Morning after a verdict

Somewhere along the way, the balance of power between the prosecution, the defense and the judiciary shifted. We have to readjust it. The stakes are so high – the well-being of so many communities and the trajectories of so many lives, public safety depends on our collective faith in fairness and our view of the law as legitimate” – Emily Bazelon

IT must be stated in very clear terms that a democracy which relies on five men to validate the occupant of an exalted office as that of a president is by any sense far from the ideals of democracy. Any electoral process that falls short of producing a credible winner in an election, in the face of right thinking members of a society, is fraudulent. The February 23, 2019 presidential election as conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) under the supervision of Professor Mahmood Yakub was roundly condemned by both local and international observers, and it is adjudged as the worst elections in Nigeria. Last Wednesday September 11, 2019 saw again many Nigerians disagreeing with the position of the five-man Presidential Election Appeal Tribunal chaired by Justice Muhammad Garba which upheld the election of President Muhammadu as winner of that election.

Unfortunately, even in their disagreement with the verdict of the tribunal, most Nigerians have lost confidence in the electoral process and in a distrusting manner, are not surprised with the position of the five-man Appeal Court judges. In the 346-page judgment, the judges laboured to prove the case of a respondent far beyond the submissions of the respondent’s lawyers, thus leaving the judiciary in Nigeria in dire n eed of deep soul searching. The 2019 Presidential Election Tribunal offered the Nigerian judiciary a unique opportunity to rediscover its lost form and recover its one time glorious history. Since March, the tribunal has been fed with tons of evidence on what happened and did not happen by both parties, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, who is seeking the court’s confirmation of himself as the winner and (or) disqualify candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), President Muhammadu Buhari. Aside the APC and President Buhari, the other respondent is the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) whose conduct of that election has been severally lampooned.

For those who may not have followed the proceedings at the Tribunal, it is important to note that the petitioner has argued that: i) The 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari), was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the February 23, 2019 Presidential Election. (ii)The election of Muhammadu Buhari is invalid by reason of corrupt practices (iii)The election of Muhammadu Buhari is invalid by reason of non- compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) (iv) Muhammadu Buhari was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election, and (v) The 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari) submitted to INEC an affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the said election.  Indeed, in the history of election petitions since Nigeria’s democracy, the amount of witnesses and documented evidence presented by the petitioner including expert witness, has not been recorded.

Last Wednesday, the world focused on Nigeria and the hope of 200 million people rested upon the shoulders of five judges indeed, the future of the Nigerian judiciary was for them to decide.The options before these judges were clear. They were either to choose to stand by truth supported by evidences presented before them or to adopt an escapist approach, turn truth on its head and pass on the burden of what happens next to the Supreme Court. The world could see the way they chose and the deeper battle of them and their conscience is for them to bear. And as stated above by journalist and legal researcher, Emily Bazelon, now that the PDP and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar, are headed to the Supreme Court, again the onus is upon the  judges to redeem their noble profession from ridicule and display justice and fairness for all to see.  The judiciary obviously needs a readjustment. “The well-being of so many communities and the trajectories of so many lives, public safety depends on our collective faith in fairness and our view of the law as legitimate.” Emily is not alone in her thinking. Once more, global attention is on the Nigerian judiciary, the decision or indecision of the Supreme Court judges is sacrosanct.

• Omoniyi, a writer, is based in Abuja