Lat Wednesday’s Tribunal Verdict has taught the litigants, attorneys and politicians some profound lessons. President Bola Tinubu was declared the victor of the disputed presidential election held on February 25, but the judgement of the Presidential Elections Petitions Tribunal still has an impact and is remembered today.
Reactions on Social Media
In the 12-hour judgement issued last Wednesday, the five-member panel had declared the petitions of Atiku and Obi null and void. Justice Haruna Tsammani presided over the tribunal with assistance from Justices Stephen Adah, Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Moses Ugo, and Abba Mohammed. However, Atiku and Obi both disapproved with the ruling and pledged to appeal it to the Supreme Court.
Intense discussions and conflicting reactions have resulted from the judgement among Nigerians, particularly on social media. People still frequently express their feelings on the court’s ruling in public. Following the verdict, some naughty social media trolls posted the five justices’ private information and called them insults.
Obi undoubtedly gained many supporters as a result of his captivating campaign in the previous election, but if the Supreme Court’s decision did not go as expected, they might still reject it.
It was fascinating to observe the many defences advanced by the justices before reaching a decision in the case. For instance, Justice Bolaji-Yusuf did not mince words when she pointed out the flaws in the petitioners’ arguments and informed them that it was not the court’s responsibility to find evidence on behalf of the parties.
“They didn’t even try to present this court with such credible proof. Were they anticipating that the court would go collect proof from the market or the street, or also to be scared or convinced by threats made on social media? That is not how the court operates,” she remarked. The petitioners’ claim that the Independent National Electoral Commission merely shut down or disabled its result-viewing webpage in order to rig the election results in favour of the second respondent, Tinubu, was likewise rejected by Justice Ugo.
Ugo, who was amused, questioned whether the claim made in the election petitions was “even worthy of belief.” The judge was dissatisfied that the “two sets of petitioners did not by any means discharge the burden on them of proving that the results of the presidential election of February 25, 2023, as declared by 1st respondent, were incorrect.” In any case, he questioned, “Why did either of the two sets of petitioners fail to provide even a single polling unit result issued by INEC to their polling unit agents to support their claim of manipulation of election results by INEC, even though they all admitted that they have agents in the polling units?”
Justice Mohammed had a similar opinion when he claimed that the petitioners had neglected to specify how many votes had been impacted and how many persons had been denied the right to vote, as Atiku and Obi had claimed in their petitions. He added that it was inconceivable that a petitioner would claim widespread rigging in the Federal Capital Territory, 36 states, 774 local government areas, over 8,000 wards, and 176,000 polling places without identifying the precise location of the claimed abnormalities.
Position of the FCT
The position of the FCT and the contested assertion that the election winner must receive 25% of the vote in the capital of the country may have shocked many political commentators and those who have been closely following the legal drama. According to Justice Tsammani, neither the electorates in the FCT nor the electorates in other parts of the nation were special. Neither was the capital city superior to a state. “Nothing more than that; the FCT is not superior to a state,” the panel’s chairperson remarked.
Despite what many observers saw as the judgment’s significant addition to national law, Atiku and Obi’s camps argued that the tribunal had not done justice.
According to Dele Momodu, Director of Strategic Communications for the Atiku/Okowa Presidential Campaign Council, the court “brazenly and deliberately” flipped the Constitution on its head.
Momodu thought, however, that people of good conscience would look past the verdict because they knew “Nigeria shall be free.” Aisha Yesufu, a social rights advocate and Obi’s supporter in the Labour Party, declared she would never consider Tinubu for president.
Tribunal Verdict: Was There a Tangible Proof?
Jerrymusa.com reports that Political observers and attorneys, however, pointed out that the various responses to the ruling were inevitable. Dr. Alada Mohammed, a political scientist at the University of Ilorin, said that the opinions expressed by a cross-section of Nigerians were normal, but added that the justices would only base their decision on the facts presented to them.
But I think the judiciary has done well by stating the truth, said Mohammed. The fact that our judiciary in Nigeria does not produce evidence on its own is one fundamental problem that affects the outcome of judgements. It will make a decision based on the petitioner(s)’ submission(s). They won’t hunt for evidence on anyone’s behalf, as the judges stated. It’s likely that the result will differ somewhere else.
“Once more, you shouldn’t base your case on rumours or what other people say. Even if the proof is not in black and white, it must be tangible. That is the appeal of effectively completing your own schoolwork.
The burden of proof falls on you when you have a case, therefore you must go above and beyond. Those in Nigeria should learn from this. He continued, “Disputes about presidential election outcomes have always existed. However, the 2023 presidential election case is unique in that it involves two excellent candidates who vociferously petitioned the judiciary to seek the annulment of the election. In light of our electoral system, that says a lot.
Nigerians share their views
Rotimi Jacobs, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, argued that the tribunal judgement was just and bemoaned the way certain naughty individuals mocked the justices on social media soon after the verdict was handed out. The media frenzy, excessive publicity, and differing perspectives from Nigerians, particularly politicians, on a case that is in court, in my opinion, are not good for our democracy.
This particular tribunal judgement has been made and is applicable to everyone. People need to exercise caution because of how they are undermining the judiciary. “This is the first time I’ve seen someone mention that (Babatunde) Fashola was drafting a judgement for the tribunal on social media. What sort of nonsense is this? Why should we allow our society to deteriorate to this point? It is not beneficial to us.
Another is the regrettable idea of posting images of those judges on social media and in places of worship where specific pastors have been seen praying against them in some go-viral films, he said.
Jacobs cautioned against jumping to conclusions by pointing out that some of the tribunal’s concerns had already been resolved by the court in prior election petition cases.
Highlights of the Case
He highlighted the case of the double nomination, which, according to him, the Supreme Court had previously resolved. “I think we should try to balance whatever is our political interest with national interest,” the senior attorney stated. Some matters have already been resolved by the Supreme Court. Kashim Shettima’s dual nomination as vice president is one of them.
Why bring it up once more and cause conflict? Those who are not solicitors will begin to believe these are actual problems. We are all aware that Oyetola v. Adeleke’s dispute has been resolved. Why would any competent attorney file a new lawsuit? This is why I believe that we should all value nationalism. It is past time for us to quit identifying as Yoruba, Igbo, or Hausa people. We are exerting too much unnecessary anxiety over unimportant matters.
They (Atiku and Obi) have the right to appeal the Tribunal judgement because it is sound. A criticism of the justices is inappropriate. On social media, I’ve noticed several people pursuing them once more. The Supreme Court is available if you’re unhappy with a decision. However, Dr. Monday Ubani, a human rights attorney and the head of the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law, disagreed with the ruling.
The Supreme Court Judgment May Differ
According to Ubani, there are some murky areas that ought to be grounds for an appeal, and he hopes the Supreme Court would look into them. “I hope the matter will still be resolved at the Supreme Court,” he stated. If you disregard practically all of the witness testimony in that same judgement, even if they were witnesses who had been subpoenaed, there is no proof. Whether the witnesses’ comments were properly withheld should also be a basis for an appeal.
The Supreme Court will still have to make a decision on this. If we say that judgement should stand, especially in light of INEC’s election instructions for transferring results, I don’t think we’ve made any progress with our electoral act. However, INEC only offered one justification for the presidential election’s errors. The governorship, Senate, and House of Representatives polls did not show it. I find it surprising that the court said nothing about it. Instead, it congratulated INEC for performing so well because, in their opinion, INEC made no promises.
INEC and the BVAS Controversy
According to Punch, Ubani was angry about the Tribunal judgement because IT allegedly refused to hold the INEC accountable for failing to submit the election results electronically as promised before the vote. The promise of electronic results transmission and the usage of BVAS attracted many voters, he continued. “Meanwhile, we spent billions of naira on conducting the elections. These innovations are fantastic. If they later claim that these innovations are no longer valid and are not recognised by law, our nation’s voting process would have to start over from scratch. What motivated the spending of all those billions, then?