By OmoniyiSalaudeen
The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal hearing the petitions filed by the aggrieved candidates in the February 25 presidential election is now on the verge of delivering its final judgment. Out of the deluge of petitions filed before the tribunal, the ones that have generated anxiety in the public are those of the candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party, Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi respectively.
In their consolidated petitions, both of them are seeking redress for the INEC’s declaration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the winner of the last presidential election.
The electoral commission had declared Bola Tinubu, the candidate of Nigeria’s ruling party, APC, as the winner of the presidential election, thereby defeating 17 other candidates who took part in the election.
According to the Chairman of the INEC, Mahmood Yakubu, who is the Chief Returning Officer, Tinubu scored 8,794,726 votes, thus meeting the first constitutional requirement to be declared the winner. He also scored over 25 per cent of the votes cast in 30 states, more than the 24 states constitutionally required.
Atiku Abubakar of the PDP came second in the election with 6,984,520 votes, while Peter Obi of the Labour Party came third scoring 6,101,533 votes. Senator Rabiu Kwankwaso of the NNPP clinched the fourth position with 1,496,687 votes.
Part of the grouse for challenging the outcome of the election is the failure of the INEC to upload the results of elections in the over 170,000 polling units onto a central server (IReV) as required by law. That step should have been done before the collation and announcement of results, Obi and his supporters argued. They also want the election cancelled because Tinubu did not meet the constitutional requirement of 25 per cent votes cast in the FCT. These are some of the issues that have engaged respective counsels to the petitioners and the respondents in the prolonged legal fireworks. Ahead of the judgment day, apprehension as to what would be the likely outcome of the petitions has, therefore, filled the air.
Before now, some faceless state actors had been desperately and routinely engaging the social media in subtle intimidation of the judiciary making unfounded innuendoes that seem to put the trial judges on the spot even when they have not made any decision on the matter before them.
At one time, a Twitter user named Jackson Ude had allegedly accused the immediate past Minister of Works and former Lagos State governor, Babatunde Fashola (SAN), and some lawyers of the All Progressives Congress (APC) of involvement in the drafting of the judgment for the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT).
Ude also alleged that Fashola supervised the rigging of the 2023 Presidential election in favour of President Tinubu. In response, Fashola, through his spokesperson, Hakeem Bello, condemned the allegations, describing those responsible as “agents of destabilisation.”
Fashola said that the allegation is “entirely unfounded” and noted that he had been absent from Abuja for an extended period of time. “These allegations may be part of a wider campaign to undermine the judiciary by those who seek to manipulate the institution for their own gain,” he stated.
He disclosed that he had filed formal petitions against the offensive tweets and online reports with the management of X, formerly known as Twitter, and the National Communications Commission (NCC), calling on members of the public to disregard these false allegations.
In another instance, some faceless individuals under the aegis of Dispora’s for Good Governance mounted an imposing billboard carrying an inscription: “All eyes on Election Petition Tribunal Judges,” in some states and the Federal Capital Territory, a development which some legal practitioners have described as an aberration and an assault on the judiciary.
The Federal Government has also accused the sponsors of the billboard of blackmailing the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) and ordered that all adverts, wherever they were placed, should be brought down immediately and violators sanctioned. The government also ordered an immediate suspension of the Director and Deputy Director in charge of Regulations of ASP for “failing to diligently exercise its function as the gatekeeper of advertising, advertisement and marketing communications.”
Sunday Sun engaged some stakeholders in an animated discussion about the possible implication of this worrisome trend on the judiciary as an institution and its backlash on Nigeria’s fragile democracy. The answer is divergent.
Ebun Adegoruwa (SAN) in a very strong term, condemned the attempt by some politicians to blackmail the judiciary.
He said: “I am totally against the attitude of blackmailing the judiciary. I don’t support any judge who is corrupt, but you can’t stand up and go and put up a billboard and say all eyes on the judiciary. Is this the first election we have had? I am not for Tinubu and I don’t support him. But if this is how we do cases in court, nobody will ever win any case. Let the judges decide. If they make a mistake, then we will all rise up and kick against them. But you can’t go and put up a billboard and say all eyes are on the judiciary. You know my stand on Tinubu, but we cannot use this method to blackmail the judiciary. Let the judges who are corrupt do their work; we know how to deal with them. I can assure you that we will deal with them.
“If the judges out of fear cannot decide the case before them, then we are all in trouble. It will come to a point where people will be using social media to decide for the judiciary. We cannot expect judges to rule based on public sentiments.”
Dr Tunji Abayomi, a renowned constitutional lawyer and human rights activist, also described the trend as unfortunate for Nigeria’s judicial sector.
He said: “It is unfortunate that some people are trying to intimidate the judiciary. In other climes, the judiciary is kept away from political controversy. But in our country, because of what I will call the unholy appetite of politicians, the only judgment politicians accept or respect is a judgment that favours them. The same principle affects state institutions. And it is unfortunate because we will always be under government. So, the most sensible thing is to respect the judiciary and state institutions.”
He, however, maintained that genuine agitation for the fair delivery of justice was a norm in a democracy.
He added: “It is normal that democracy will go through its rough times. You can see what is happening in America with Trump. Democracy in this country has come to stay under the separation of powers because the judiciary is conscious of its responsibilities.
“But the pressure on the judiciary is not just in social media, but also from the political class, trying to bribe the judges. One of the judges spoke about it a few days ago, warning them to keep away. I believe that the judiciary, conscious of its responsibility, will resist all attempts to pressure it to do wrong or to act not in accordance with the laws of the country.
“You will recall that I said that the whole effervescent after the filing of election petitions was because the petitioners themselves knew they had no case and they have nothing to turn to other than noise. But I can tell you that the judiciary will act according to law not the wish of any political party, social media pressure, or influence by big politicians. I was part of the whole proceedings in the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal. And it was very strict in terms of upholding the law. Judges will not be intimidated. All attempts to intimidate the judiciary through social media are not going to work. It may create more confusion, but stability will return. After darkness comes a glorious dawn, according to ObafemiAwolowo.”
In the same vein, Senator Adeseye Ogunlewe expressed optimism that the judiciary would do justice to the petitions without fear or favour to any individual involved in the petitions.
“As far as I am concerned, there is no cause for alarm. The judiciary is up to the task. It is what we have presented that the judiciary will go through. It is not sentiment, it is not pressure. So, people should not worry. Whatever has been presented is what the judges will act on.
“All we are seeing now is part of democracy. It’s all about the power game. Let the judges do their job; they will give reasons for whatever decision they arrive at. They are not going to listen to all these pressures. Judges are also part of Nigerians. They know what to do. It is what has been presented before them that they will analyse. They are not going to listen to any gossip or propaganda. Nigerians should just be patient, the best is going to come,” he posited.
For Chief Ckekwas Okorie, the onus is on the judiciary to do the right thing and redeem its perceived negative image.
He said: “In all sincerity, the majority of the members of the bench have not discharged themselves creditably. Not just because we have just had an election, the confidence in our judiciary has waned considerably. This is an opportunity for the judiciary to redeem itself by doing the right thing. They should not yield to intimidation or what I will refer to as superficial sentimentality. They should do justice and justice must be seen to have been done.
“Nigerians are not dumb; they are not as illiterate as many people will think. There are even those who had been on the bench, but retired and still joining those who are criticizing the judiciary. Therefore, when they are interpreting the law, they should not interpret it as if those who are receiving judgments are illiterates. They should remember that after God, it is them. I have seen so many retired judges who are known to be corrupt, but they suffered what ordinarily their enemies will not wish them.”
On the perceived intimidation of the judiciary, he added: “The intimidation is to be expected. It is the judges that will have to stand firm on the path of justice. And that is what will make them sleep well. Our court has immense power under the constitution of Nigeria. They have the power to bring anybody before the court to justify his actions and pronouncements. If some faceless people are using different names to make reckless pronouncements, technology has reached a level where they can trace people who have issued threats of intimidation. So, they should not allow themselves to be intimidated. If somebody has become uncouth and reckless to make statements that are unfounded or meant to disparage the temple of justice, the court shouldn’t just be there and lamenting as if it is powerless. The court has powers. Until they show an example with a few persons, others will think that the courts are just punching bags.
“Again, many judgments of the courts have been disobeyed by the authorities and we have not seen the court react to them. For example, a court of competent jurisdiction granted Emefiele bail, it was a national embarrassment to see the DSS openly flout that order and whisked him away to their custody. Now, the same DSS is coming through the DPP to bring that same Emefiele to court for more charges they have compiled. The court should be able to say that until you obey the judgment we have given, you are not fit to come before us. If not, more people will join the bandwagon.”