Judge Ogebe’s ruling on legitimacy of a President: Are Iwu and OBJ really exonerated?

Mar

2008

Many decisions have been made on behalf of Nigerians but none has been as monumental as that of Yar ‘Adua’s political legitimacy. In the short history of Nigeria, far too many decisions have caused the citizens to question the courage of the judiciary, the legislators and even the press. In 1979, a decision on the legitimacy of the nation’s number one citizen was made by the court of jurisprudence in the case of Shagari vs Awolowo. In 1999 again, our nation was brought to her knees in Obasanjo vs Buhari and finally in 2008, the nation was faced with legitimacy of the President Yar ‘Adua. It looks as if at every juncture, Nigeria did not learn any lesson.

Each of the decisions brought Nigeria to a precipice and each time our nation shot circuited the system for expediency leading to moral disaster. On the three cases sited above, Obasanjo was a factor. Nigeria placed her absolute trust on OBJ hoping he’ll do the right thing at least 60% of the time, but our nation forgets to note that only the almighty places the heaviest burden on those who can carry its weight.

Justice James Ogebe’s ruling should not have come as a surprise when placed in historical perspective because there are often unwritten rules in legal-political ruling; Gore vs. Bush is clear and convincing example. The decision to legitimize Musa Yar ‘Adua’s presidency was not based on whether there was rigging or on the credibility of Musa Yar ‘Adua, far from it. Just like the affirmation of President G.W. Bush’s presidency in 2001, Yar ‘Adua’s legitimacy has nothing to do with rigging because the decision of the court was diametrically opposed to the views of all Nigerians, it had everything to do with not tempting the military to stage a comeback and the issue of stabilizing the nation at al cost.

For America, every of her citizens knew that something happened in Florida, every American knew that Gore won the popular vote, American people wanted him but the power that be decided otherwise through the Supreme Court’s unpopular verdict which the United States of America accepted only to the extent that they’ll have opportunity to correct the errors that brought G.W. Bush into the office of presidency of the United States of America. For Nigeria, there has never been courage to correct mistakes but an exacerbation of events that brought about political instability.

Gore capitulated on his fight for the sake of a peaceful nation he loved or because somebody coerced him to drop his fight or else ... Does it then means that the US Supreme Court’s decision to make G.W. Bush the president exonerated the shenanigans in Florida? The answer is no. The answer is no because judges’ decisions are sometimes extemporaneous at best and President Yar ‘Adua’s legitimacy did not imply that Yar ‘Adua was not rigged into office. What we hope and pray for is that even though Nigerians recognize that the elections were massively rigged by all parties, we accept the decision while demanding that the President act more like the president of Nigeria not Obasanjo’s surrogate or President of special interest groups. Yes, because of PDP, OBJ controlled the rigging apparatus due to power of incumbency. In all this, PDP was better able to rig the election than all the other parties combined in an OBJ termed a do-or-die election.

It is sad that both Chief Obasanjo and Professor Iwu are not smart enough to leave Nigeria alone to nurse her wounds. Instead, they decided to pour pepper on an open wound by finding a legitimate way to defend their illegitimate acts. These are only two Nigerians among 140 million citizens who are bent on destroying the nation by indirectly telling us that we are stupid. In a court of law, a win by one side does not imply that the other side is not right. A ruling, often times, signifies the conditional think of a presiding often mortal judge and this is why a ruling is sometimes appeal and cases sometimes reversed. The issue here is that these two principal characters knowingly put Nigeria into a tail spin for selfish reasons. Nigerians cannot be all that stupid in believing that the elections were rigged, and most of the elections were rigged, period.

The reason why I believe Professor Iwu needs to honorably vacate his current post for the sake of Nigeria is not because he is an Igbo that erred but because he was given a responsible to conduct a credible election and he failed. What is the measure of his failure? Any sane Nigerian can measure Professor Iwu’s failure on the following: a) President Yar ‘Adua himself admitted that the election was marred with disparities, code word for rigging; b) Many of the elections conducted by Professor Iwu have been over turned; c) Election materials were found in bushes and yet number of votes assigned to PDP were more than total number of people who voted; d) The international election observers noted that there was massive rigging; and if not enough, e) If Professor knew he acted in good fate, why was it necessary to go outside of the Nigerian shores to ask political prostitutes to help launder his image, guilty conscience, my dear Mr. Watson. What part of this indictment are OBJ and Iwu not capable of understanding?

Professor Iwu can’t be proud of the imminent slaps on his person. The fact is Professor Iwu accepted the responsibility to run free and fair election and, promised to do so even if his life depended on it. Therefore, Professor Iwu must be capable of accepting both the good and bad results and stop making a mockery out of a disjointed political system. The judgment of judge Ogebe never vindicated Professor Iwu as he claimed. Vindication of Professor Iwu was not part of the election challenges because it is a non sequitur. We therefore ask Professor Iwu to go somewhere to cool his heels. It is only in Nigeria that an armed robber will be accusing the victim of not having enough security to prevent his from gaining entrance into the premise and still get away scot free.

Granted, Professor Iwu is of Igbo extraction, he never called his tribes men or shearing he content of his OBJ Ghana-must-Go bag with them before he allowed the election to be massively rigged. The tribal sentiment must not be allowed to stop us from seen the bigger picture and from making decisions that need courage and that are mutually beneficial to our nation. Professor Iwu must be made to account for the money he wasted conducting unfair elections and for pouring so much vituperation on the nation. If Professor Iwu failed to see that Nigerians are not stupid, he ought to have had the sixth sense to observe the reckless manner he, his then boss (OBJ), some political godfathers and touts that took the nation through by their desperate drive to install a president that they believed would be a mere puppet. President Yar ‘Adua may not be a puppet afterall.

Nigerians are continuously bitten by the tribal bugs. It is unfortunate that Nigerians cannot shed their greed which is sometimes marred in tribal afflictions in order to take courageous decisions capable of benefitting Nigeria. Those none Igbos who wish Professor Iwu away because they tied his disappointedly-run election to his tribal affiliation are missing the point. Professor Iwu cannot be wished away because of his tribal affiliation just like OBJ’s disappointing and self-serving administration cannot be related to his Yoruba tribe. Rather, Professor Iwu’s failure must be placed squarely on his insincerity, his unpatriotic acts, his misplaced priorities and more importantly his incompetence. He disappointed himself and disappointed Nigeria because when brave heart was needed he acquiesced to the mischief of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, and thus, he set Nigeria several years back.

Professor Maurice Iwu knows that the decision ofthe Appeal Court clearly did not vindicate him or his boss, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. Both Professor Iwu and ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo were the greatest beneficiaries of the infractions inflicted on the nation’s national psyche. The judgment of Judge Ogebe panel will only be worth the gamble for taking a cowardly decision if President Yar ‘Adua uses his mandate to serve the nation. The issue now for Nigeria is not the defective pronouncement given by the Judge Ogebe panel but whether Nigeria can rise above the defective judgment and make Yar ‘Adua one heck of a leader that knows the way, goes the way and shows the way to our nation. Nigeria’s greatest burrier to success, so far, has always been predicated upon her leaders’ fear of failure. OBJ, IWU and recently Judge Ogebe failed to allay the nation’s fear of failure again in 2008.

Your Comments

Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.

Robot

# 1 | 11.03.2008 11:21

	The issue now for Nigeria is ...Read the full article.

alloylaw alloylaw is offline

# 2 | 12.03.2008 07:34

	TEXT OF INTERVIEW GRANTED BY ATTORNEY ALOY EJIMAKOR TO MEMBERS OF THE NIGERIA MEDIA ON THE 2007 ELECTIONS AT ABUJA ON FEBRUARY 10, 2008 Q: After so many years in America, you are just back into country. May we know you? A: My name is Aloy Ejimakor. I reside in the United States where I have worked as an Attorney since 1995. I am the Convener of the Organization of Nigerian Lawyers in Diaspora. We monitored the 2007 elections and with regard to the many difficulties encountered with the elections, my attitude and that of most prominent Nigerian Diaspora is that Professor Maurice Iwu and his team at INEC did a marvelous job of transiting Nigeria from one civilian regime to the other. And this view is shared by many top American policymakers and opinion leaders with whom I am familiar – a shared viewed helped mostly by a team of Nigerian and American Lawyers I co-led to Senator Russ Feingold’s office on July 27, 2007 to make a case for a constructive engagement of Nigeria’s electoral issues instead of the opposite view canvassed by the opposition, which surely would have isolated and hurt Nigeria. I believe that the shortcomings noticed during the elections are insufficient to warrant isolation of Nigeria or nullification of the election. Therefore, in deciding the ongoing election petitions, the tribunals are expected to be averse to some notion of strict liability for every violation of the statute, unless there is robust evidence that the violation substantially affected the outcome of the election. With particular regard to the presidential election, it is my considered view that the Tribunal should let it stand. And if this should happen, it will represent a complete vindication of Maurice Iwu because the presidential election is the only one over which it can be argued that he had complete legal control as the chief returning officer as opposed to the governorships and others which were statutorily under the exclusive control of the Resident Electoral Commissioners Iwu could not overrule. Q: How would you compare anticipation of justice between America and your native Nigeria? A: In terms of core legislations and black letter law, there are several similarities. And of course, our Constitution is a version of the US Constitution, as amended and interpreted over the centuries. But where the difference is marked and clear is in terms of the many nuances brought by America’s pure federalism as opposed to Nigeria’s, which still lacks some of the core elements of a truly federal system. And then there is the irony. Before the 2007 elections, the then AGF Bayo Ojo issued advisory opinion to INEC to follow through on the indictments issuing out of EFCC, the Commissions of Inquiry, and the White Papers, all as grounds of disqualification to run for office. This is besides the string of Appeal Court rulings sustaining INEC’s power to disqualify or exclude for cause. Professor Maurice Iwu did the right thing by adhering to the legal advice of Nigeria’s chief law officer, having been emboldened by the Courts of Appeal. In the US, the election umpires would have also done the same thing. This comports with modern notions of constitutionalism. The difference is that in Nigeria, everyone now seems to have ignored this and taken to criticizing Maurice Iwu as if he acted arbitrarily; whereas, in the US, if the disqualifications or exclusions turned out to be wrong, it is the AGF or the judiciary that should become the fair target for criticisms, if at all. Q: What are your views on the nullification in Kogi and the others that might come? A: Anybody gleefully rooting for a rash of nullifications should also contemplate the spectre of no-election or the grave nullification of Abiola’s election in 1993. Therefore, as the Tribunals weigh the various requests for nullification, the learned justices will do well to consider the uniqueness of the Nigerian federation, and also consider whether the framers of the Electoral Act really wanted otherwise good elections to fall for every infraction. One might say with some justification that some isolated cases of exclusions or other irregularity merely constitute technical violations or omissions in ordinary course that can hardly justify the extraordinary remedy represented by nullification. In the United States, the learned justices there call such technical violations ‘excusable neglect’, and as the phrase implies, they are excusable, and if standing alone, can never be seen to strictly require quashing the outcome of an election. With regard to the Kogi case, the tribunal felt compelled to nullify solely on the strength of a contrary ex post facto Supreme Court ruling - meaning that the Supreme Court ruling is being applied retroactively. This is the kernel of the ruling which the media needs to stress to the Nigerian people for a better understanding and debate of the legalities of the 2007 elections. Blaming Maurice Iwu or INEC for merely acting within authority of extant law won’t cut it. Q: Are you are saying that the Tribunals might be applying laws retroactively? A: This is one important area the Electoral Reform Committee needs to look at so that Tribunals are not forced by passage of time into rendering judgments that tend to confuse our strict constitutional system by raising the spectre of retroactivity of laws – be it legislation or a judge-made law. A democracy should be very conscious of rejecting any notion of retroactive application of her laws. Better practice seems to support the postulate that if your rights were breached by some law that is no longer good law, then you try your hand next time around and you could prevail on the tenor of the new law that now favors you. The right to hold political office can never be said to be so vested and absolute to the point that Nigeria must pedal back all the time to accommodate every infringement, otherwise we may come to the point where a Shehu Shagari and others who lost their constitutional tenure and mandate due to illegal and violent sack of their government may begin to file legal actions to be restored to office. The dangerous judicial remedy of mass cancellation of elections in a young and fragile democracy like Nigeria requires more circumspection and judicial conservatism than the need for the judiciary to be seen to be independent. Ours laws must be interpreted in ways that must not threaten our survival as nation. Q: It seems the Tribunal rulings have put INEC in very bad light before many Nigerians A: Yes, because of the general tendency to spin, parse and distort. And the media has not fully explained the true meanings of these rulings to the average lay Nigerian. But those who have devoted some intellectual downtime to studying the rulings are likely to posit that INEC and Maurice Iwu did their best under the circumstances. Election flaws or exclusions have been discussed enough, and again, in a way that seems to ignore the duplicity of the political class – all in an attempt to single out one man for scapegoating. And the secondary point to consider is that we may have come to the point that endangers our democracy and stability should we continue to so carelessly continue this voyeuristic harassment of INEC and the government of the day. Whilst some people might recoil at my directness, candor and neo-legalisms, I will be mindful to put matters into proper legal context and hope for a better and richer understanding hereafter. Nigeria should not be belittled for the historic leap it made with the 2007 elections. Q: What is your advice to politicians, the political parties, PDP, AD, political class generally? A: For most of the West, especially the European Union, there is this rampant tendency to rush to conclusions that elections held in countries that the West fears, loathes or does not understand are never free and fair. The West does not understand Nigeria. If you don’t know by now that the West considers candidate Abubakar Atiku pro-West and President Yar’Adua, a closet anti-West or too Islamist (and frugal, meaning - a radical socialist that may prefer China), then you have not been reading everything out there. And more to the point, Yar’Adua’s fiscal conservatism in Katsina when he was Governor was mis-characterized as neo-socialist by a naïve West that looked forward to an Atiku they believed through his PR spin in the US to be anti-socialist and thus more representative of any Western desire for a President likely to draw down Nigeria’s hard currency reserves to finance high technology acquisitions from the West. Therefore, our politicians need to do some serious contemplation of their patriotic duty and remain vigilant to protecting Nigeria from the sort of misguided interference in our electoral process that led to the debacle in Kenya. In other words, we should learn to accept our democracy as it is while working patiently towards attaining the idealisms and stable order that took a helluva of political hard work and give-and-take to achieve in other climes that started before us. All victories or good things don’t have to come in our lifetime. Q: What is your take on the petitions challenging Yar’Adua’s victory? A: Let me put it this way. That Dr Orji Kalu and other odd 50 (or 24) presidential candidates did not file petitions against Yar’Adua is relevant and probative evidence that the presidential election must have passed statutory and political muster and impeaches the merits of any claim to the contrary. Concession of electoral defeat by an opponent is the first starting point to determining the legitimacy of an election, and concession by some fifty candidates is some concession indeed and cannot be ignored when deciding whether the election should stand or not. In the United States, Al Gore’s initial concession of victory to Bush based on initial results collated from statute-mandated machine count of the ballots as opposed to a manual recount was part of the material evidence that emboldened a politically-conscious US Supreme Court to stop the recount and affirm the initial declaration of Bush as winner. As regards our own, AC and ANPP’s poll agents accepted and signed off on the REC-collated final results of the presidential poll before Maurice Iwu went to press with it. So, how can anyone now claim that there was no election in some 29 states when their agents had contemporaneously signed off on the results of elections conducted in those states? What happened to the basic law of agency that binds a principal to the actions of his agent? And if you look at the spread of the party’s performance in the state/national assembly and governorship elections, you will notice that the parties maintained just about the same number of votes they garnered in the presidential election. If aspects of the election were irregular, I would say they are too minuscule to constitute grounds for disturbing the final outcome. Mistakes are bound to be made along the way, but as good and conscientious citizens, we will all do well not to overplay them. Attorney Ejimakor can be reached at alloylaw@yahoo.com

afam

# 3 | 12.03.2008 08:41

	Q: What is your take on the petitions challenging Yar’Adua’s victory? A: Let me put it this way. That Dr Orji Kalu and other odd 50 (or 24) presidential candidates did not file petitions against Yar’Adua is relevant and probative evidence that the presidential election must have passed statutory and political muster and impeaches the merits of any claim to the contrary. Concession of electoral defeat by an opponent is the first starting point to determining the legitimacy of an election, and concession by some fifty candidates is some concession indeed and cannot be ignored when deciding whether the election should stand or not. In the United States, Al Gore’s initial concession of victory to Bush based on initial results collated from statute-mandated machine count of the ballots as opposed to a manual recount was part of the material evidence that emboldened a politically-conscious US Supreme Court to stop the recount and affirm the initial declaration of Bush as winner. As regards our own, AC and ANPP’s poll agents accepted and signed off on the REC-collated final results of the presidential poll before Maurice Iwu went to press with it. So, how can anyone now claim that there was no election in some 29 states when their agents had contemporaneously signed off on the results of elections conducted in those states? What happened to the basic law of agency that binds a principal to the actions of his agent? And if you look at the spread of the party’s performance in the state/national assembly and governorship elections, you will notice that the parties maintained just about the same number of votes they garnered in the presidential election. If aspects of the election were irregular, I would say they are too minuscule to constitute grounds for disturbing the final outcome. Mistakes are bound to be made along the way, but as good and conscientious citizens, we will all do well not to overplay them. This man try well well jo. Thank God many people are not joining the bandwagon on this issue. We need more objective and critical analysis like this one, not just playing to the gallery.

tanibaba tanibaba is offline

# 4 | 13.03.2008 06:10

	@Odetunde the author You wrote: Justice James Ogebe’s ruling should not have come as a surprise when placed in historical perspective because there are often unwritten rules in legal-political ruling; Gore vs. Bush is clear and convincing example. The decision to legitimize Musa Yar ‘Adua’s presidency was not based on whether there was rigging or on the credibility of Musa Yar ‘Adua, far from it. Just like the affirmation of President G.W. Bush’s presidency in 2001, Yar ‘Adua’s legitimacy has nothing to do with rigging because the decision of the court was diametrically opposed to the views of all Nigerians, it had everything to do with not tempting the military to stage a comeback and the issue of stabilizing the nation at al cost. My brother let me warn you very seriously. You may end up in trouble, big trouble with an article such as this. And the reason is very simple. The Commander of the Zombies has issued a fatwa : reject Ogebe. And here you are trying to stylishly offend the spirit and letters of that fatwa. We should reject Ogebe. Infact you should reject me too because I have committed the same “offence” as Justice Ogebe. I have informed you of the existence of this fatwa after you have written your article. The Honourable Justice told Nigerians that he had written his judgement before the appointment to the supreme court. And that was interpreted to mean that he was in contact with Mr. President - that Mr. President was aware he had finished his job before appointing him.. Some warped reasoning? No. it is not. It is just the display of dexterity by our zombies. Zombies? Some mothers and some countries do have them. On the concluding part of the article what is the offence of the Justice? So if in one paragraph you said the ruling did not come as a surprise and indeed tried to rationalize it, what additional information is in your article to warrant such a verdict on the Justice. Even some jokers are holding the man responsible for describing the “win at all cost” attitude of Nigerian politicians. It is sickening to see people even discuss that statement. Does it mean that a judge has no right to express his opinions if asked in the hallowed chambers of the Senate? So every politician, no matter how unserious should just continue to harass us with senseless litigations, hire some thugs and zombies to harass us in the media instead of preparing well for the elections. I don’t belong to any party but you may wish to evaluate the strength of each of these parties and tell us if indeed they deserve to rule us. Have a lovely day. taslim

ariteni ariteni is offline

# 5 | 13.03.2008 11:23

	Prof Chris, I am disappointed that you join to argue that if a man steals a mandate but uses it for the good of the nation then he should be let free. My response is NO. A thief is a thief no matter how generous a "Robbin Hood" he is. He should be caught and sanctioned. Are you also afraid to call a spade a spade? Stealing is a crime and so is recieving stolen "mandate". The truth is that Yar'adua won the Election but his margin of victory was exerggerated by over-zealous Party and INEC officials. The solution IN LAW is simple: nullify the stolen votes and announce a winner. The same thing happened in 2003 (GUOBADIA'S INEC) and 1999 (AKPATA'S INEC). I dont support it but if it was a crime then IWU should not be the first to hang at Eagle Square. You say tribe has nothing to do with it but Nigerians know that the Iwu must die because he is an Igboman even though what he did had been done by others before. Ask yourself, Did Ngige steal Obi's mandate? Ans: Yes. Is he in jail? No. Now, ask yourself again: Did Yar'adua steal Buhari's mandate? No. Next: Did Yar'adua steal Atiku's mandate? Ans: No. The fact is that PDP won 70 votes in Governorship, house of Assembly, and National assembly Elections. So you expect Iwu to declare Atiku or Buhari so we can continue with another "June 12" crisis. Or Iwu to annul the election. You expect Ogebe J to vacate the election and order a re-run as Buhari and Atiku demand. This is disappointing. If you wish Nigerian well, you will not ask us to go through the agony and expense of a re-run which you know Yar'Adua is going to win again. If you were in Nigeria 1984-1985 you would have known that Buhari is in-electable and if you wish to see Atiku's face in Aso Rock villa for another 8 years good luck to you. I expect you to at least respect Prof Wole Soyinka's advice that Buhari should not be allowed to lead Nigeria again. Presidential Election is not a college exam which you can repeat if you lose. DON'T TRY TO GLOSS OVER THE TRUTH i.e. that imperfect though the election may be, there was a clear winner. The implication of your condemnation of Ogebe's ruling is that he should have acceeded to Atiku's demand to hold another election. To continue to hammer on the imperfection of the election is just repeating what everybody knows and have heard one million times. (joining the "ariwo-oja") To put blame on Obasanjo again is to sing a chorus. Don't join to turn our President into a "freedom fighter'. Joke as much as you will, but the day you take the mandate from Yar'Adua as you suggest "na that day you go know say khaki no be leather"

afam

# 6 | 13.03.2008 12:52

	@ariteni, God bless you. We need objective and honest people like you on this forum. Unfortunately, the majority have already made up their minds on what they want to believe.