Scathing public criticisms have continued to trail the written address presented by the APC lawyers at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC). It is common knowledge that President Bola Tinubu failed to score 25 per cent of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, in the last February 25 Presidential election, as required by section 134 of the Electoral Act 2022. Despite the failure to satisfy this requirement, the INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu (who allegedly is currently under investigation for how he spent over $50 million in donations from the U.S. and the European Union in organizing the most fraudulent election in Nigerian political history), rushed out in the night while Nigerians were still asleep to announce Tinubu as the purported winner of the February 25 Presidential election.
However, in their written address rounding off their entire defense before the PEPC, learned counsel for President Tinubu submitted that any interpretation of section 134 to the effect that Tinubu must score 25 per cent of the votes cast in the FCT to become President is, inter alia, a recipe for chaos and anarchy in Nigeria. In summary, President Tinubu’s lawyers argued that any interpretation of section 134 requiring Tinubu to score 25 per cent in the FCT would “lead to absurdity, chaos, anarchy, and an alteration of the very intention of the legislature.”
In denouncing the statement as cheap judicial blackmail and a threat to the rule of law, some Nigerians argue that it is a pre-emptive move by the APC to intimidate the PEPC to deliver judgment in its favor. In their reaction, the PDP stated among other things: “The statement by the lawyers in the said written address, threatening crisis and anarchy in the country in the event of the court ruling that their clients did not meet the Constitutionally required 25% votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), is subversive, an affront to democratic order, and an assault on the corporate existence of the nation…the threats, either through counsel or officials of the APC, are calculated to intimidate and harass the judiciary and indeed Nigerians…The APC must, therefore, respect the provisions of the law and allow the judiciary to discharge its duties independently, without threats, intimidation, and coercion.”
Without delving into the merits or demerits of Peter Obi & others V INEC & others and Atiku & others V INEC & others, since these cases are still sub-judice, may I respectfully say that it is very unfortunate that Tinubu’s lawyers should utter such contemptuous, disrespectful, and derogatory statements capable of bringing the entire judiciary into public odium. It is sad that the Nigerian judiciary has been constituted into an object of derision by some learned Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) who ought to labor to maintain the prestige of the judiciary.
For example, not long ago, a lawyer in the law firm of a very respectable Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) telephoned their would-be client, telling them that their law firm never loses any law case in court and that most Nigerian judges are more or less in the bidding of their law firm. Imagine the arrogance. Sadly enough, till date, no disciplinary action has been brought against the SAN or his law firm. Where is the much-vaunted ethics guiding the practice of law? Where is the ingrained tradition of the Bar dictating that lawyers should be singled out from the rot by their candor, decency, gentility, and ethics?
No lawyer or group of lawyers representing their client in court should give the impression that they are omnipotent and omniscient and that everything that falls off their mouth is the correct position of the law. Only God is omnipotent and omniscient. Like all mortals, lawyers also have their feet of clay. In the temple of justice, no lawyer is infallible, in the same way, it could be said that no judge is infallible. This was why Justice Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa (of blessed memory) reiterated the famous quotation in the landmark case of Adegoke Motors vs. Adesanya, “We are final not because we are infallible; rather, we are infallible because we are final.” So, lawyers appearing before the court should live in self-effacement in representing their clients in court.
As officers in the temple of justice, they should refrain from prosecuting their clients’ cases with misplaced over-zealousness to the detriment or scuttling of justice. Their duty to the court is to assist the court in presenting facts and adducing the necessary evidence, which could aid the court in arriving at substantial justice.
Consequently, I respectfully urge the PEPC to ignore the aforesaid offensive portion of the written address of APC lawyers. To begin with, the Supreme Court has held that a written address does not take the place of evidence. Curiously, during the trial, the APC lawyers kept on saying that they would adduce legal reasons why they objected to the numerous documents tendered in court. Paradoxically, rather than adduce such reasons in their written address, they were making conjectural ad hominem arguments that appealed to sentiments and emotions. Anyway, cases are not even won in court on the brilliance of a written address but the brilliance of evidence. In other words, no matter how brilliant a written address is, it cannot take the place of evidence.
Therefore, the PEPC should not be deterred by any open or veiled threat contained in any written address. The essence of the legal system is justice. Justice denied is judiciary aborted. Therefore, the PEPC should not be afraid of doing substantial justice in the election petitions before it. “Fiat justicia ruat coelum” (Let justice be done though the heaven fail).
Judges are called good because of their justice. Without justice, it will be impossible to promote societal aims. “Remove Justice,” said Saint Augustine, “what are kingdoms but great robberies.” For Justice Chukwudifu Oputa (of blessed memory): “Injustice breeds intolerance, violence, and social disorder; in the same way, justice brings along with it the blessings of peace and mutual understanding.” Small wonder Cicero praises justice to high heavens by stating that “the brightest of virtues shines above all in justice.” So, contrary to the threats of Tinubu’s lawyers, justice does not lead to chaos and anarchy in society. Rather, justice, as Justice Oputa stated, breeds blessings and peace.
The so-called Nigerian question revolves around the failure to do justice. If every Nigerian is given his or her due in the scheme of things in Nigeria, there would probably be fewer social discontent and social strife in Nigeria. So, the PEPC should do substantial justice in the cases currently before it. It should not be afraid to do what has not been before in Nigeria. The law is an ass. If, for example, the Petitioners have proved that President Tinubu did not meet the requirements of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, the PEPC should courageously come to that conclusion without any equivocation, no matter whose ox is gored. Nobody is above the law of the land.
The PEPC should be reminded that it is the cynosure of all eyes at the moment. The whole world is looking at the PEPC to do substantial justice in the election petitions before it. Therefore, the PEPC cannot afford to disappoint the whole world. The PEPC should remember that it is accountable to the Nigerian people, not to any political party, let alone any presidential candidate, in terms of its overall performance and in meeting the justice needs of the people in a timely and efficient manner. It must, therefore, interpret the law in a way that fulfills the needs and aspirations of the Nigerian people, as envisioned in sections 13, 14 (1)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the 1999 Constitution. It must not only dispense justice but must also be seen by the anxious public to manifestly dispense justice. This is why Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England, laid down the dictum in the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256, that “it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The essence of the need for justice to be manifestly seen to be done was observed by Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, in Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon when he stated: “Justice must be rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased.'” To date, the public constantly refers to Imo State Governor Hope Uzodinma, who came fourth in the last Imo State Gubernatorial Election, as the “Supreme Court governor” because they feel that the Supreme Court was wrong in imposing him on the people of Imo State.
Therefore, the PEPC must brave all odds and endeavor to do substantial justice in the election petitions before it. Until now, the judgments of the Supreme Court, especially its recent ruling in the high-profile political cases of Ihedioha V Hope Uzodinma, Lawan V Machina, and Godswill Agbabio V Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and others, are understandably attracting strong, passionate, and scathing public criticisms. Members of the public are holding their heads in shame and stating that justice has departed from the Supreme Court, and all that is left in that Court are open robberies. Their hope in the Supreme Court as the bulwark of justice and an unbiased arbiter in the causes of the citizenry, amid the balkanizing influence of corrupt politicians and public figures, rightly or wrongly, seems to be shattered. In a nutshell, the confidence of the public in the Supreme Court as the last hope of the common man has considerably and regrettably waned.
The international community is disappointed that the Nigerian Supreme Court Justices is slavishly adhering to technical legalisms and formalism at the expense of substantial justice. This is why seven members of Nigeria’s Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Olukayode, have been issued a visa ban by the United States government following their judgments in the aforementioned cases. While not rationalizing the visa ban because the U.S has no right to dictate to our Supreme Court the manner in which to deliver their judgments, the visa ban speaks volumes about the social stigma and public opprobrium in which judges (and, in fact, members of their respective families) suffer when they deliver unjust and inequitable judgments.
Therefore, the PEPC judges should save themselves and their respective families from excoriating public criticisms and social stigmas associated with delivering unjust and iniquitous court judgments. They should adorn the breastplate of integrity, transparency, discipline, impartiality, and honor in the discharge of their duty to enhance judicial efficacy and efficiency and to bolster public confidence in the Nigerian judiciary.