AGF should create an economy out of the prisons system —Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN

Dr Joseph Nwobike, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), has a wide range of experience in his 31 years at the Bar and has left his legal footprints in various industries; he drafted and managed the legislative advocacy that led to the enactment of Chartered Institute of Local Government And Public Administration of Nigeria Act, No.1, 2017 and is the lead partner of a multi-disciplinary law firm. He is acclaimed to be the first legal practitioner to singlehandedly build a Bar centre for any branch of the NBA in Rivers State. In this interview with YEJIDE GBENGA-OGUNDARE, he shares his thoughts on the PEPT judgment and assignment before the new AGF.

 

What are your expectations from the new Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice?

The new Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, is one of the most experienced lawyers in Nigeria today. I was very happy when he was named the Attorney-General for the Federation. I am certain that he would bring his wealth of knowledge gathered over the years to bear. As he posited during his screening exercise at the Senate, I believe he would make meaningful changes to the justice delivery sector in Nigeria. I also believe that, giving his huge standing in the law community, he will receive the much needed cooperation from the law community to succeed. I will urge Nigerians to be patient with his office as changes take time to become evident in societies like ours.

One significant area which I will advise him to look at is the area of abuse of investigative and prosecutorial powers by some of the prosecuting and investigative agencies in Nigeria. The investigative and prosecutorial powers of these agencies should be brought within the ambits of their respective enabling statutory instruments. Again, he should try his best to introduce sentencing systems that will help the economy. He should create an economy out of the current prison system as is being practiced in China and other developed countries.

 

The PEPT judgment was broadcast live for the first time in the history of Nigeria. What do you think about this?

It is a welcome idea and I commend the Court of Appeal for introducing live streaming. You may recall that the Labour Party had applied to the court to have live streaming of all the proceedings, but the court, in its wisdom, did not grant the application. But, at the end of the day, they saw the need that it will guarantee transparency, hence, live streaming of the judgment. The broadcast gives people more insight into the judgment. I must commend the diligence, undaunted thoroughness and professionalism of the five-member bench, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani in interpreting the law.

 

Do you find it curious that the tribunal resolved all the issues in favour of the respondents?

I must confess that the judgments delivered by the tribunal were unassailable. The basis for the resolution of all the issues of law and facts formulated by the parties are consistent with the body of judicial precedents on all the points.  The decisions are, therefore, correct. However, the petitioners can still pursue their respective remedies to the Supreme Court as is customary in electoral disputes of this magnitude. I will want to appreciate the learned justices for the rare industry applied in writing and delivering the judgments. This is rare in the annals of modern judicial history in the common law jurisdictions. The decisions will, for a long time to come, serve as a veritable guide for lawyers, administrators and politicians involved in electoral processes in Nigeria and, perhaps, beyond.

 

In summary, what do you think about the PEPT judgment?

The verdict of the Presidential  Election Petition Tribunal  which dismissed the petitions of the presidential candidates of the People’s Democratic Party Abubakar Atiku and  Labour Party Peter Obi, and the Allied Peoples Movement, challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress, APC, winner of the February 25 presidential poll and upheld the election of President Bola Tinubu is a true reflection of the principles of law that govern and underpin election litigations in Nigeria. The judgement was delivered based on the understanding of the facts of evidence and submissions of counsel that were presented before the justices.

 

Some of your colleagues are not satisfied with the way the issue of 25 percent vote in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) was resolved. What is your take on this?

On the issue of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, I think that the reasoning of the Tribunal accords with the cardinal rule for the interpretation of constitutional provisions in modern societies. It would have created several levels of constitutional crisis and impracticalities to hold that a candidate who scores the highest votes in a presidential election must secure 25 percent of the votes in Abuja to be declared a winner. Such an interpretation would have defeated the very mischief which that subsection sought to cure in our electoral process.

 

The presidential candidate of the PDP  Atiku Abubakar, and his LP counterpart, Peter Obi, rejected the judgment and vowed to challenge it before the Supreme Court. Do you see the judgment being upturned?

Parties who are dissatisfied are at liberty to proceed to the Supreme Court to test the decisions of the tribunal. The learned justices on the tribunal’s Bench examined and resolved all the issues of law and fact in favour of the respondents, after considering the evidence led and the applicable laws. For instance, the tribunal decided that the second respondent was qualified to contest the presidential election and that the order for forfeiture made by the court in Illinois, United States of America was not a conviction within the contemplation of the provisions of Section 137 of the Constitution of Nigeria. The tribunal held that the petitioners failed to prove that the President was convicted in the United States of America as alleged in their respective petitions. The tribunal equally decided that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has the discretion on how to transmit election results. In my view, the judgment accords with the established principles of law that govern and underpin election litigations in Nigeria. I believe that the parties will proceed to the Supreme Court to test the decisions of the tribunal. I will encourage all the parties and their supporters to abide by the decisions of the courts in this and all regards.

 

 

READ ALSO FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE 

• Enugu: Police neutralise 3 IPOB/ESN hoodlums, recover firearms, cutlasses

• No coup attempt in Congo Brazzaville — Moungalla

• FG to construct super highways on Abuja-Lagos, Port Harcourt-Lagos

• Shaibu locked out from Government House

• MONDAYLINES: ‘Alaafin’s stool is not for sale’

• VIDEO: Untold story of out-of-school kids in Ibadan

• EDITORIAL: The NURTW shooting in Abuja