The recent ruling of the Court of Appeal, acting as the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal that decided that President Umaru Yar’Adua was validly elected on 21 April 2007 surely merits comments by Nigerians, and indeed the whole world, as we do not live in isolation as a nation. The general belief is that the ruling was fixed or at the very best, expected and predictable. Nobody expected the outcome of the Tribunal ruling to be in favour of both former Vice President Atiku and former military Head of State Buhari, the main petitioners, such that the election will be upturned.

However, what I have observed in the past two weeks or so since the judgement of the Tribunal is that previously vociferous opponents of the way the April 2007 elections were conducted have been very quiet. Have they given up the fight? Or could it be they have decided to accept defeat knowing there is nothing they can do about reversing the outcome?

Then comes the allegations of either bias, or outright bribery of the members of the Tribunal. This is very contrary to our recent views and confidence in the Nigerian judiciary, which has seen in very recent months, a lot of reversal of state, senatorial, state House of Assemblies and local government elections. At the last count, seven State Governorship elections have been voided, and either the sitting Governor removed completely and the petitioner installed (as in Rivers and Abia States), or new elections ordered to take place (Adamawa and Kogi States), and then the voiding of the election of the Senate President, Senator David Mark, himself, which I assume he will appeal. He has to, doesn’t’ he?

Nigerians have been having a new lease of life, as far as the judiciary is concerned. We were believing our learned judges to be more democratic, incorruptible (or at least, tending towards that) and fair and just. Then suddenly came this judgement? Is it the right judgement? Is it justice? Were they bribed or induced? Were they themselves convinced that their ruling is the right one, for the public interest, or political expediency, or for the good of Nigerians, and not for those of the ruling clique?

Many schools of thought felt that the ruling was for the common good and in the public interest. This is quite debatable, but I would tend to agree with this.

One thing we must agree on is that this was a judgement as opposed to justice. Justice is a matter of relativity: it depends on what side of it you are, or what you stand to gain or lose from justice being served. Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. It is a concept of virtue – a property of people which governs their actions and the institutions they create. It is emphasises actions or institutions, and is governed by the people who bring these about. In Plato’s Republic, justice is the interest of the strong, that is, it is merely a name for whatever the powerful or cunning ruler has managed to impose on the people, to his or her own advantage. Nietzsche, in Human, All Too Human, however stated that “there is no eternal justice”.

Again, justice may be derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned, or from what we would all agree under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. Thus, when we look at our particular case of the Yar’Adua ruling, the President, and others who supported him or who have something to gain from his being in power, will come out and say, they have received Justice. On the other hand, Atiku and Buhari and their supporters will never believe Justice has been served. This is the way things are.

Judgement on the other hand, is a balanced weighing up of evidence preparatory to making a decision, and a formal process of evaluation of all evidence, corroborative statements, criteria and conditions applies. A judgement is a mere statement or pronouncement of a decision arrived after an evaluation of alternatives. Hence the Judges of the Court of Appeal in Abuja came up with a statement, which we will assume that they have weighed up all alternatives before pronouncing it. As we also acknowledge that they are learned and very much experienced in the discipline of Law, we will also defer to them that they have considered all evidence and alternatives, and this is the best judgement they can come up with, under the prevailing circumstances and evidence at hand. Since they are in that high pedestal of knowledge and they are very erudite, it will be unfair of us, those of us not versed in Law, to doubt their wisdom and judgement.

This writer is neither for nor against the judgement of this Court of Appeal, for the simple reason that, no matter what the outcome of the decision is, President Yar’Adua will always be the winner. And I will guess this is what predicated the judgement of these learned men. However, if the decision had gone the other way, that is, if Yar’Adua had lost, and the election upturned or voided and a new election ordered, probably within three months, his administration would be a “lame duck” one, for three months, and the country will be held hostage. Granted, there will not turmoil in the scale predicted by some people, but such limbo of state governance will not bode well for Nigerians. As it is, things are going rather too slow for us from Yar’Adua’s Administration of barely nine months, and another three months of uncertainty will certainly add more to our problems. Thus, instead of the Administration concentrating on the work ahead of them, much, if not the whole of their energy will be dissipated on electioneering again, thereby leaving governance in limbo. This is what I will assume, predicated the decision of the Court of Appeal, amongst other factors.

Now, let’s say, the Court of Appeal voided the election of President Yar’Adua, and a new election is called, who will win it? I am of the opinion that Yar’Adua will replicate his success at the polls again, even under a very free and fair election. Nigerians are not only becoming used to him, after eight months, but we are gradually accepting him. Even at the last election, despite what we generally said about his election being flawed, the general consensus is that, Yar’Adua would have beaten both Atiku and Buhari, and other contenders, by a very long margin, even without Obasanjo’s dubious hands in it.

In the main, the resentment of most Nigerians to Yar’Adua’s election was the perceived manipulation of the “hated” Obasanjo, combined with his failed Third Term Agenda, and other misdemeanours, which still clings to Yar’Adua like a leech. Most Nigerians believe that Yar’Adua is actually better than his two main protagonists, Atiku and Buhari. It was a kind of Hobson’s Choice for us – where there is a free choice in which only one option is offered, and none may refuse to take that option, the choice therefore being between taking the option or not taking it at all; “Where to elect there is one, ’Tis Hobson’s choice – take that, or none” (Thomas Ward in English Reformation, 1688)

The bottom line in those days of politicking prior to the April 2007 was that Nigerians were not really given too many choices of Presidential candidates, despite the fact that we had over twenty contenders from several political parties. We were not spoilt for choice. On the long run, it was either chose Yar’Adua, or don’t chose anything at all. So it was not a true choice between two or more options. However, we are learning to accept it and live with the consequences, and as it is turning out, we may have made the right choice after all.

So, again, the decision of the learned judges of the Court of Appeal may have been a Hobson’s choice. Have Yar’Adua or nothing. The other options are not better than what you have now. This is not a matter of justice, but that of public or political interest. Or for the good of the country. And after all, has not the “Rule of Law” been adequately demonstrated and accomplished in several states? So, people, leave well enough alone, and let’s get back to the business of governance.

This now brings us to the matter of “public interest”, which again may have had an impact on, or been predicative of the judgement of the learned judges. Definitely, the outcome, whichever way, of their decision, is in the public interest of Nigerians. What is missing is whether it will be negative or positive to the public interest. The judges have taken the view that the interest of Nigerians is best served by coming to their particular decision. They have assumed, rightly or wrongly, that it is for the good of the public, and not for the good of the contenders. Of course, this is debatable. Whose interest is being served by keeping Yar’Adua in power, or by legitimising his election? Are we, the public and the common Nigerians, now to assume that we will now get a better deal from Yar’Adua, since he can now concentrate on his “seven-point agenda”, having had a stamp of approval on his election, and thereby no more distractions (except the Appeals that will surely come from Atiku and Buhari)?

A society is composed of individuals, and the matter of public interest must be calculated with due regards to the interests of the members of the society. A definition of public interest supposes “common well-being” of “general welfare”, and is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of the government itself. In our country, we all know that our leaders do not share our pre-defined views of public interest, only their own interest is paramount to them. While it is claimed that aiding the common well-being or general welfare of the people of a society is a positive ideal, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes public interest. A totalitarian ruler may for example claim he is acting in the interest of the public, as have been claimed by all of our military leaders in the past, and which we have found, to our great cost, as a big lie. So, what is the public interest in such cases?

It is possible that in some cases, advancing the public interest will hurt certain private interests, and thus risks the “tyranny of the majority” in a democracy, since the interests of the minorities may be discarded. So it may well be that the Court of Appeal’s judgment, while ostensibly based on public interest or public policy, may actually be advancing the interest of some cliques, in this case, our political class. In Nigeria, nobody ever knows for sure whose interest is being advanced, but based on our past political and governance history, we may be able to conclude that our governments never consider our interests, or if they do, they only do so half-heartedly or only when they are forced to. Hence, why would any right thinking people, or group of people, include an “Immunity Clause” in the country’s constitution, to protect some leaders from prosecution, no matter what crime they commit against the people whilst in power? Whose interest is being served – the public’s or the political leader’s?

Another explanation of the judgement or decision of the Court of Appeal in this case, is that they may have come to their decisions with consideration for public policy. In most legally advanced countries, judges in common law systems have the right to make judgements on the grounds of public policy, a related term to public interest, and which addresses the social, moral and economic values that binds a society together. Richard Cappalli, in The Disappearance of Legal Method, (1997) suggested that in performing the function of public policy, the critical values of any legal system must include neutrality, impartiality, certainty, equality, openness, flexibility and growth. This assumes that the true purpose of any dispute resolution system is to discourage self-help and the violence that often accompanies it; that is; citizens have to be encouraged to use the court or legal system to resolve conflicts or get justice, instead of resorting to violence or anarchy.

In a way, the judges are probably right to base their judgment on public policy. If we all remember all the protracted events and utterances prior to the April 2007 elections, many Nigerians, and even interested foreign powers, were fearful that the elections may not hold at all, and Nigeria will be thrown into confusions and possibly into civil war, what with several aggrieved politicians making threatening noises like “If I am not allowed to run, the election will not take place”, “Nobody can stop me from running for President”, etc. So, it is probable that if their decision had gone the other way round, we may have anarchy on our hands, at least until a new election holds. On the other hand, when the gubernatorial elections were voided in some states, what happened? Nothing, in most cases. The heaven did not fall down.

So then, we can see that President Yar’Adua has always been in a win-win situation. He has always been sitting pretty in Aso Rock. It does not matter what the bias, neutrality, impartiality or political leanings of the judges are. He has always been assured of success. What Nigerians should be hoping for is that he now translates this new success and legitimacy into meaningful, responsible and good governance. For his own sake, he had better, for History and Nigerians will judge him very harshly if he fails to take advantage of this opportunity, as his predecessor, Obasanjo, is being judged now, because he failed to take the same advantage. It is up to him.

The final word on this issue is the “right” man is still the President of Nigeria, insofar as the April 2007 elections are concerned. Forget about the election being flawed. Abubarka Atiku does not deserve to be the President of Nigeria, much as Adebayo Alao-Akala does not deserve being Governor of Oyo State. They are both aberrations. Muhammadu Buhari, does not deserve to be there too, knowing his human rights record and his rigidity when it comes to religious and tribal tolerance.

A few lessons are to be learnt from this. And I would like to refer to Professor I A Akinjogbin’s excellent book on Yoruba History and Culture, ” Milestones and Social Systems in Yoruba History and Culture (2002)”, which although was a thesis on Yoruba History, is also apt to our political history as a nation. One is that unequal distribution of wealth and power weakens the social fabric of any nation and may ultimately lead to its decay. Two, that continuous and deep-seated disunity and disagreement among the ruling classes for whatever reason may also lead to the ultimate demise of the polity; and three, an unwonted attack and destruction of the constitution that holds a country together for selfish and sectional reasons ultimately does no good to anybody in the whole country. It is important that our political leaders heed these three lessons; else they are not the only one heading for destruction, but they will bring down the roof on all of us.

Robot  Villager

# 1 The recent ruling of the Court of Appeal, acting as the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 03.03.2008 20:24

K_Station  Villager

# 2 Dear AAA, I share the general drift of your argument here. The problems with the April 21 2007 elections are no longer in question but they did not occur in isolation. What I don't get is why some people keep behaving like the deep rooted problems in our country today started with the April 21 elections or that they will just vapourize with one ruling from an election tribunal. I've argued that no matter how the PE tribunal ruled, we'll be back at square one because we don't have true opposition that can galvanize the yearnings of the people for change. The same people we are all against will make billions of naira (that will provide for them more resources to continue to foist themselves on us!) in re-electioneering contracts and we will definitely end up with (guess what) the same man as president! Consider what happened in Kenya. After so many deaths and destruction, Raila Odinga settled for a Prime Minister post and agreed to share ministerial portfolios with a man he claimed stole his mandate! So tell me what those common men died for, did they die for Odinga to become PM? Did Odinga accepting a PM position suddenly makes all of Kenya's problem go away? Go figure, but the outcome sure revealed the soul of an average African politician! The simple reason politicians divide and rule us is because we don't focus on what our real issues and problems are. We focus on our favoured or tribal candidate holding one position or another. As far as I am concerned, what we are witnessing right now in the Nigerian political scene is simply power tussle. What kind of justice can be championed by openly corrupt men (who by the way were beneficiaries of the poisoned system, and never complained until they loose out in the power play) and their blind followers, if not one that stops at their own enthronement? The fight to free Nigeria from this corrupt political class will not be a fight of the heart, but a fight of the head! Until then, the dance continues. As for you Mr. AAA, I hope you understand the position you are taking in this article is not mainstream and I hope you are ready for the "cyber-mob" or the "aluta clan" to come right at you. By the time I come back to this thread tomorrow, I am sure you would have been called every unimaginable name in the world. However, I salute your courage for speaking your mind. Posted by K_Station| 04.03.2008 00:28

Babatoks  Villager

# 3 Thank you, K_Station, for your understanding. In fact very few people will understand where AAA is coming from. It is very possible for a lot of people to assume the writer is supporting the judgement or the President, but the fact is that he is not supporting anything, but already looking forward to change, if the change could not come now. Nigerians are too quick to jump to conclusions, without weighing up the evidence. What other judgement is expected in this case? Yet people are already saying it is a bad omen for Nigeria, forgeting that worse things have happened in the past in our polity and political history. Like you rightly said, it is as if the April 12 is the beginning of our problems. People forget Nigeria has had problem since we declared our independence from Great Britain, and what happened in April 12 last year is infinitesimal compared to what has happened in say, June 12, Biafran Civil War, etc. Yes, the writer should expect a lot of flak, because he is operating at a level that is far more superior to most of his attackers. Posted by Babatoks| 04.03.2008 03:16

tanibaba  Villager

# 4 I want to thank you for this beautiful piece. It is the most intelligent analysis of the event that i have read. The others have largely been same of the same - emotions, grammar and little substance. I am happy that a Nigerian is this analytical and has attempted to steer us back to the path of sanity. As for our " friends " who will not allow the judiciary to rest, i really pity them. Theirs is a case of double jeopardy; double palaver for dead body. You see when you flog someone it is only natural for the person to cry or wince or both. So let them continue to invent all manner of unprintable names to attach to the judges. I can understand their pain so let us allow them continue to display what we know them for, their trade mark. When the judiciary was upturning elections and such judgements were in their favour they were in support of the judiciary but when this one didnt go their way hell was let loose and the uprising brought out the beast in them. Their case is pathetic because right from the time the matter was in court they came to the public domain to ponitificate on the outcome, playing God and turning themselves to seers. Now the judgement is not only in their favour but we also know now that they are fake seers. Once again thank you for this eloquent piece. taslim Posted by tanibaba| 04.03.2008 05:36

Babatoks  Villager

# 5 Tanibaba. I thank you Sir, for your kind comments. I only wish everybody could see things without masks or veils. I have always said the truth must be said always. Our problem in Nigeria is that we conveniently ignore the truth and follow on the path of falsehood. For that reason alone, we will never progress as a nation, not to talk of being a great nation. This article has generated some controversy, and I have had emails calling me all kinds of name, as my friend, K-Station rightly predicted, but when the truth is said, you do not need to fear anybody, only God. Our country is full of falsehood. And when you build a house on sand (falsehood), like the Bible said, it dews of the early morning will make it fall. We dont want that, and that is why are doing our best to build it on a new foundation based on truth and sincerity. It is a tough task, be we must do it. Cheers. Posted by Babatoks| 04.03.2008 12:53

K_Station  Villager

# 6 Thank you Tanibaba & Babatoks. I just signed into this thread and I'm surprised our sharp tongued 'aluta' friends have not invaded to 'wash down' AAA for daring to hold a different view....it looks like Babatoks is bearing the brunt quite well! The greatest tragedy in Nigeria is when regular folks are lost in an emotional battle in the stage play called 'the power game'. I like to see it as our own "tragedy of the commons". For how many years now have these guys played us and then pass our baton to the next guy, while our lot continues to deteriorate? The regular people of Nigeria need to stop fighting an emotional battle (which has failed again and again), and start fighting smart. The one million dollar question is who will spearhead this fight in a country where the flag of the 'opposition' carries the same emblem as that of the ruling group (the emblem of greed and corruption)? Who will spearhead the change we all crave when every bold attempts by few men of honour are sliced and diced through the prisms of tribalism and personal contempt? Posted by K_Station| 04.03.2008 14:13

Falconer  JJC

# 7 "This writer is neither for nor against the judgement of this Court of Appeal, for the simple reason that, no matter what the outcome of the decision is, President Yar’Adua will always be the winner. And I will guess this is what predicated the judgement of these learned men. However, if the decision had gone the other way, that is, if Yar’Adua had lost, and the election upturned or voided and a new election ordered, probably within three months, his administration would be a “lame duck” one, for three months, and the country will be held hostage. Granted, there will not turmoil in the scale predicted by some people, but such limbo of state governance will not bode well for Nigerians. As it is, things are going rather too slow for us from Yar’Adua’s Administration of barely nine months, and another three months of uncertainty will certainly add more to our problems. Thus, instead of the Administration concentrating on the work ahead of them, much, if not the whole of their energy will be dissipated on electioneering again, thereby leaving governance in limbo. This is what I will assume, predicated the decision of the Court of Appeal, amongst other factors." What an infantile reasoning! It is Nigerians with reasoning such as displayed by this writer that frustrates efforts to move the country forward. If indeed as the writer ascribed the justices are learned men of the "Law", then they have failed to exercise sound judgement. What type of reasoning by the writer does is give blank checks to the likes of OBJ, Wuruwuru Iwu and their associates future alabi to have a field day in strangling the nation because at the end of the day the justices do not understand they concept of justice, they will prefer not to rock the bottow, but rather will allow the status quo to reign in the interest of maintining normalcy! Any wonder the National Assembly has not gotten to the bottom of the allegation that there are 419ers in the National Assembly? The author's pontification of the rational behind the appeal court pronouncement he would argue applies to 419 members of the National Assembly. What a shame, what a convuluted reasoning!!! Only a ******* sees his father's house being distroyed butl looks the other way. Posted by Falconer| 04.03.2008 17:19

Babatoks  Villager

# 8 You see what we mean? Armchair cyber-critic. With no proper digestion and analysis of the whole issue and article, but just exorcise a bit and then latch upon it. A very narrowminded display of erudite disposition bordering on lack of understanding of the issues at hand, but must still say something for the benefit of it. They never sit down to write their own articles, but always waiting to pounce on those who do, and no matter what the subject is, they pretend to know every subject matter, and then they must be seen to be critical. They know it all. A very BIG shame, really. They are referred to as "Men of Straw" Posted by Babatoks| 04.03.2008 18:06

Babatoks  Villager

# 9 When arguments are prolonged and well drawn out, men of mediocrity and low intelligence are apt to be rude - Sir Winston Churchill, 1946 Posted by Babatoks| 04.03.2008 18:08

eleniyan  Villager

# 10 =Babatoks;4294993617>When arguments are prolonged and well drawn out, men of mediocrity and low intelligence are apt to be rude - Sir Winston Churchill, 1946 Dude you are doing the same thing you are criticizing other people of. So people must be of low intelligence when they deviate from your own POV, right? Must you ridicule people just because they disagree, kai, relax man!. The author opined, all you have to say is you agree and move on. Do not come here and harangued people who chose to differ. We can all agree to disagree in good measure...All of us, i hope, want the country to move forward. To respond to the author, yes YARADUA might have been the best of the three candidates, but I believe there are better ways for the court to confer credence to his presidency than the route they have taken. The road they have taken in this judgement leaves nothing to be admired about their “learned minds”. I believe they could have ridiculed IWU's gross incompetence, so he does not run around the country claiming he conducted the best election. They could have opined on the non-serialization of the ballot papers and warn seriously of annulling any election conducted from now on without serialization of the ballot papers. In a sane country, non-serialization alone would have voided the election. Also, at least they could have had some judges (perchance one or two) disagree so they don’t appear as if they are blind to the overwhelming rest of the nation who deem the election as fraud. Not that these options are the best, but they are better than the route the judges took. Their reasoning for this judgment shows to me they lack prescience to see the ramifications of any word that comes out of their “learned” minds. This outcome shows the judges did not care for public interest/policy nor did they care for justice. Any judge worth his/her salt, in this circumstance and huge case like this, would have pondered well and crafted detailed and explicit opinion to allay the public fear or distrust in the ruling. Posted by eleniyan| 05.03.2008 06:07

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---