:::::::::Nigeria Horizon:::::::: Alternative news for national development

Let’s put this properly because it is quite expected for one to say he has confidence or that one does not have confidence. Why it must be put properly is that the tribunal is just a part of a two-part process in an election petition. The question should therefore not be, inspite of all that I have experienced, what my expectations are. My expectation is unrelated to whatever I have experienced at this tribunal of first instance. It has nothing to do. My expectation is based on one, the lucidity of my proofs and evidence and the veracity of my claims. I have no doubt at all that I am the popular choice of the electorate in Osun judging by their reaction and responses to me before, during and after the election. That is number one. Number two, the result of the election devoid of the manipulation witnessed equally showed that I won. What is being bandied by the PDP, the beneficiary of that fraud, is fraudulent. As I said earlier, there are materials to prove the fraud, the electoral heist, the brigandage, to prove the banditry. There is no confusion as to who the people of Osun State freely gave their legitimate mandate for governance. So, I expect victory, by the grace of God, victory at the end of the judicial process.

I expect justice from the Nigerian judiciary. I expect the ultimate triumph of my quest to bring to bear the abandoned Awolowo legacy of good government, responsible administration, caring leadership and the credo of Awoism which is freedom for all, life more abundant and the ultimate integration of the Yoruba economy in the Nigerian state. I have asked that question against the backdrop of what is being touted. That is, if you expect victory at the end of the day why is it that it is at your own end that you’ve been asking for adjournments, several adjournments?

That there is something wrong with you people just asking for adjournments. It is like you people don’t have a iron-cast case. Let us put it this way. Stupid people could input whatever they want to input to legitimate legal process or legal requests.Those who are ignorant of the law and the process of it could input whatever they want.

It is left to them. But, going by your question, if lawyers think that an adjournment is necessary to their case who am I to say no? That is one. And in what way does asking for adjournments obviate or negate the judicial process, afterall judges themselves, due to myriad of reasons, adjourn cases. Does that translate to the subversion of the judicial process? The answer is no. I wouldn’t want to go into some few things that happened when sometimes the tribunal adjourned abruptly. I think it is in the nature of those who want to deride their opponents to read negative, obnoxious meanings to legitimate demands. That is on the intellectual plane. The real response to that is simple.

And that is counsel, for whatever reason, may be for confirming evidence, for enriching his evidence or for perfecting his strategy may seek for adjournment and may also seek for adjournment to attend to some personal issues. That does not remove the fact that justice must be done. I will give you two instances. There was a day that one of my counsels said he would be otherwise engaged on some other things and therefore sought an adjournment and it was granted. We note the way and manner the tribunal reacts or its response to some of our motions particularly the one on extension of time to bring in Adrian Forty. We were dissastified with its treatment of it and sought to have an interlocutory injunction at the appeal court. And for that reason and purpose demanded for a stay because we felt that the consideration of the forensic evidence was vital and germane to our case and for that reason we will want it to be treated along with our other evidence in the tribunal. Since we were not satisfied, we went to the appeal court and the appeal court ruled that a stay was unnecessary because, for whatever it was worth, the appeal court is the ultimate arbiter of the case.

Conclude whatever you want to conclude there and bring everything wholesale to us, the appeal court reasoned. I don’t see how any adjournment or the process we have adopted could be interpreted to mean loss of confidence or rejection of the judicial process. I want to restate that I, who is a principal petitioner in the gubernatorial election petition, have implicit confidence in the Nigerian judiciary to do justice and ensure that the Osun people are given their desires which they truly expressed on the 14th of April.

Q: You’ve been at the tribunal for almost a year now and you said earlier that you expect justice to be done still. It is said that justice delayed is justice .denied. How does that affect you and the people of Osun state?

I have responded to this before. The aphorism you pointed at is quite irrelevant in this case. In criminal cases, if you delay justice you might be denying justice. I will give you an instance. If a man is accused of murder and he is kept in the custody of the law, in prison, for as long as the trial lasts, then you delay justice. You are denying justice because you are depriving that man of his freedom and liberty. It ought not to last for eternity. Let’s also take the case of Obi. We tend to unnecessarily heat up the system because of our misguided utterances in several cases and don’t remind our people of recent relevant historical happenings. Obi was out of the legitimate seat in Anambra for close to three years before he got justice at last and through that the Nigerian electoral calendar has changed. If because of haste we have denied Obi and the people of Anambra their legitimate choice, the enrichment of our democratic process and practise would have been distorted and badly affected and the space would have been restricted while the gains would not be there. So, we must put this in context and not just apply adages because we want to sound off.

If our electoral calendar was such as to allow four to six months of keen process, keen judicial process before swearing in, the abnormality we are witnessing would not be there, the incongruous imposition of vote robbers and bandits would not be there. And we will have those who should legitimately be in power in power but with the skewed programme that exists today, the best we could have is what we have. And for all I care, except for the legislators whose tenures are usually defined by the tenure of the House, I don’t see how any gubernatorial candidate could be short-changed if and when justice is done. We must also collect evidence and this evidence could not be assessed before the inauguration of the tribunal.

Going by my experience about the election, we wanted to get a court order for the inspection of election materials in the custody of INEC before the expiration of deadline for the submission of petitions, we went to two courts and none of them was ready to give us any order for such inspection. The High Court in Osogbo said it was not the tribunal and as such was not ready to give us the order. The Federal High Court did not even treat our motion so we were left with no choice than to just indicate that we will need those materials to maintain our petition in our petition. So on the 22nd of May, several days after the expiration of the deadline for the submission of material, we got an order of the tribunal.

The tribunal was not even there on the 14th when willy-nilly you must submit your petition. So, if there had been that institutionalised delay of the process, it would be wrong of anyone to want to blame any of the parties for what we have experienced. The third issue is in what way is the process being helped by the attitude of principal officers of the various tribunals. I will not be specific but I am speaking generally. Afterall, if one asked for extension of time to move for his motion for the result of forensic analysis, I don’t see how the issues raised... let’s leave that, I have been advised not to comment on issues at the tribunal. But, let me say this, if there is fairness generally, most of what we now see as obstacles to speedy judicial process, speedy trial would not be there. And, I have almost forgotten this: a situation whereby a single tribunal handles about 36 petitions could not help speedy management. I think there are two there now Don’t let’s be personal. There was a time the tribunal handled 36 petitions.

How would they do it? It would have been far better if tribunals are set up to meet the demands of states, not just using a general order. If a tribunal is assigned about five, the period of delivery would be faster and there would be less frustration and less delay. Finally, there is a thing I believe we must do arising from my experience and exposure at the current tribunal. We now know that forensic examination and analysis of election material is a sine qua non of effective judicial process. Therefore, let the Nigerian judiciary take over that as a basic provision, that is, it should not even be at the behest of the litigant, the petitioner. Let that be a service that will be compulsorily rendered to the litigants in any election petition by the Nigerian state.

At least from that there is a level playing ground for all. If potential litigants are aware of the ultimate forensic evaluation of the electoral process, it will reduce considerably the penchant for manipulations and the fear is that, which is a major gain to the Nigerian electorate and the democratic process, the huge expenses that go into hiring experts to inspect, analyse and to report on the electoral materials would be reduced and virtually eliminated for litigants. That will sanitise the process. I am more concerned, not even the cost, cost is not totally irrelevant, it is; many petitioners could not even afford the cost of it but I am more concerned in the enrichment of the democratic process and the sanitisation that will bring because it would be more difficult to want to depend on fraud, manipulation, rigging for victory.

Post your comment(s)

HOME | CONTACT | ADVERTISEMENT | SITE MAP