The Supreme Court decided in the case between President Umaru Yar'Adua, the presidential candidate for the People Democratic Party and his Vice President, and the presidential candidate for both the Action Congress and the All Nigeria Peoples Party, Abubakar Atiku and Muhammed Buhari, respectively.

The decision favoured President Yar'Adua, the candidate of the PDP, though, it could be argued that it was a narrow victory(pyrrhic), if it was a victory at all.

In perusing the judgement (as related in some publication) i give kudos to the judges of the supreme court, in coming up with their verdict. It may be a decision that i may not agree with 100%, but within the constraint of the law, which the judges allude to, namely, the Electoral Acts, section 146(1), they could not construe the judgement in any other way.Having said that, the judgement was not a unanimous decision, it was a 4-3, decision in the appeal filled by the ANPP presidential candidate, and a 6-1 verdict by the presedential candidate of the AC.Reading further into the judgement indicates that the counsel for the presidential candidate, could not prove, within the parameters of the law, that the conduct of the election had been flawed. Hear them" petitioner who contests the legality or lawfulness of votes cast in an election and subsequent result must tender in evidence all the necessary documents by way of forms and other document used at the election.The documents are amongst those in which the results of the votes are recorded".Where these criteria has not been satisfied, the court could not go on to rule extra-judicially by considering "evidence" which may be circumstantial, or as reported by the national dailies or the internet.

I have gone to some length to quote some part of the judgement, i believe it raises some constitutional issue, which, the eminent jurist highlighted in their judgement. The aforesaid, Electoral Act, section 146(1) is one which needs to be looked at, so that we don't find ourselves in this type of legal loophole again.However, does this excuse the "do or die" politices of the PDP, or even the win at all cost of the pollitical machinary in Nigeria, whether, it's the PDP, AC, or ANPP.In various ways, they can't be said in all raminification , not to be party to this win at all cost mentality, which prevails more in the PDP.

Also going back to an article by Mobolaji Aluko(PHd) dated 02/03/08, titled:The Ogebe Ruling, the measure of (Substantial)Non-complicance-and a missed opportunity" on the Nigeria Village Square, he posits that for reasons given in the said article, "the supreme court, should be where most of what that ruling adhered to, to be tested.So, do we say, that the Ogebe ruling, had in fact being vindicated by the supreme court ruling, i would say Yes and No.

Yes, because it had upheld the election of Alh. Umaru Yar'Adua, which is the central theme.

No, because within the ruling of the supreme court, lays bear the role of the Independent Electoral Comission, the role of the appellant counsel(especially that of the ANPP candidate), the context within which the court adjudicate(as explained earlier)and other extraneous factors which had contributed in not being able to say forthrightly, that, that election was without credibility problem.Hear one of the submission of the judges on this:"if delibrately or through inadvertence those in charge of the election had left room for any one to doubt the integrity of the processes in the elections, then it is my view that the fundamental principles of the election have been compromised"(Justice George Oguntade).

I hope that questions have risen from this judgement even if the judgement itself, might not be agreed upon by everyone. I do have have my reservations. However if this judgement, begins a process of sanitizing the electoral process, by removing laws that impedes rather than allow the flow of democracy, and serves as a platform, then we might not have lost all.

And i hope this makes people like Dr. Jonathan Goodluck reflect on his univocal endorsement of Prof Murice Iwu(and by extension, INEC)as the best person to have conducted an election that has being free, fair and transparent, as the judgement does not bear him out.

Robot  # 1 | 13.12.2008 11:53

...Read the full article.

Law Mefor  # 2 | 13.12.2008 14:27

Yar’Adua/Goodluck victory is not all pyrrhic! I still believe it was better Obasanjo went back to Otta farm, no matter the method. Iwu’s brigandage method appears the only way this could have been achieved. Another method could also be mass action and Nigerians are yet to agree on metods. There was no election per se and we all know it. Now is the time to get it right. Democracy and freedom lovers should get going now and ensure that all necessary measures are put in place. The election reform team just recommended Option A4 among other measures. This is the time for all democrats to rise and fight and not wait to cry over spilt milk. INEC must be truly independent, especially in funding and appointment/ dismissal of its Chairman /commissioners. If this is still done by the president can be you sure there will never be free and fair election. Are we not aware that INEC cannot prosecute election offenders? How many convictions have we recorded as a nation since inception for all our ground-breaking rigging and election frauds? None. Again, inasmuch as I should defend the freedom of even my enemies as proof of being a democrat, I still believe that both Buhari and Atiku laid the mines against democracy at the most critical moments in the nation’s history and their humiliating ‘deafets’ boomerangs of these undemocratic actions: Buhari overthrew a democratically elected government of Shehu Shagari and made no plans to return power to civilians in his 2 years reign of terror, to say nothing about what he did to press freedom – the bastion of democracy; Atiku in 2003 PDP Primaries ensured (with the collaboration of Innocent Audu Ogbe – then PDP Chairman), that ballot papers were marked. That way, those states (governors) that were against the return of Obasanjo were frightened off and reined in. That was the day Atiku lost the chance of ruling Nigeria democratically. The consolation is that he (Atiku) admits he messed up the chance to save democracy in Nigeria and I am sure it is a veiled reference to the same issue. Of course, Buhari is not the type to apologize – a blueblood general apologize!

Abraxas  # 3 | 13.12.2008 14:52

Hi, folks! As far as the affairs of Nigeria are concerned, God no dey sleep! The karmic backlashes, and retributions on both Atiku Abubakar and Muhammadu Buhari are not trivial: Atiku, for providing a robust political platform that Aremu Igbochukwu Olusegun Okikiolakan Obasanjo used and hijacked to escalate way way way beyond the limit of his political competence; and Buhari, for high treason, subverting the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria via a coup d'etat. As far as I am concerned, those two men in particular should NEVER be allowed to preside over the affairs of Nigeria for the next 50 years. Muchas gracias. Don Juan-Carlos ABRAXAS (III)