Supreme Court as Last Hope on the Judiciary

By Cyril I. Ujam

Justice Musa Dat­tijo Muhammad's valedictory speech upon his retire­ment from the Supreme Court was remarkable and yet not so remarkable. The alarm he raised -- that "the judiciary has become something else" --  should have come while he still served on the bench. He said nothing new. Every informed Nigerian has worried over the desecration of the temple of justice especially in election cases.

We observe court proceedings and how judges in other climes make efforts to deliver justice. They don't bother to wear long robes. They don't assume they know too much. We see them searching for the truth and not for technicalities that would enable them to satisfy their paymasters or save their jobs. Two illustrations are the cases of former Delta State governor James Ibori (who was discharged and acquitted by a Nigerian court but jailed by a UK court for the same offence) and former deputy Senate president Ike Ekweremadu (who is now in jail in the UK). Could any court in Nigeria have ever tried Ekweremadu much less jail him? While all the Nigerian culprits in the Halliburton bribery scandal are walking freely today, their  foreign accomplices are all in jail. 

Our judicia­ry's failure in administering justice is most blatant in election cases. You rarely see judges condemning the "Independent" National Electoral Commission, INEC, or its officials for organising fraudulent polls. In courts, INEC uses billions of naira belonging to taxpayers to defend those it rigged elections for. INEC no longer hides the fact that it is a biased umpire!

New justices of the Supreme Court have been sworn in since after Justice Dattijo Muhammad's valedictory speech. Will these new brooms sweep clean? Election petition cases have been concluded at the tribunals and appeal courts. And nobody in Nigeria needs to be told that, in most of the cases determined at these lower courts, judgements were bought and sold the same way traders buy and sell rice or beans at Kano or Onitsha markets. Some who "won" their House of Assembly seats told me they parted with N150m or more.

Only the governorship election cases terminate at the Supreme Court. And that's where the governorship candidates in Enugu, Kano, Plateau, Lagos, Nasarawa, Zamfara and other states have taken their cases. Of the lot, Enugu provides a perfect test on the credibility of the Nigerian judiciary once more. Kano comes close, as the certified true copies of the appeal court judgement betrayed the influence of cash: contradictory paragraphs obviously caused by bad editing in the course of rewriting a judgement. What is "clerical error"?

Every goat, dog or pigeon in Enugu State knows the winner of the governorship election held on March 18: Hon. Chijioke Edeoga, the Labour Party candidate. He won by a wide margin. But the then PDP governor and other influential kingmakers in the state, in a desperate move to save their "investments", have demonstrated the power of illicit cash. During the first round of elections held on February 25, LP cleared 85% of the Enugu votes; even the sitting governor lost a senatorial election! LP won seven out of eight House of Reps seats and 14 out of 24 Assembly seats in the state. 

After the governorship poll of March 18, LP's Edeoga won with over 11,000 votes after the collation of results in 16 out of 17 LGAs in the state. The margin of his victory over the PDP candidate would have reached at least 60,000 votes, but for the suppression and swapping of LP's votes with PDP's in several places. Then, in Nkanu East, the home LGA of the PDP candidate, Peter Mbah, the election fraudsters aided by certain INEC officials discarded the BVAS, ignored the 2022 Electoral Act and raised over 30,000 votes for the PDP candidate. Yet, only 15,000+ voters were accredited to vote in three elections that day at that LGA! When the returning officer, Professor Maduebibisi Iwe, tried to reject the result, he was summoned to INEC headquarters, Abuja. Billions of naira from the state moved to Abuja as well. A committee headed by Festus Okoye was to allocate almost 17,000 votes to PDP to enable its candidate to defeat Edeoga by 3,000+ votes.

At the proceedings of the election tribunal headed by Justice Kudirat Akano, neither INEC nor the PDP goons had any defence for the magical votes from Nkanu East. BVAS machines were reluctantly brought to court. INEC asked the court to rely on the CTC brought by the LP candidate, for information on the BVAS had been erased.

The last stroke that crippled PDP and its defenders was the appearance of the NYSC in court to prove, with documentary evidence, that PDP candidate Mbah had submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC. While the NYSC director was still speaking, PDP supporters, one by one, left the court in shame! 

When the Justice Akano-led tribunal delivered its judgement, therefore, the length and breadth of Enugu State became like a funeral scene. No happy face. The only people rejoicing were in Government House -- the celebration began days before the judgement, after N3bn of public funds had changed hands. The Akano judgement contained no iota of law! Even the statement of the NYSC witness subpoenaed by the tribunal was not admitted. If you say something was forged, you must produce the genuine one (even if it doesn't exist), we heard.

The LP candidate went on appeal. When the venue was moved to Lagos, N5.5bn in state funds moved with it. At the appeal court, the facts of the case were laid bare once again. It was clear to everyone in court that justice had not been served in Enugu and a reversal was inevitable. A judgement already written had to be discarded hours to delivery time, however. Even the judge could not read her own judgement with ease, as if someone else had just written it for her. What had happened? Well, one woman in the appeal court allegedly confessed to her friend that Enugu's money offered her was irresistible. Indeed, champagnes were popped in Enugu a day before the judgement to celebrate the "sorting" at the appeal.

Now that the Supreme Court is about to sit on the matter, it is the last hope on the judiciary. Will the apex court help INEC to subvert the wish of the Enugu electorate? Will it reverse its earlier position on admittance of the statement of a subpoenaed witness? Will the court endorse certificate forgery and ignore section 182 (j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? Or will it respect the wish of the Enugu electorate and keep certificate forgers away from exalted offices?

Whatever the Supreme Court decides becomes Nigerian law. There will be no further appeal -- except to God. May God save the judiciary and the country.

 _*Ujam, a public affairs analyst, writes from Abuja.

RENOWNED U.S. BASED INTERNATIONAL LAWYER BRINGS JUSTICE TSAMMANI'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION JUDGMENT TO ASHES

Excerpts of "Mechanical Vs. Dynamic Justice" by Emmanuel Ogebe, Esq., US Nigeria Law Group, 2023 Nigeria Special Election Observer, September 8, 2023.

_*"The court’s failure to inquire into the gravity of allegations that a man who seeks to be president of Nigeria not only has a Guinean passport but lied about it on oath is a failure to protect national security and integrity.*_

_*"Sitting US President Bill Clinton lost his law license over the Monica Lewinsky Scandal not because he slept with the intern in the White House BUT BECAUSE HE LIED TO THE INVESTIGATORS ON OATH ABOUT IT. The sanction was to send the signal that a president should not set a bad example by lying to the government.*_

_*"This is the problem with mechanical justice versus dynamic justice. At no point did the (Justice Tsammani's PEPT) court show a concern for the safety of Nigeria from corrupt predators, fraudsters or charlatans which was the clear intent of the constitution and ancillary laws."*_

*------------------------------------------*

*NB:* Pls, take special note of all highlights.

The court (Presidential Election Petition Tribunal) should have allowed the testimony of the witnesses given in court and the cross-examination even if it disallowed their late-filed witness statements for the sake of equity and in the interest of Justice.

In my defamation lawsuit against the Buhari administration over the Chibok girls I sponsored to school in US, the Attorney General did not file FGN’s pleadings or statement of defense till I came from US, testified and was cross-examined by them.

After I closed my case as Plaintiff, they then rushed to the court seeking leave to file their defense. We opposed it because having discovered the entirety of my case, they were only now going to file their Defense *one and a half years after the case began when it should have been filed within a month!*

*Yet Abuja High Court Judge Abba Mohammed, now a member of the presidential election court, granted the FGN leave to file the pleadings late even after noting that they lied about not being aware of the case when in fact they had been participating for over a year.* This was extremely prejudicial to my case.

*However he said he did so “in the interest of justice.” Why couldn’t the (Labour Party and PDP) petitioners’ benefit from such magnanimity or mercy in the interest of Justice too?* Rather, Justice Mohammed said the petitioner failed by not serving spreadsheets of election irregularities with the petition on Respondents.

Yet *(in my 2017 suit)* if he had similarly denied FGN’s late filing of its statement of defense after I had presented my evidence, I would have won and my case would not still be dragging in the high court six years later! 

I also submit that the subpoenaed witnesses should not be affected by the time-limiting requirement to file evidence with the petition.

Per a social media post, “In ABBA YUSUF v APC, an unreported case of the Court of Appeal, Kano in Appeal NO CA/KN/EP/Gov/KAN/05/2023 of 24 August 2023, it was decided thus: *"Flowing from the catalogued statutory position of a subpoenaed witness, as a witness of a court, it will be incongruous and preposterous to hold that his statement on oath must willy-nilly accompany a petition. As a matter of fact, it will evince natural and human impossibility for such a court witness to file his deposition alongside a petition. The reason is simple. A subpoenaed witness appears in court on the invitation of a court on the application of a party. A subpoenaed witness cannot suo motu present himself before a court." The beneficiary of the judgment was APC!”*

The court should have aimed to mitigate the situation. In my defamation case, Justice Abba Mohammed awarded costs against the FGN and allowed them to file late. Myself and the other parties have paid penalties to the court for late filing as is standard practice. There are less drastic sanctions than expungement of the evidence for late filing more so in a sensitive like this of national and international significance.

This unfortunately is one drawback to the reservation of objections till the end of the case because if these had been ventilated earlier, petitioners would have had an opportunity to rectify the infractions eg by a motion for enlargement of time and to deem as timely filed.

*Selective Judicial Notice*

It is important to note that *the conclusion of the case is not that the allegations against Tinubu were not true. In summary - Tinubu had a Guinean passport and a fake university certificate but they were not tendered on time and had a drug forfeiture, oh but though it was tendered on time, it wasn’t a conviction.*

While it is unfortunate and inexplicable why the foreign citizenship and forged certificate were not filed timely, the court itself should have noted the gravity of the weighty allegations in light of national interest.

*Curiously, the court said they took judicial notice of the fact that Peter Obi had Anambra state indigeneship, even though it wasn’t an issue before them, but the court didn’t take judicial notice of the fact that Tinubu has a Guinean citizenship even though the issue was before them!*

A responsible court concerned for the integrity and security of the nation would not shut its eyes to sensitive evidence or explosive allegations of this nature.

*If they felt that the Guinean passport issue was smuggled in after the settlement of pleadings, they could have authorized extra time for the petitioners to respond to it.* Note that the trial ended earlier than scheduled as the respondents didn’t utilize all the time allotted to them. In fact, with the numerous SANs and lawyers in their retinue, taking them by surprise was not a serious capacity concern. After all, over a dozen SANs combined presented only one defense witness.  The respondents’ lawyers outnumbered the petitioners three to one. There were three sets of respondents’ lawyers to only one set of petitioners’ lawyers!

Indeed, the manner in which Olanipeku SAN, counsel to Tinubu, deconstructed LP’s Amazon Witness PW7 during cross examination one day after her bombshell testimony is the stuff of legends.

Therefore *the court’s failure to inquire into the gravity of allegations that a man who seeks to be president of Nigeria not only has a Guinean passport but lied about it on oath is a failure to protect national security and integrity.*

*Sitting US President Bill Clinton lost his law license over the Monica Lewinsky Scandal not because he slept with the intern in the White House but because he lied to the investigators on oath about it. The sanction was to send the signal that a president should not set a bad example by lying to the government.*

This is the problem with mechanical justice versus dynamic justice. *At no point did the court show a concern for the safety of Nigeria from corrupt predators, fraudsters or charlatans which was the clear intent of the constitution and ancillary laws.*

*There was scant effort to explore the mischief rule of what the drafters were trying to cure. All one saw was a mechanical and slavish adherence to the letter and not the spirit of the law thereby resulting in a catastrophic conclusion that criminality trumps (triumphs over) constitutionality.*

It is worrisome that criminal-minded elements are more creative than adjudicators and so exploit this to their advantage.

*On March 10th, 2017, the Supreme Court sacked a Benue state Rep member, for submitting a FORGED CERTIFICATE  to INEC.*

*Delivering the lead judgment, Sidi Bage, JSC held, “This court...must take the lead, righting the wrong in our society... Allowing criminality and certificate forgery to continue to percolate into the streams, waters, and oceans of our national polity will only mean that our waters are and will remain dangerously contaminated. The purification efforts must start now and be sustained as we seek, as a nation, to now change from our old culture of reckless impunity. The Nigerian Constitution is supreme. It desires that no one who has ever presented a forged certificate to INEC should contest election into the Nigerian National Assembly. This is clear and sacrosanct."*

To my mind, the court should have allowed the testimony of the witnesses given in court and the cross examination even if it disallowed their late-filed witness statements for the sake of equity and in the interest of Justice.

VIDEO: Why Peter Obi Heading to Supreme Court ?

 

HE Peter Obi

Apapa in charge of LP As Supreme Court Upheld Chief Ukaegbu Ikechukwu Joseph (Ikenga) As the Imo State Gubernatorial Candidate for the 11th November, 2023 Gubernatorial Election

Details of the Certified True Copy, CTC of the Supreme Court Judgement shall be made public within 48 hours.

Highly of the Labour Party LP Struggles.

This victory follows from the 16th April, 2023 primaries conducted by Alhaji Lamidi Basiru Apapa led National Working Committee, NWC for the off-season Gubernatorial Election in Bayelsa, Imo and Kogi States respectively.

1: That the gubernatorial primary for Imo state was conducted by the following Electoral Committee members of the Apapa led National Working Committee, NWC:

(a): Comrade Eragbe Anslem, the National Youth Leader, as the Returning Officer,

(b): Alhaji Alkali Ibrahim Mohammed, the National Vice Chairman North East, as the Chairman,

(c): Barr Monday Mawah, the Acting Deputy National Secretary, as the Secretary,

(d): Comrade Oko Eze Splendour, the Acting National Vice Chairman, as member of the Electoral Committee for the Imo governorship primaries of 16th April, 2023.

2: That the Supreme Court in it's Judgement of Monday 11th September, 2023 has finally put to rest the issues of the authentic candidates for the Bayelsa, Imo and Kogi States 11th November, 2023 off-season gubernatorial election and the matter of who is the authentic National Chairmanship of the Labour Party LP; with Alhaji Lamidi Basiru Apapa As the Acting National Chairman of Labour Party LP in Nigeria.

3: That Nigerians would recall that Barr Julius Abure was Restrained by the FCT High Court Order of 5th April, 2023 as Acting National Chairman along with three (3) other National Working Committee NWC members of the Labour Party LP in Nigeria including:

(b): Umar Farouk Ibrahim, Acting National Secretary,

(c): Ojukwu Clement, National Organizing Secretary, and

(c): Mrs Oluchi Okpara, National Treasurer 

From parading themselves as National Chairman and Executives of the Labour Party LP in Nigeria and that matter is still subsisting in the court of Appeal in Abuja, FCT Nigeria.

4: That this matter of the Restraining Order on Barr Julius Abure and others bother on the Nigeria Police Force Criminal Investigation Department, FCID Investigation with Forensic Audit Report that indicted Barr Julius Abure and others for:

(a): Perjury

(b): Forgery

(c): Impersonation

(d): Criminal Conspiracy with financial malfeasance to the sum of over four hundred million naira (N400,000,000.00) 

5: That this matter is in furtherance of the illegal and unlawful substitution of the name of Comrade Oko Eze Splendour, the Governorship Candidate of the Labour Party LP in Ebonyi State in the INEC PORTAL using Forged FCT High Court Affidavits, Fake TSA payment receipts, forged withdrawal letters using forged and manipulated signatures and so many other infractions committed by Barr Julius Abure and others.

6: That the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC shall be required to comply with this Supreme Court Judgement without much Ado and without any further delays, to avert the scenario of the Ebonyi case in 2024 where INEC indulged in illegality and deliberately refused to upload the name of Comrade Oko Eze in the INEC PORTAL for the 2023 Gubernatorial Election.

That this vexatious action by INEC was to the extent that INEC defied the Supreme Court Judgement that affirmed Comrade Oko Eze Splendour as the Gubernatorial Candidate of the Labour Party LP for the Ebonyi State Gubernatorial Election 2023 by deliberately refusing to upload his name in the INEC portal.

7: That by this Supreme Court Judgement affirming Chief Ukaegbu Ikechukwu Joseph (Ikenga) as the Authentic Labour Party LP candidate in Imo state, INEC shall be required to give the PORTAL CODES to Alhaji Lamidi Basiru Apapa to upload the names of the Gubernatorial Candidates for Bayelsa, Imo And Kogi States respectively

8: That this Supreme Court Judgement shall give immediate force for the immediate removal from the INEC website the names of:

(a): Barr Julius Abure, 

(b): Umar Farouk Ibrahim, 

(c): Ojukwu Clement and 

(d): Mrs Oluchi Opara and to upload the names of:

(a): Alhaji Lamidi Basiru Apapa, as Acting National Chairman 

(b): Alhaji Saleh Lawan as Acting National Secretary and 

(c): other members of the Alhaji Lamidi Basiru Apapa led National Working Committee, NWC 

Stay Tuned For The Full Details

For

Labour Party LP National Working Committee, NWC 

Comrade Arabambi Abayomi

Acting National Publicity Secretary

By Eragbe Anslem

COMMUNIQUE: Afenifere calls on judiciary to ensure that all petitions of the Presidential election be timeously and justly resolved before the end of the Buhari administration

 *BEING THE COMMUNIQUE AT THE END OF THE REGULAR MONTHLY GENERAL MEETING OF THE AFENIFERE HELD AT THE RESIDENCE OF OUR LEADER CHIEF AYO ADEBANJO AT ISANYA OGBO OGUN STATE ON TUESDAY 25TH APRIL 2023.*

1. 000 PREAMBLE.

Afenifere held its Regular monthly General Meeting today, the 25th day of April 2023, at the residence of our Leader, Chief Ayo Adebanjo at Isanya Ogbo, Ogun State, which Meeting had in attendance delegates from the member states and presided over by our Leader aforesaid; and after exhaustive deliberations on the state of the Nigerian Federation, Observed and Resolved as follow:

1.0 ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

 

Afenifere reiterates our position that the emergence of a President of Southern and specifically South Eastern origin will guarantee equity, fairness and peaceful corporate existence of the Nigerian federation and for which we continue to support the victory of Peter Obi of the Labour Party in the 25th February Presidential election and all his endeavours in its realisation.

2.0 THE JUDICIARY AND THE 2023 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

 Afenifere strongly calls on the judiciary to ensure that all petitions in respect of the Presidential election be timeously and justly resolved before the end of the tenure of the Buhari administration as the only way the confidence of Nigerians in its intervention may be earned. Precedents in this regard have been laid even by less endowed countries in Africa. 

3.0 BUHARI’S MESSAGE OF FORGIVENESS TO NIGERIANS. 

3.1 Afenifere considers the request of President Buhari for pardon “by those he might have hurt along the line of his services to the country” as rather short in statesmanship which demands that such apologies be extended to all Nigerians who have been traumatised especially by the pervasive insecurity and marooned in economic quagmire which in the last 8 years have rendered life most uninspiring, nasty, brutish and short. 

3.2 That it is rather shameful and painful that the President would celebrate, as achievement, the purported containment of insecurity in Abuja where the sovereignty of the nation has been wantonly challenged by terrorists routinely routing the Presidential convoy, Correctional Centres attacked and emptied and some Local Governments in neighbouring Niger State in effective occupation by Boko Haram.

3.2 Afenifere further notes the President’s lamentations of his serial loss of elections until “God sent technology to my rescue through the introduction of the PVC” . It is rather more lamentable that the manifest desires of Buhari to improve on the efficacy of the technological processes, inherited from Jonathan, by assenting the 2022 Electoral Act with the BVAS and IREV components, were thwarted by the INEC and security agencies under his watch, while high level officers of his government were befuddled by partisan considerations to justify relapse to primitivity. 

4.0 THE 2023 NATIONAL CENSUS.

4.1 Afenifere bemoans the unthinkable insistence of the Buhari administration in conducting the 2023 National Census in spite of the objective realities which make such an important national exercise most inauspicious in timing and impossible in credible implementation.

4.2 Afenifere recalls that in a paper it presented at the National Consultative Forum on the 2023 Census held at the Banquet Hall, State House Abuja on the 11th August 2022, it reiterated the imperative of census in national development noting that the application and misuse of Census data had been our bane as a country where we lie to ourselves and the world about our number indulging in laughable projections sometimes based on assumed and fixed percentage of population growth across different parts notwithstanding glaring variables.

4.3 It is in the light of the importance of credible exercise that, in the August 2022 Conference, we strongly advised against the conduct of the Census which, among other reasons, we said could not possibly hold in the same year of a General election. 4.4 Other well meaning personalities and institutions including the UNFPA Resident Representative in Nigeria who at another Conference in PortHarcourt on the 26th-29th March 2023 and most recently the Methodist Church Nigeria, Diocese of Calabar which all have raised concerns on the possibility of reasonable and genuine participation in an acceptable headcount in the current mood of the nation.

4.5 That Afenifere is particularly bemused that Government expects participation in headcount by citizens still incensed and distraught by the trauma of violence and brigandage of the elections or by those in IDP camps within their country in whose ancestral homes terrorists in occupation will now be counted as new indigenes.

4.6 That all factors considered, including its inability to supervise a transparent electoral process, a lesser headcount exercise, the integrity deficiency of this administration is abysmally compounded in conducting census which partisan disputes in Nigeria is often at the level of communities, states and ethnic nationalities having been politicised overtime.

4.7 Afenifere decries the most insensitive deployment of over 800 bilion Naira on this wasteful exercise as scandalous and an economic offence.

4.8. Afenifere conclusively says there is no compelling reason why the census must be held by the expiring Buhari administration and calls for all steps and preparations in that regards to be stopped FORTHWITH.

Issued and signed at Isanya Ogbo, Ogun State this 25th day of April 2023.

Chief Ayo Adebanjo 

Leader

Chief Sola Ebiseni 

Secretary General.

GO TO COURT! - Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

I am today compelled to write on the topical trending issue of the moment– “GO TO COURT”. Yes, you heard me right: go to court. Nigeria is a great country, but a very interesting one with spectacular oddities and oxymorons. Every day is new. I love her to no end.

WHY GO TO COURT?

Politicians, sorry, Politricians, have popularised “Go to Court” in their morbid desperation to acquire power at all cost. By hook or by crook. They are desperados. They have been very successful in messing up our hard-earned democracy. They carry out unspeakable acts – bizarre acts drained of logic, legality, constitutionality and morality – and then tell you to your face, “Go to Court”. This is a sad sarcasm of their obvious derisive, pejorative and derogatory euphemism for our beleaguered justice–delivery systems.

What the Politricians are saying cheek-in-tongue, in effect, shorn of all pretences, affectation and braggadocio, is that they believe you cannot get justice in the courts. So, they taunt you to ‘go to court’. Before, during and after elections, they kill, maim, burn, thumbprint; steal and allocate ballot boxes and paper; steal BVAs machines; propel their candidates to “win at all costs”; select their winners; and collude with INEC to announce their preferred victors. Then, they humour you with, “Go to Court”. For you, my readers, if you do not like this my introductory part, please, do me a favour – go to court.

EXPANDING NIGERIA’S POLITICAL LEXICON

The new refrain in town – go to court – is therefore an obvious addition to our ever-elastic warped political lexicon. Webster, Oxford, Collins, Longman, Black – all Dictionary exponents – must be green with envy from their cold graves.

I have since added new words to our political vocabulary and encyclopedia – “Electionocracy”; “Selectocracy”; “Judocracy”; “Executocracy” and “Legislatocracy”. Mike Ozekhome says we are not practicing democracy in Nigeria Is this the Nigeria of our dreams?”; This Nigeria is a captured state”.

THE FLAWED 2023 GENERAL ELECTIONS

The last Presidential, NASS, Governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections were the worst I have ever witnessed in this contraption called Nigeria since the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates by Lord Frederick Lugard (22nd January, 1858 – 11th April, 1945), on the 1st of January, 1914, to found Nigeria. If you do not like this opinion of mine, go to court.

I guffawed when I heard President Muhammadu Buhari, in congratulating Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, on his presumed victory at the 25th February, 2023 presidential election, say, “None of the issues registered represents a challenge to the freeness and fairness of the elections”. Mr. President, did I hear you correctly sir? I can already see through the eyes of the minds of his handlers and coterie of media snipers, and those of Tinubu, calling me out. I can hear them telling me to “go to court” if I do not like the President’s biased stance expressed in the face of stiff challenge by his co-contestants. My simple response is, go to court if you do not like my own critique.

No sir, Mr. President. I humbly disagree, sir. The last elections were neither free, fair, transparent, honest, respectable, nor imbued with any iota of integrity and dignity. They represented an abysmal retrogression into Australopithecus stone-age election farce. The elections were clearly shambolic, unsystematic, mismanaged, violent, vicious; highly compromised; and drained of any local or international respect and recognition. The outright rejection of, or at best, very lukewarm tolerance of (not wholesome

acceptance or embrace) by the international community, speaks volumes of the elections’ lack of rectitude and honour. Any final emergent product of the fundamentally flawed presidential election will have a moral burden to contend with – even if court judgements were to favour him. The moral burden will hang like an albatross, on his neck throughout his entire tenure of office. It will be more like an ignoble trophy or diadem. I shudder to conjecture the ricocheting effect and dire consequences this forebodes for Nigeria. I am not a seer or clairvoyant, but I can tell Nigerians categorically to brace up for harder times ahead. If you are not comfortable with these humble views of mine, then go to court.

THE “BINANIGATE”

The hallmark of this “go to court” mantra finally crystallised last week during the gubernatorial election in Adamawa state. The events there represent the shame of a country whose citizens, having experienced too many doses of travails, now appear unshockable. I have since been stressed and distressed. Can this shame be wiped off our electoral slate, or democracy syllabus? I do not know. Or, do you? The deeds and misdeeds that attended the Adamawa macabre dance of death remind me of the regretful and symbolic words of Macbeth, in William Shakespeare’s epic “Macbeth” (Act II, Scene II).

In bemoaning his unprovoked decision to assassinate King Duncan, Macbeth lamented that all the oceans of the world would not be capable of washing the blood from his hands. This was even before killing King Duncan. Hear Macbeth: “Will all great Neptune’s Ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red”. If you do not like my taking you back to Shakespearean literature to allegorize and metaphorize these points of mine, then, go to court.

Like many Nigerians, I keenly followed the Binani phenomenon – now “BinaniGATE” (most unfortunately). I like the Senator’s quiet mien, respectable carriage, calm disposition and ever-smiling exterior. She appears incandescent, even if shy. These qualities belied a steely, strong-willed “Margaret Thatcher” of an iron lady, who had taken Adamawa politics by storm, breaking down chauvinistic barriers, and mauling entrenched fixations and stereotypes. My love went straight to her, like the one I had for my late dear mother who died in 1997. I had grown up with my parents in Iviukwe town, in the 60s and 70s. I went to the farm, and far-flung streams with my late mother and late father, who died in 1992. I followed her to dig and plant into ridges, groundnut, beans, cocoyam, maize and yam. I fetched firewood from scorpion-infested dried trees. I fetched water from stagnant spirogyra-infested streams and dirty ponds, with calabashes. We then used alum to purify the water. So, I saw my mother in Binani. I also suddenly saw in Binani, my dear wife – my pillar of strength; my soulmate; my girlfriend; my confidant and sister; my mother and best friend in the world. For these reasons, and propelled by her top-notch political credentials, I, like many Nigerians, silently yearned that she won in a free, fair and transparent election. This, for me, notwithstanding that the big “home boys” holding fort in Adamawa are my elder and younger friends, respectively – former VP, Waziri Atiku Abubakar and Governor Ahmadu Fintiri. But what did we see? A damnatory and ruinous anti-climax.

A sad summersault indeed! Binani was declared “winner” of an election whose supplementary results were still being collated and counted. It was done by an unauthorized and illegal person – the State Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) – rather than the INEC-appointed Returning Officer. This, even while she was trailing her main opponent, Governor Fintiri, by over 31,000 votes! Wonders shall never end. She had wanted to foist on INEC, the courts and sympathetic Nigerians (like me), a situation of fait accompli. She will then tell Fintiri to “go to court”. The INEC REC’s audaciousness and brazen acts appear modeled after the INEC leadership itself, which had condoned and facilitated huge electoral malpractices, and told Nigerians to go to court.

THE BACKGROUND TO THE FAILED COUP

Let us have a historical background to this electoral fraud which was actually, a failed coup d’etat.

On 18th March, 2023, Adamawa residents went to the polls, hopeful of the workings of democracy – a concept defined by Abraham Lincoln (with penetrating erudition) in his Gettysburg Declaration on 19th November, 1863, as “government of the people, by the people and for the people”. At the close of voting, sitting Governor, Ahmadu Fintiri, garnered a total of 421,522 votes to lead in 13 of the 21 LGAs of Adamawa State. He beat his closest rival, Aisha Dahiru (A.KA. Binani) by over 32,000 votes, as she trailed with 390,275 votes obtained in 8 LGAs. Mohammed Mele, a Professor of English at the University of Maiduguri, who was the INEC-appointed Returning Officer (and who is the only statutorily authorized person under section 25 of the Electoral Act, 2022, to declare governorship results and announce the winner), however, announced that the election was inconclusive. His reason was that the margin of victory by Fintiri was less that the total votes expected from 69 polling units in 20 LGAs affected by serious electoral issues. In those polling units, there are 42,785 registered voters. But those who collected their PVCs were only 36,955.

All very well and good, if, this was systematic and methodical. It was not. Why didn’t the same INEC use a similar yardstick to withhold declaring Governor Dapo Abiodun of Ogun State as the winner of the same 18th March, 2023 gubernatorial election, when the challenger, Chief Oladipupo Adebutu only trailed Abiodun by a mere 13,915 votes, with only 18,835 votes rejected? Why the duplicity and double standards by INEC in declaring Abiodun the winner then, as against its refusal to declare Fintiri the winner at the first election of 18th March, 2023, under the same circumstances? Abiodun and APC (and even INEC) had simply told Adebutu to go to court. Go to court, he has since done.

THE ADAMAWA CIRCUS SHOW

What happened next could be taken straight from a poorly acted local movie, with desperate script writers and caricature choreographers. It was like a dramatic circus show; a Baba Sala’s Alawada Keri Keri piece of histrionics.

During the supplementary election that took place on April 15, 2023, Fintiri had been clearly leading, with 19,337 votes, to Binani’s 6,513. The gap difference was 2, 824. This was, however, only in 10 LGAs of the 20 LGAs in which voting took place. When you add these 2,824 votes to Fintiri’s March 18 lead of 31,247, Fintiri was surely galloping home to victory with 34,071 votes ahead of Binani. Then some unseen hands struck. They usually behave like witches and wizards in a coven.

With results from 10 out of 20 LGAs already in, the Returning Officer adjourned proceedings to 11 am of the following day. Suddenly (like Fela Kuti of blessed memory would say), one Hudu Ari, the Adamawa Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), struck at 9 am, before the 11 am earmarked for the continuation. Surrounded and escorted by an armada of recruited armed-to-the-teeth Soldiers, DSS operatives, Civil Defence goons, the Police, and thugs, Ari casually strolled into the collation centre, brandishing a folded written piece of paper that contained no final result.

To the shock of all present, he proceeded to announce and declare Binani as the “winner” of the election, whose results were still being collated. The loser who was trailing behind by over 34,000 votes was declared “winner”. Their agenda? Go to court? And bam! Binani “accepted” her “victory”. She was undoubtedly part and parcel of the orchestrated charade and shameful events. If not, how would she have prepared an acceptance speech for results she had not yet seen or known about, just like others? How come only NTA (the Federal Government’s megaphone) was the only media that covered the vaudeville and travesty? In her 21 seconds clip of historical profanity and feminine remissness and delinquency, she told angry Adamawa citizens that “you’ve made history in electing the first female governor in our dear country, Nigeria. This will no doubt broaden political participation by encouraging our daughters, aunties, mothers and indeed our girl child”. Oh blimey! The sentiments! The emotionalism!

Binani not done, even audaciously approached the Federal High Court (yes, in fulfillment of the “go to court” carol), through an ex parte application and urged Justice Inyang Ekwo on 17th April, 2023, to give judicial imprimatur to her sins, in motion No FHC/ABJ/CS/510/2023. Ekwo was a “Daniel come to Judgement”. He rejected the ex parte application. The cerebral Jurist suo motu raised the critical issue of jurisdiction. He directed Binani’s Counsel to return on 26th April, 2023, to convince him that the court has jurisdiction over the matter.

For once, INEC acted swiftly, salvaging whatever remains of its bruised image in the Adamawa theatrics. It suspended further collation; recalled Ari to Abuja; declared null, void and of no effect, the purported declaration of Binani as winner, as it amounted to usurpation of the powers of the Returning Officer. It also vowed to petition IGP (Usman Baba) to investigate and possibly prosecute Ari. INEC also requested the SGF, Boss Mustapha, to brief Buhari (the appointing authority), about Ari’s show of shame.

Will Ari, the DSS, Police, Military, FRSC, Civil Defence Personnel and even Binani be prosecuted under sections 64, 120 and 121 of the Electoral Act, 2022, to set a clear signal that Nigeria is not a banana Republic? Only time will tell. But, for now, go to court. Did the alleged bribery with the sum of N2 billion actually change hands to bring about this attempted monumental heist and thievery? Who will dig in and inform Nigerians? Which rat will bell the cat? Only time will tell. But, for now, go to court.

As at today, Fintiri has been properly pronounced re-elected Governor of Adamawa State. For those who are dissatisfied with this, go to court. For those who enjoyed this write-up, go to court. For those who loathe what I have written, go to court. For all Nigerians, go to court. For the Judges who will sit over this election matters, go to court. Finally, for the court themselves that harbour the Judges who will hear the matters, go to court. Let us all go to court.

- Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt.

Election Pirates and the Window of Fortune

Elections held in 2003. In Anambra, Ngige and Obi were the major contenders. The electoral commission declared Ngige the winner. Obi cried and took his grievances to the tribunal. By the time the courts corrected the error, it was 2006. Ngige had stayed three full years as governor. In the eyes of the law, Ngige was never a governor.

Yet Anambra was a bit lucky. Ngige wasn’t a political buccaneer. But despite people remembering his good works with longing, the law views his tenure as an aberration. In other words, in 2003, our laws left a window for a political pirate to be in office for three years or more.  

But twenty years after, in 2023, this bizarre anomaly has only been partly rectified. The election petitions are now time-bound. They must be concluded in a total of about ten months. As good as that innovation is, the problem is still huge. An election pirate can use thugs and hijack ballot boxes and rewrite results, BVAS notwithstanding. Then with some lubrication of the system, INEC will announce the dubious results gathered by a compromised collation mechanism and ask aggrieved persons to go to court. Effectively, in 2023, such an impostor could be president for eight months, hobnobbing with respected world leaders.

In eight months, that pirate will change all the security chiefs, including the heads of the Army, Police and DSS. He will ransack intelligence files and trample on taboos. In eight months, he will install new ministers and ambassadors. If he is imaginative enough, he could begin a carrot and stick mending of the judiciary. A few sting operations against corrupt judges will send shivers down the spine of the judicial system.

Then if he is sufficiently meticulous, he could force the resignation of some stubborn justices of the supreme court, because the system is generally slack and only a few persons are ramrod straight and whistle clean. He doesn’t need to invent anything. Some of these tools have been used at the state and federal levels in the past. He could use the CCB and CCT to sift files and come up with interesting indictments. All political foes would, after fretting for a few months, begin negotiating political soft landings. 

Eight months is a short time but it’s a long enough time to make new laws and take drastic actions. To create one new agency with sharp teeth to focus on witch hunting. To resurrect buried skeletons and white papers. To revisit old inquiries. 

The central idea will be to make the pirate become synonymous with Nigeria. So his critics will become unpatriotic people. And anyone who challenges the validity of his election could face a treason charge. He might mobilize intellectuals and social media influencers to troll opponents with sick innuendos, to criminalize and demonize legitimate dissent. To prove a major point, one or two bold traditional rulers could be used to set examples for others. 

The pirate might spice his self-aggrandizement with a few lofty projects. In eight months, he could become the darling of African presidents to whom he would have extended an uncommon generosity. Eight months is time enough to motivate the NASS with blinding foreign currency to decentralize power in the country or create new states. Some of the actions initiated and concluded by such a president could be practically irreversible.

He could begin some elaborate tokenism to curry the favour of mosques and churches. A president in a hurry, ready to deploy the treasury and fury, can alter the country in more fundamental ways in eight months than a president in eight years. Besides some roads and bridges which would be advertised on CNN, he could begin the campaign that continuity was necessary for the survival of the country. And eminent persons could be assembled to visit aggrieved candidates to urge them to drop their petitions in the interest of national unity. 

This lacuna is dangerous. In eight months, such a cunning president could make his removal almost impossible. An independent judiciary could remove him the way it removed Ngige. But Ngige was a governor against whom the president had allowed his friends to seek a pound of flesh. If Ngige were a president, would the court have removed him in 2006? President Buhari actually has hinted that his failure to upturn some of the results of shabbily conducted presidential elections in the past was down to a spineless judiciary doing the bidding of a sitting president. 

We borrowed the presidential system from America. In America, all legal contestations happen before winners are sworn in. All legal disputes are time bound. And the time fits within the 2-month widow between elections and oath-taking. In America, the elections are more transparent, and disputes are few. In America, thugs don’t play a major role, and result sheets are not vulnerable.

In America, the police are not saints, but they do not engage in the sort of electoral atrocities that happened in Rivers on March 18. We borrowed the presidential system from America without worrying about where we would find the requisite amount of good faith, honesty and transparency to drive the system 

This is 2023. We must rethink the process and abridge the time for all legal disputes without undermining petitioners. So that before a politician is sworn in, all controversies surrounding his election would have been laid to rest in accordance with the law. That will confer true legitimacy. But we can’t achieve a clean system by having a porous process that depends on the courts to sort out basic problems.

The freer and more transparent the process, the fewer petitions that will be filed to suffocate the judicial system. The more digital the system, the easier it would be to detect and retrieve evidence of malpractice and fraud. INEC Must assume a more assertive role. If we abridge legal procedures without cleaning up the system and banishing the use of thugs for instance, we could be papering over cracks and making it easier for perpetrators of electoral fraud to get away with the fruits of their wrongdoing.

Evidence gathering needs time. The trial courts in Nigeria have been allocated six months to finish disputes. The appellate courts have two months each. We can reduce the time to 6 weeks for trial and 2 weeks for a single and final appellate process. All elections courts will be televised for enhanced transparency. To achieve a new timescale the legal processes must be changed to favour a more arbitration style. 

Yet we must re-examine this exorbitant presidential system. If we decentralise power and adopt the parliamentary system, we might reduce the concentration of power in a few hands and the win-at-all-costs mentality.

Ugo Egbujo

RE-PRESIDENCY : THE SUPREME COURT HAS RESOLVED FCT 25% QUANDARY - MIKE OZEKHOME

 *(Read and understand why Tinubu needs to get 25% of votes in Abuja.)*

INTRODUCTION

In an article titled, “Presidency: Supreme Court has resolved FCT 25% quandary: (https:// the eagleonline.com.ng), my younger friend, Dr Kayode Ajulo, specifically mentioned my name (amongst other senior lawyers), whom he respectfully referred to as “revered to be authorities in their fields”. He even generously described us as “legends of Inner Bar (who are) jurists who have become oracles of constitutional law whose names have refused to leave the pages of law reports”. I thank Ajulo for his kind effusive words of praises and adulation.

Were this kind recognition all he said about me and the other “oracles of constitutional law”, I would not have bothered to write this rejoinder. But, he soon thereafter most unfairly descended on us with unrestrained upbraiding as follows: 

“And when they lend their respected voices to public issues, their words are taken as gospel by laymen who lack the qualification and the intellectual rigour to interrogate their opinions of these senior lawyers as Yeah and Amen”.

“However, this electioneering season has been an eye opening one for some of us. It has been a season of unraveling and miracles as to how some legal professionals have, either by deliberate action or absence of proper research, interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution as regards election to the Office of the President and requirements of the candidate for that highest  public office in the land”.

“We have seen those that should know and those who have held exalted and enviable positions hold curious opinions on Constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass ones intellect”.

“For some of them, politics have been mixed with law in order to please certain quarters of the political class. But this is a dangerous mix. There is politics, and there is law. While they can sometimes intersect, they should not be muddled up when discussing pertinent legal issues that affect the nationhood of the country and the collective development of her citizens”.

This write-up of mine should, therefore, be seen as my RIGHT OF REPLY of (see section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, as altered). I honestly believe Dr Ajulo went too far in categorizing all senior lawyers whose views are not in tandem with his as holding “curious opinions”, either “by deliberate action or lack of proper research”. He also accused us of being tainted by partisanship or politics, merely for expressing our views. And to think that such views to him constitute “curious opinions on constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass our intellect”, was far too rude, self-opinionated and too vainglorious to be swept under the carpet. He erroneously (perhaps, arrogantly), elevated his personal views over and above all others’. Where is that coming from? Narcissism? Politics? godfatherism? I do not know. Or, do you?  The truth is that it is, rather, Ajulo’s views that were not only political, but heavily politicised. His entire piece read like a piece of a political party’s manifesto. It failed woefully to exhibit the attributes of the rigours and intellectual breadth and depth of scholarly research which he so gleefully talked about in his needless diatribe.

My simple take on this is that when a debate on a serious controversial national issue gets to a crescendo such as we now have it, various dimensions of and opinions on the issue under discourse must be vigorously pursued, explored and interrogated. Consequently, as regards this raging ruckus and scrimmage as to whether the 25% votes required by S.134 (2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution ( as amended) is applicable to the FCT, Abuja, I have now decided to navigate further, some uncharted routes, by going mathematical to find X. This will surely emphasize to Ajulo, and others who hold similar or same views as his, that this matter is not just about to go away, or be buried, or swept under the mat, until it is, perhaps, finally laid to rest by the Supreme Court. Even at that, Scholars and Analysts will, for centuries to come, still interrogate it, in the same way, that the debate over the case of AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI & 2 Ors (1979) LPELR-653 (SC), still rages till date (44 years later!).   

Contrary to the simplistic and cavalier manner with which Ajulo dismissed the 25% compulsory requirement (even while paradoxically also extensively discussing it himself), it will not vanish into thin air just like that! He gravely errs in thinking that the debate is simply about how to “interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution”. We must tackle it headlong. Let us therefore now take the argument further. I have always believed that it is in the clash of ideas that the truth- the naked truth– finally emerges.

There is no doubt that the provisions of section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution is rooted in mathematics. It requires that a winning presidential candidate shall have “not less than one-quarter of the votes at the election in each of at least two-third of all the states in the Federation AND the Federal Capital Territory Abuja”. (Emphasis supplied).

As lawyers, we should not shy away from embarking on this mathematical pathway to resolve the steaming controversy. Yes, mathematics is part of lawyers’ job in resolving disputes; and Nigerian courts are not strangers to mathematical judgments. Afterall, the 1979 Presidential Election involving Shagari and Awolowo was wholly litigated, won and lost on the basis of the Supreme Court’s mathematical interpretation of what amounted then to 2/3 of the then 19 states of the Federation. The Supreme Court, in delivering judgment in favour of Shagari, ruled that the requirement of votes to win the Presidential election was 25% in 12 states, and no more. It cautiously avoided the attendant fractionalization of Kano State, so as to avoid absurdity in interpretation. My deep research has just thrown up a judgment where the court was called upon to interpret and translate 1.00 to percentage. The Honourable Justice Nelson Ogbuanya of the National Industrial Court, in resolving the mathematical legal question, held that “1.00 of an amount means one whole number and not a fraction; and when converted to percentage, it means 100% and not 1%”. See “https://guardian.ng/features” law Court rules that 1.00 base salary to mean 100% in mathematical judgment” – The Guardian 26th November, 2019). 

Let me therefore state very clearly here, that contrary to what is being peddled by many commentators as purportedly settled judicial decisions on the status of FCT, Abuja (many of them critiquing my earlier write-up (see www.”ruebenabati.com.na-(opinion)- The 25% of FCT, Abuja conundrum-Mike-Ozekhome; Barristering.ng.com”) such decisions are not authorities for the very recondite and recherché issue posed by the 2023 Presidential Election results, which border on mathematical interpretation of the provisions of section 134(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, regarding the required percentage of votes which must be secured by a candidate in the Presidential Election in relation to the 36 states of the Federation and FCT, Abuja. There is no known judicial authority which has decided and settled this abstruse, arcane and enigmatic legal puzzle which is similar to the one that was thrown up in the aftermath of the 1979 Presidential Election. But that era differs remarkably from the current scenario, as, unlike section 126(2) of the 1979 Constitution which ended with 2/3 of all the states in the Federation, the 1999 Constitution added a fresh, rider, “And the FCT, Abuja”. Both the 1979 Constitution and the unused Babangida’s 1989 Constitution never added FCT, Abuja, since although same was created by Decree No. 6 of 1976, on February 5, 1976, by the assassinated General Muritala Mohammed, it came into existence on December 12, 1991, after the 1979 Constitution had been promulgated; but before the 1989 Babangida Constitution which never saw the light of day.

There is also no doubt that the FCT, Abuja, is not, strict sensu, a State (it has no State-like governance structure). However, by S.299 of the 1999 Constitution and many judicial decisions, it is “to be treated as a State“:  See BABA-PANYA V. PRESIDENT FRN (2018) 15NWLR (Pt 1643)423; BAKAR V. OGUNDIPE (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt 1768) 9. A Community reading of section 2(2), 3(1)(4), 134(2)(b), 297, 298, 299, 301 and 302 of the 1999 Constitution shows that the FCT is accorded a special status as quite distinct from that of a normal state; notwithstanding that it is to be “treated as a state”.  

In dealing with this my new vista which now takes on a mathematical dimension, there are agreed parameters to note and apply, as answering  a mathematical question requires patiently adopting  methodical approach, using certain  laid down formula. This is what is called ‘operation show your work before putting QED on your answer’. The mathematical question thus posed by S.134 (2)(b) of the Constitution is this: what does it mean when it requires a winner of the presidential election to secure not less than (i.e at least) 1/4 ( 25%) of votes  in each of at least 2/3 of all the states in the Federation (36 states) AND the FCT, Abuja? The first step is to note that there are two parts- the variable and constant figures. In mathematics, while constant is a fixed figure, variable figures are imprecise. But, the variables must, nonetheless be ascertained before proceeding to conclude or ascribe a fixed figure in a given arithmetical equation. It is this inability to ascertain the variable figure that usually makes some students afraid of, and intimidated by, mathematics. In the end, they always failed to find X (the constant), with the resultant hatred for mathematics. To find X, the variable figure must be worked out and ascertained in a fixed figure, such as the constant figure. 

It is clear that while “2/3 of all the states in the Federation” is the variable figure, which if worked out would give 24 states and thus become a constant figure, the “FCT, Abuja”, is always the constant figure, which stands as 1. 

Working out the equation to show that the two parts (both variable and constant figures) are separate and distinct in their respective values must be applicable to the 25% votes requirement. This would be subjected to the BODMAS (Bracket, Order of power or roots, Division, Multiplication, Addition and Subtraction) Rule. This Rule is employed to explain the order of operation of mathematical expression. 

Here, Bracket plays the role of “AND”, which serves as coordinating conjunctive verb in English syntax, to ascertain the two parts separated by bracket: See BUHARI v. INEC (2008) 19NWLR (Pt 1120) 246 (for the definition “And”); and EYISI & ORS V. STATE (200) LPELR-1186 (SC) (for the definition of “Each”).

In applying this formulae: 

The number of states =36;

2/3 of 36 as variable =24; 

FCT, Abuja as constant =1

So, the 25% of 24 States AND FCT, Abuja (1), will be expressed as: 25 % (24)(1) in mathematics. This is interpreted in English as 25% of 24 and 1, but not 25. The 24 represents states, while 1 represents FCT, Abuja. 

The intention of the lawmaker is quite clear here. 

The FCT, Abuja, is the seat of power of the Nigerian leadership. It is a cosmopolitan convergence of all federating units of the nation. It is to be merely treated like a State; but not as a State for the strange purpose of counting the total number of States to become 37 instead of 36 States and the FCT, Abuja, as wrongly argued by some analysts. The FCT, Abuja, is the political nerve centre of Nigeria. It has been imbued with such a special status as a miniature Nigeria in such a way that any elected president must have to compulsorily win the required 25% vote in the FCT, Abuja, after winning 25% votes in 24 States.

The reasons for this are not far-fetched. FCT, Abuja, is the melting pot which unites all ethnic groups, tribes, religions, people of variegate backgrounds; and other distinct qualities and characteristics in our pluralistic society. It is indeed a multi-diverse and multi-faceted conglomerate of the different and distinct peoples of Nigeria, which according to Prof Onigu Otite, has about 474 ethnic groups which speak over 350 languages. The FCT, Abuja, is thus regarded as the “Centre of Unity”, which is a testament to its inclusiveness of all tribes, religions, ethnic groups, languages; and peoples of different backgrounds. Simply put, FCT, Abuja, is a territory or land mass that is made up of individuals from every State and virtually from all the Local Government Areas in the country. It is itself made up of 6 Area Councils, quite distinct from the 768 LGAs in Nigeria, thus bringing the total to 774 LGCs in Nigeria. Consequently, scoring 25% of votes cast in the FCT, Abuja, is a Presidential candidate’s testament to being widely accepted by majority of the Nigerian people. The President is not expected to be a tenant in his seat of power. Will he pay rent to the 24 states he scored 25% votes? I do not know. Or, do you?

The framers of the 1999 Constitution certainly desired for Nigeria, a President that is widely accepted, with national spread; and not one that is a regional kingpin with support only from of his tribe, region, or ethnic group. The provisions contained in section 134 of the 1999 Constitution are meant to reflect this. In the same vein, the framers of the 1999 Constitution viewed the FCT, Abuja, as a melting pot; a sort of mini-Nigeria. Thus, like a commentator aptly posited, the position or status of the FCT, Abuja, assumes that of a COMPULSORY question that a presidential candidate must ANSWER in the electoral examination. With the FCT, Abuja, serving as the seat of the Federal Government-with all ministries and MDAs situated in it – it represents a Dolly Parton’s “Coat of many colours”. This is why the Federal Character provided for in sections 14(3),(4); 153(1); and 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution is also reflected in the administration of FCT, even though the Gbagyis are the original Aborigines of the FCT.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that sections 134 (2)(b) and 299 are not mutually exclusive or contradictory, as some commentators posit. Rather, section 299 actually supports and complements section 134. 

Whether FCT, Abuja, is regarded as a super-state, full State, pseudo-State, quasi-State, or semi-State, is to me, immaterial. Even if it is none of these, what matters is the clear intention of the Constitution-makers. 

Had the law makers intended that the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, will be treated simply as a “State” and no more in section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution, they would have simply stopped there. There was no need to specifically add the new phrase, “AND the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja”, as in section 134(2)(b). The Constitution would simply have provided for “two-thirds of all the States in the Federation”, and stopped there. But, it did not. 

From a historical perspective (I am a student of history), recall that the AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI case and section 299 of the 1999 Constitution which states that its provisions shall apply to the FCT, Abuja, “as if it were one of the states of the Federation; including the BABA PANYA and BAKARI cases (supra), often cited with éclat, but out of context, did not deal with the issue of elections, or what percentage of the votes was expected of a presidential candidate. They merely dealt with the issues that were presented in those cases. No more. It is trite law that a case is only an authority for what its peculiar facts present: BABATUNDE v. PASTA (2007) 13 NWLR pt. 1050 pg. 113 @ 157; ADEGOKE MOTORS v. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 109) pg. 250; UWUA UDO v. THE STATE SC. 511/2014; SKYE BANK PLC. & ANOR. V. CHIEF MOSES BOLANLE AKINPEJU (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt LL98) 179; OKAFOR V. NNAIFE (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt 64)129; PDP V. INEC & ORS (2018) LPELR-44373(SC); LAGOS STATE GOVT. & ORS V. ABDULKAREEM & ORS (2022) LPELR-58517 (SC); ILA ENTERPRISES LTD & ANOR V. UMAR ALI & CO. NIG LTD (2022) LPELR-75806 (SC).

For example, when section 48 of the 1999 Constitution provides that the “Senate shall consist of three Senators from each state AND one from the FCT, Abuja”, why didn’t these canvassers of FCT, Abuja, being merely a state, argue that once we have three Senators from “each state”, we should discard the “AND” which gives one Senator to the FCT, Abuja, and thus deprive the FCT, Abuja, of its Senator? This provision is one amongst several others which shows that the FCT, Abuja, is to be treated distinctly and separately from the other 24 states. There is no ambiguity in section 134(2)(b) such as to bring in aid, existing canons of statutory interpretation, such as the “Golden Rule”, “Mischief Rule”, etc. It is axiomatic that all sections of the Constitution must be wholly and holistically construed together so as to avoid leaving out some portions, or rendering them nugatory. See THE ESTATE OF ALHAJI N.B. SOULE v. OLUSEYE JOHNSON & CO & ANOR (1974) LPELR-3169 (SC). The reason is that law makers are presumed not to use superfluous, otiose or extravagant words in provisions of the Constitution or statutes which they make.

CONCLUSION

It is my considered opinion that the scope of consideration of the FCT, Abuja, as a state, only applies to the enjoyment and vesting of Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers by relevant bodies in the FCT. It does not apply to all matters, extents, and for all purposes. Further, an interpretation that Section 299 of the Constitution applies for all purposes is too narrow. It is not holistic or inclusive. It will render many other parts of the Constitution redundant, futile, unproductive, meaningless and therefore, unnecessary. Certainly, such could not have been the intention of the Legislature or law makers. 

Section 134(2) of the Constitution must therefore be interpreted to mean that for a candidate to win the Presidential election, such a candidate must obtain 25% of the votes cast in two-thirds of all the States in the Federation (24 States); AND further, in the FCT, Abuja. This is a compulsory requirement for a valid return as President. It seems to me that INEC was not properly legally guided when it declared a President-elect. The Nichodemus announcement and declaration was obviously too hasty, premature and rash.

A great writer (Onwa Nnobi) was most apt when he stated:

“If 5 credits AND English Language are prerequisite to gaining admission into a higher school of Learning; and you make 10As in 10 subjects, but get F9 in English Language, does it qualify you for admission? It is not just commonsense and logic. It is incontrovertible”. I cannot give a better example. But, let me try two more examples of mine: 

If I request to see 24 Corpers in my law firm AND OKON, it means I want to see 25 persons in all; but Okon must be one of the 25 persons. So if 24 or 25 persons in my law firm show up, without Okon, have I had all the persons I wanted to see? The answer is NO. To satisfy my request, Okon must show up in addition to the 24, thus making the 25 persons I desire to see. Okon is a Constant; 24 Corpers is a variable. The variables must be worked by BODMAS-Rule to find the constant. 

As a second example, if I tell my dear wife to treat Andrew (my ward living with us) “like my son”, does that really make Andrew my biological son? I think not. Let me end this piece in response to Ajulo’s apophthegym of the “unwrinkled face (which) is not good for a resounding slap” with some words of advice.

Ajulo ought to know, from the deep recesses of his conscience and inner mind that what we witnessed on 25th February, 2023, was not democracy in practice. Abraham Lincoln, who made his famous Gettysburg speech on 19th November, 1863, had described democracy as government of the people, for the people and by the people. He must be turning in his centuries-old grave. The last election was nothing but a sham and shambolic election of “first-kill-maim-allocate-thumbprint-ballot-papers-select-and-win-at-all-cost-and-let-them-go-to-court”. It was not democracy, but “electionocracy” and “selectocracy” in action.

The new refrain in town has since become “GO TO COURT”; an obvious addition to our warped political lexicon. The election in my humble view, was the shame of a country that has been held down for decades by the jugular by insensitive and insensate elite state captors. It was a purported election in which a supposed Nigerian president-elect allegedly scored 8,795,721 (only about 9.409% of the registered 93.40 million voters). And WITHOUT THE FCT, Abuja! So, that means less than 3.998% of the entire population of the Nigerian people comprising of 220.075.973 million people as at 27th March, 2023- the very people he seeks to govern! That is a mere 454,163 votes more than Chief Abiola’s votes scored about 30 years ago, when Nigeria’s population was only 102.8 million people. It was virtually half of President Buhari’s 15,191,847 votes in 2019; and even far less than the votes of the then runner-up, Atiku Abubakar, which was 11,262,928. What an election! If Ajulo does not recognize this odorous putrefaction and stone-age retrogression, in our electoral system, then it is him, more than any other lawyer, that belongs to one of the “senior lawyers” he so derogatively, perjuratively and derisively referred to as those who “give certain legal opinions that they do not believe in, just because they have been tainted by politics”. I totally agree with his conclusion that “it is the common man on the street that suffers this dangerous game of deliberate obfuscation and misinterpretation of our laws”. Welldone. Mercifully, I am very proud to announce to Ajulo and others that going by my very well known antecedents which are self-evident (simply google me), I do not belong to such a lowly class of ego-masseurs. I am certainly not one of those cheap obsequious fawners, brown-nosers, or toady characters that hang around political merchants and buccaneers of corridors of power. Not being a card-carrying member of any of our existing political parties, I am simply a patriotic Pan-Nigerian who interrogates issues and speaks truth to authority and power, with history and posterity as my goal. My parting proverb to Ajulo, more in the form of an anecdote or epigram, is this: 

Once upon a time, an exuberant youth beat his drum so loudly, proudly, ceaselessly and fascinatingly with such reverberating noise that an elderly man sitting nearby told him to reduce the noise. The youth told him pointedly that he bought the drum with a huge sum of money. He exhibitionistly announced the name of the rare drum. The elderly man smiled, shook his greying head slowly, and calmly told the young man the name of the very animal whose skin was used to make the drum. Let us watch our words and actions, no matter how trying and tormenting the times are.

- By Prof. Mike A.A. Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D., LL.D, D.Litt.