“I
WILL WIN MY MANDATE BACK”
By Oranmiyan
Published: Monday, 30 March 2009
Q: Having gone this far at the Osun State governorship election
tribunal, do you still expect justice?
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)
|