges of gloating mischief.  The flourish with which Judge Fabiyi punctuated his ruling with the assertion that no cost would be awarded against the petitioners "for the sake of the nation" or something to that effect - with a gaggle of laughter from the court -  added to the mischief.

Finally, Chairman James Ogenyi Ogebe's absence entirely from the courtroom, evidently recusing himself from reading the judgment in that important case yet sending in his assent to it requires explanation, serious explanation. It was almost Pilatic.  He should have shown uncommon courage in reading the judgement, and thereby enable voice experts to maybe remotely detect tidbits of conscience-stricken-ness.  

 

Now to the substantial case ....

That NOT a single prayer or relief was granted to either Buhari or Atiku - and that the decision was UNANIMOUS, not a single dissent -  is most bizarre.  As the ruling progressed, I had thought that the judgement would be 4-1 in favor of Yar'Adua, with Ogebe tactically dissenting - but I hoped too much.  In fact, Buhari's case was destroyed almost before it started by nullifying all the depositions made before a particular Justice of the Peace who was found to be under his employment as one of his lawyers.  From then on, his case hung on a very thin thread. The irony cannot be lost on the reader who reads that technical ruling before an Ogebe court - acting  fatally on an assumption of bias without a shred of evidence.

We granted that the unfair Abia State government indictment of Yar'Adua and Jonathan was correctly disposed of in their favor, and that the issue of corrupt practices was not fully canvassed by the petitioners.  However for the Court to accept that:

  (i) the issue of no serial numbers on ballot papers was a substantial violation of the Electoral Act

  (ii)  between the nomination period and April 16, 2008, INEC indeed "placed hurdles in Atiku's way, which should not be so...", without probing that issue further;

  (iii) there was evidence that the handling of the voters' registers did not perfectly fulfill the Electoral Act;

  (iv) practice directions severely limited the taking of oral witnesses, allowing only front-loading of written documents:

and then to go ahead to state that:

  (i) the submissions of the petitioners were "plagued by want of evidence" because "documents do not speak", "averments are not evidence",  and "no witnesses were called" etc.;

  (ii) the petitioners could not "approbate and reprobate" on the issue of exclusion, since Ikimi, Obi, Lai Mohammed, etc. presented themselves   to INEC AFTER the election as agents of "Atiku, the flagbearer of the AC in the April 21 elections", etc., meaning    that Atiku was not "excluded" since exclusion means "ruled out, eliminated, etc...."  In short, the Court relied almost   solely on Atiku's agents' evidence against him here on this issue of exclusion, even though BOTH Obi and Lai Mohammed testified to exclusion BEFORE all the court proceedings began...

  (iii) these "infractions" and so-called "miniature complaints"  were "trivial...insignificant in number" and at best constituted "mild non-compliance" with the Electoral Law.

  (iv) strike out Maurice Iwu's name ENTIRELY in recognition of his person on the argument that he had already been included ex-officio as INEC Chairman;

were in many places contradictory and just very disturbing.  They indicated a troubling judical over-reach, and in many pronouncements during the judgment a comical over-reach bordering on rascality for such a serious case.

The upshot of all the above was that judgment was pronounced against Atiku and Buhari, and for Yar'Adua and Jonathan to remain as President and Vice-President.  The outcome means that the Presidential Election of April 21 was not perfect - but it was near perfect.  At least the Justices indicated that there was not substantial evidence that it was not "near perfect."

That is bizarre.

It is understandable that Counsels Wole Olanipekun (SAN, for Yar'Adua) and Joe Gadzama (SAN, for PDP) would hail the judgment as a watershed and monumental in the voyage of democracy for Nigeria, but I felt uncomfortable throughout the proceedings that the course of justice was not being served, because it appeared that both the Judges in their judgment and the Counsels later on were gloating.  That did not serve the course of reconciliation, was a missed opportunity to strengthen the hands of Yar'Adua among his understandable detractors,  and did not conform with the street knowledge of gross flaws in the April elections. When injustice is so patently asserted in the face of glaring facts, even if the courts say - or imply - that their hands are tied by lack of evidence and  through technicalities, then that presents a serious problem. 

So I identify with Ricky Tarfa (SAN, Atiku's lawyer) who indicated before the Justices that he did not agree with the judgment and that his clients would seek further justice.  I identify with Mike Ahamba (SAN, Buhari's lawyer) who, lapsing bitterly to a cultural idiom,  implied in an ever-so-brief statement that the Justices should search their respective "bags of conscience" - before abruptly resuming his seat. 

Wole Olanipekun returned - after his initial thanks - to throw a stink bomb into the court by bringing in the relevant "irrelevance": of the recommendation of the elevation of the Chairman Ogebe to the Supreme Court just days to this judgment.  He indicated that the insinuations were uncalled for.  Only he believes that, and like Johnnie Cochran after O J Simpson's case, Awe Wole cannot be entirely happy.  I assert that that elephant in the temple of justice will not be moved, that clear feeling of impropriety and importuning, the suborning of a major officer required to administer justice.  Justice should not only be done, but even its appearance of being done should be above board.  As Mike Ahamba under-stated in a short but angst-ridden interview with an NTA reporter afterwards, the justices might have actually VIOLATED their oaths of office when they ruled about lack of oral witnesses when in fact he had PLEADED in vain for a number of oral witnesses, no matter how limited.

Also outside the court, Buhari CLEARLY stated that he would be proceeding to the Supreme Court - and so should he.

We have now heard from Atiku,  that he will appeal to the Supreme Court.  That is as expected, for his victories  there in numerous previous cases should clearly motivate him accordingly.

On the whole, Compatriots, this is a sad day for justice in Nigeria.  It is NOT just the outcome of the rulings, but the WHOLE manner of the proceedings today - its un-magesteriality, the comicality and comedy, the levity attending the proceedings presided over by Justice Fabiyi -  and then the REASONS adduced for the rulings that make it sad.  When you couple it with the Ogebe elevation saga, his absence from court, the unanimity of the ruling, and all the rumors leading up to this judgment, one cannot but be saddened, and would only hope that the Supreme Court would in some way redeem the newly-battered image of the Judiciary.  That is one silver lining.

There was another silver lining:  a pronouncement in passing during the judgement that forensic analysis of ballots would be admissible to determine concern about authenticity of ballots.  That should make the petitioners in the outstanding cases in Osun State (Aregbesola against Oyinlola),  Edo State (Oshiomhole against Osunbor) and my Ekiti State (Fayemi against Oni) to be happy indeed,  even though those South-Western cases, along with Ondo State (Mimiko against Agagu) - have experienced a curious delay that can and should be speeded up now. 

There you have it - and we shall see where and how all this ends.

 

PS: For an earlier related article, please see:

http://www.nigerianmuse.com/essays/SATURDAY_ESSAY_Why_Nigeria_s_2007_Presidential_Election_will_be_Canceled_on_Super_Tuesday_Or_Should_Be