Why Yar'Adua Is Still In Aso Villa
By Reuben Abati

The answer to the poser above is perhaps simple enough. President Umaru Yar'Adua and his Vice president Goodluck Jonathan are still sitting pretty and comfortably in Aso Villa, the seat of Presidential power, their aides have not been instructed to start packing their bags in readiness for a premature exit simply because on February 25, the Court of Appeal in Abuja, acting as the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal decided in its wisdom that Mallam Umaru Yar'Adua was validly elected as President on April 21, 2007. This was the court's response to the consolidated petitions by the Presidential candidate of the ANPP, General Muhammadu Buhari and his Action Congress colleague, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

Both Buhari and Atiku had asked the court to upturn the April 21, 2007 Presidential elections on the grounds that the election was marred by irregularities, voting did not take place in about 29 states, and in Atiku's case, he insisted that he was unfairly and unjustly excluded, the symbol of his party did not appear on the ballot papers, which in addition were not numbered serially. The Court of Appeal ruled that the case presented by the petitioners lacked merit, because they did not provide enough evidence to justify their pleadings nor was there enough evidence to show a failure of substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2006 in the conduct of the 2007 elections.

In a more than three-hour judgement delivered on live television by Justice Afolabi Fabiyi on behalf of his unanimously concurring brothers on the Appeal Court Bench, their Lordships more or less ridiculed the petitioners and their lawyers, in grassy, child-like voice, The trial had been on for eight months. The Appeal Court in its ruling gave the impression that counsel to the petitioners were indolent, having failed to provide proof to justify their assertions. Evidence is all of law; and in this particular case, the Justices took an interpretative stance and offered a legal judgement, that stays carefully within the province of the law but which failed to take note of the great public interest in the weighty matter before it. The ruling of their Lordships is that the litigants did not prove their case. The response of one articulate segment of the public is that the issues at stake are so clear that the justices need not base their judgement on technicalities, rather they should have engaged in judicial activism, if not judicial interventionism, to ensure that justice is done. A common statement in this regard is that their Lordships may have delivered a judgement, but justice has not been seen to have been done.

A second response is that the Court of Appeal offered its ruling on the basis of public policy, even if it did not say so. It is axiomatic that it is against public policy for the courts to offer judgements that can promote uncertainty or cause destabilization. But it is usually difficult for the court to admit expressly that it has been guided by the doctrine of necessity, for the doctrine is an unruly horse which is difficult to ride. Nonetheless, most commentators on the case have so far concluded that the Court of Appeal acted out of expediency. The danger in this is that the integrity of the court is now being openly questioned. There have been protests about the likely bribery of their Lordships.

There have been protests that the ruling offers protection for those who may wish to rig elections in the future knowing that the courts would not want to cancel a Presidential election in order to protect the public. Where public policy is relied upon, what is being said is that politics is more important than justice as in perhaps Gore vs Bush in which the US Supreme Court stopped a re-counting of the votes in Florida, thus allowing the latter to win. Till today, very few believe that President Bush actually won that US Presidential election. But what exactly is the public interest? Can it be defined objectively?

In every respect therefore, the Court of Appeal was in a rather difficult situation. It had an option to do justice, even if the heavens fall. But it also had an obligation to ensure that petitioners observed the law in proving their case. On both counts, unfortunately, the Court of Appeal has been discredited. From the beginning, Nigerians doubted the capacity of the Court of Appeal to do justice. This was the same Court of Appeal whose interpretations of the law had been revised routinely in the past by the Supreme Court. It will be recalled that this Court of Appeal once ruled that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) could exercise the powers of disqualification until the Supreme Court in the Atiku appeal, overruled it.

Again in the Omehia-Amaechi case, the Court of Appeal had refused twice to take the case insisting that it lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court unto which the entire judiciary looks for leadership had to order the Court of Appeal to take the case. In the end, it was the leadership of the Supreme Court that proved decisive. In the present case, there were allegations of corruption, whose publicity appears utterly contemptuous and which need not be repeated, and questions about the role played by Justice James Ogebe, the Chairman of the Tribunal.

What has been demonstrated is how the independence of the judiciary is so central to its integrity. Where a shred of doubt can be raised about a court's integrity, then whatever judgement it offers is automatically tainted. In its ruling in the Presidential election petition case, the Court of Appeal Abuja has raised loud questions about its own integrity which can only damage the place of the judiciary as a modulating factor in the democratic process.

It is largely for this reason that the public response to the charge that the petitioners did not prove their cases convincingly has been taken with large measures of disbelief. Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, counsel to General Buhari, had asked the justices to search "their bags of conscience." He accused the justices of laying ambush for the petitioners, first by not allowing them to lead evidence in open court to support their pleadings and then turning round to argue that the petitioners did not provide evidence. How could they possibly lead evidence if they were prevented from doing so? Other lawyers away from the court have similarly accused the justices contemptuously of partisanship. Thus, there has been much emphasis on what happened in court and outside of the court, making it easy to understand that the Justices were dealing with a case of a political nature, with many vested interests and their biggest failing in my view, is in offering a judgement that sought to satisfy the technical demands of elementary law. Ahamba was so angry he even issued a threat: "And I am saying that besides filing an appeal at the Supreme Court, I will take up these errant Justices at appropriate place as they have breached their own oath of office. I will take them up even if that is the last thing I do as a lawyer."

It is not enough to argue that the Court of Appeal ruled according to precedents because no Presidential election in Nigeria has ever been set aside (cf. Awolowo v Shagari; Falae v. Obasanjo; Buhari v. Obasanjo), or to project that overriding public policy was at work. The truth is that the ruling lacked rigour, it was a narrow technical pursuit of the law, whereas considering the importance of the case, jurisprudential rigour would have been useful in order to address the many ambivalences in the judgment as it is. Nothing exposes the poor quality of their Lordships exposition than the manner in which the INEC has latched on to one aspect of the ruling to claim that it has been vindicated in its position that the 2007 elections were free and fair.

In its ruling, the Court more or less gave the impression that all was well with the 2007 Presidential elections. The Courts' ultra legalistic interpretation of the matter before it, robbed it of the opportunity of moving close to the province of human rights, which were openly and brazenly violated in the 2007 elections. Judges are members of society. The Court of Appeal Justices reasoned as if they are from planet Mars. They turned the law into a robot as they sought a narrow correspondence between "clear rules of law and the clear findings of facts" This is why their ruling has been denied the attraction of public confidence.

The facts that they alleged that the petitioners did not make available, the public insists are so evident. It is the truth that the 2007 elections were massively rigged. Both local and international observers have written reports to confirm this to be so. In the Presidential election, in particular, voting did not start in most states of the federation until late in the day.

At the time of the election, the Action Congress had alleged that the result sheets were not signed by its agents. There were open allegations of ballot box theft, box stuffing and the re-writing of results. For a court of law to say openly that this has not been proven is bound to cause the kind of adverse public opinion that we have seen. Whereas court judgements cannot be based on the preferences of the mob, or media reports, the court in whatever choice it makes must be seen to be impartial. The Court of Appeal is now being required to give assurances of its impartiality. It is the worst thing that can happen to a court of law.

In this as in other cases, the intervention of the Supreme Court would prove to be important. Both Buhari and Atiku have announced their intention to go to the Supreme Court on appeal. The Supreme Court may not overrule the Court of Appeal, but it is expected to give a ruling with enough gravitas to allay all expressed fears. In the 2007 elections, President Umaru Yar'Adua scored a total of 24.6 million votes, he was followed by Buhari with 6.6 million votes and Atiku by 2.4 million votes. With the ruling of the election petition tribunals in at least more than 25 cases including Senatorial and state elections, and the annulment of Gubernatorial elections in about six states, it is obvious enough that there were irregularities in the conduct of the elections. But even if half of the votes given to Yar'Adua were cancelled and given to the petitioners, commonsense shows that he would still emerge as winner. A more robust judgement could have addressed all the grey areas, even as reflections outside the main substance of the judgement.

For whatever it is worth, the Court of Appeal ruling in the case of the Presidential election petitions has given the Yar'Adua government what looks like a stamp of legitimacy. So far, due process has been followed in affirming the President's right to that office. Unfortunately there was dancing and clinking of glasses only in the Presidential Villa. Nigerians did not troop out onto the streets to celebrate. In eight months, President Yar'Adua has not done anything by way of governance to justify such display of excitement. His government has been busy reversing most of the initiatives of the previous administration, no real alternative is being provided other than a monotonous reference to a "seven-point agenda" that is better appreciated on paper. Perhaps with the success of his case at the Court of Appeal, President Yar'Adua would now see the need to begin to govern by focusing on deliverables. Despite all the misgivings that may have been expressed, however, the people's faith in the court of law is not damaged. This is why there is no expression of outrage out there and Yar'Adua can afford to jet off to China, and even the critics are looking up to the Supreme Court. We are still better than the Kenyans.

One thing that is clear in all this though is that Nigerians are unhappy about electoral malpractices and the brazen violation of the people's right to choose by those who rig elections. In the election petitions that have been determined so far, there is none in which the rigging of elections has been made a central issue. Mostly, the cases have been determined on the basis of technicalities. Nothing is being done about those who steal ballot boxes, and stuff them with votes, the policemen and other security agents who facilitate this criminality, and the beneficiaries, who steal the people's mandate.

This is why in the local council elections that have been conducted, and in the ward and state congresses of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) ahead of the party's March 8 national Convention, there has been no improvement in electoral attitudes. What we need I suppose is an Electoral Fraud Commission, so that even if certain elections are upheld, those who may have in one way or the other engaged in electoral fraud can be brought to justice, and the pleadings in such cases should be easy to prove in a court of justice.

Robot  # 1 | 02.03.2008 06:59

Why Yar'Adua Is Still In Aso Villa By Reuben Abati T...Read the full article.

aguabata  # 2 | 02.03.2008 12:34

I am more concerned about the inability of the Buhari/Atiku petition in producing overwhelming evidence, I think it is a bit unserious to say that because the international community and everybody knows the election was rigged then the judges should annul the election,anyway the judges made their decisions with a whiff of predisposition, their body language and attitude was poor, i would rather have loved the petitioners to have shown Gani Fawenmhi (SAM) and other patriotic/Objective lawyers enough evidence to explain to us that their evidence was enough to annul the elections but the judges looked away and upheld the election. Just as I would wish that all the past/present thieving governors should be hung without trial, we still can not do away with the technicality of justice. The truth is that it's a pain to see someone go unpunished but its even a greater pain to build an institution which could one day harm the innocent. let oppostion parties begin now to work out ways to gather evidence for the 2011 elections, maybe that way they wouldnt leave any stone unturned.

Bunch17  # 3 | 02.03.2008 12:57

=aguabata;4294993116>..... i would rather have loved the petitioners to have shown Gani Fawenmhi (SAM) and other patriotic/Objective lawyers .. You are having a laugh, right?

Onari  # 4 | 02.03.2008 13:48

=aguabata;4294993116>I am more concerned about the inability of the Buhari/Atiku petition in producing overwhelming evidence, I think it is a bit unserious to say that because the international community and everybody knows the election was rigged then the judges should annul the election,anyway the judges made their decisions with a whiff of predisposition, their body language and attitude was poor, i would rather have loved the petitioners to have shown Gani Fawenmhi (SAM) and other patriotic/Objective lawyers enough evidence to explain to us that their evidence was enough to annul the elections but the judges looked away and upheld the election. . Aguabata, I really disagree with you that, the reason why the Presidential election was upheld was that Atiku and Buhari did not present enough and overwhelming evidence to upturn the election. The Honorable justices simple shirked away from their responsibility, looked other way and justice was denied to Nigerians and not to Atiku or Buhari alone. I hope this injustice will be reversed and all those who have sat on the bench and denied justice to the Nigerian people will be rewarded accordingly.

ariteni  # 5 | 02.03.2008 15:10

The Tribunal Verdict is in accord with the opinion of majority of Nigerians. That explains lack of protests. First, we ceded the Presidency to the North, so the contest was strictly a BUHARI-ATIKU-YAR'ADUA contest though there were 30 Presidential Candidates. Atiku has been in office for 8 years! (by the grace of Baba Iyabo) Buhari should thank God his Petition failed. He is from Katsina and knows the implication a victory. IN ANY CASE I STAND SOLIDLY BY PROF WOLE SOYINKA'S ADMONITION THAT BUHARI IS NOT ELECTABLE. Atiku did not expect to be declared winner because he came third. These Petitioners are jokers! They don't even talk to each other! Had they joined forces, they would have made some impact although the outcome would have been the same. It would have been a travesty of justice for ANY court to declare either of them winner. (And the other would not have conceded!) It would also have been brazen abuse of judicial power to declare the Presidential Election invalid. No court has jurisdiction to make such order. You cannot pursue remedy in a Court of Law and then beg the Court to admit inadmissible evidence or give you a judgement "on sentiments". THE PETITIONS ARE A BRAZEN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS. They are not even worth the paper on which they are written and it is unfortunate that the Tribunal failed to dismiss them with stronger dicta. A first year law student would tell you off the cuff that "substantial compliance" is a full and complete answer to these distractive Petitions. But as per "ABATI'S NEW THEORY OF JUSTICE" the Tribunal should have found a way to invalidate the election by admitting inadmissible evidence or to please some noisemakers "so that Nigeria's democracy can grow" Petitions are filed for whatever objective the Petitioner intended. These petitioners have achieved their objective. They ridicled Prof Iwu and continously exchanged banters with him throughout the proceedings. But Iwu's Lawyers did a good job and even told the Petitioners before the judgement that they are losers. (The case was being argued simultaneously outside the courtroom!) Atiku Abubakar was defeated in his ward by Mohammadu Buhari, did Yar'Adua rig it for Buhari? If a candidate contests by order of Court and scores over 2 Million Votes but then goes to the same court to complain of unlawful exclusion, lawyers know that he has brought a frivolous action. Please stop citing Awolowo Vs Sagari. Awolowo NEVER sought invalidation of the election as these jokers did. For any Nigerian (whoever he may be) to ask Nigerians to go and line up to vote twice in one year is simply WICKED. Even an Alkali Court would never make such oppressive order and for Atiku Abubakar to wish that for the country clearly betrays his level of patriotism. (He probably acted on wrong advice) NOBODY should beg these Petitioners to stop here. They should be applauded for going on APPEAL to the Supreme Court. The outcome would be the same not because of a corrupt judiciary but because the Petitions are frivolous and unsound in law. It is unfortunate that Chief Gani Fawehinmi (who has started a fine tradition of evaluating (professionally) Court Judgements is currently indisposed and I wish him speedy recovery. Chief Ahamba, a respected senior member of the Bar has exercised his freedom of speech in condemning the justices but his case in 2007 is no different from that in 2003 nor will the condemnation make a difference. He knows the "ins and outs" of the Supreme Court but should educate the others what to expect. He is canvassing his client's views NOT those of Nigerians. Yar'Adua rightly dedicates the victory to Nigerians and adds that power belongs to God. NOBODY can make himself President of Nigeria. Any of those who have "been there" before should "first go find somewhere siddon" We have tacitly allowed them to escape with their loot but they should leave Nigeria alone for now. That also means they should allow Yar' Adua to concentrate. (And his dad to rest in retirement) ... SO THAT NIGERIA MAY "MOVE FORWARD" (Dr Abati you don't have to use such uncharitable words on the Court of Appeal. Remember: NO CHERRY - PICKING!) TO SAY THAT THE ELECTIONS WERE NOT PERFECT IS REPEATING THE OBVIOUS. BUT TO DECLARE ANOTHER PARTY'S CANDIDATE WINNER WHEN PDP CONTROLS 70% OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IS BRAZEN INJUSTICE. ANNULMENT WAS SIMPLY NOT AN OPTION. JUSTICE MUST BE DONE NO MATTER WHOSE OX IS GORED. That explains why the President is still in Aso Rock.

salford  # 6 | 02.03.2008 16:40

UMYA is still in the Villa becos he is playing his game well. He appears weak and harmless like Shagari, but he plays the games of politics with an iron fist under kid gloves. He promotes those who will protect his interest and fill sensitive positions with his henchmen. Buhari and Atiku will never get any ruling against UMYA in any court because he has done his home work.

presidency  # 7 | 02.03.2008 17:29

=ariteni;4294993140>The Tribunal Verdict is in accord with the opinion of majority of Nigerians. That explains lack of protests. First, we ceded the Presidency to the North, so the contest was strictly a BUHARI-ATIKU-YAR'ADUA contest though there were 30 Presidential Candidates. Atiku has been in office for 8 years! (by the grace of Baba Iyabo) Buhari should thank God his Petition failed. He is from Katsina and knows the implication a victory. IN ANY CASE I STAND SOLIDLY BY PROF WOLE SOYINKA'S ADMONITION THAT BUHARI IS NOT ELECTABLE. Atiku did not expect to be declared winner because he came third. These Petitioners are jokers! They don't even talk to each other! Had they joined forces, they would have made some impact although the outcome would have been the same. It would have been a travesty of justice for ANY court to declare either of them winner. (And the other would not have conceded!) It would also have been brazen abuse of judicial power to declare the Presidential Election invalid. No court has jurisdiction to make such order. You cannot pursue remedy in a Court of Law and then beg the Court to admit inadmissible evidence or give you a judgement "on sentiments". THE PETITIONS ARE A BRAZEN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS. They are not even worth the paper on which they are written and it is unfortunate that the Tribunal failed to dismiss them with stronger dicta. A first year law student would tell you off the cuff that "substantial compliance" is a full and complete answer to these distractive Petitions. But as per "ABATI'S NEW THEORY OF JUSTICE" the Tribunal should have found a way to invalidate the election by admitting inadmissible evidence or to please some noisemakers "so that Nigeria's democracy can grow" Petitions are filed for whatever objective the Petitioner intended. These petitioners have achieved their objective. They ridicled Prof Iwu and continously exchanged banters with him throughout the proceedings. But Iwu's Lawyers did a good job and even told the Petitioners before the judgement that they are losers. (The case was being argued simultaneously outside the courtroom!) Atiku Abubakar was defeated in his ward by Mohammadu Buhari, did Yar'Adua rig it for Buhari? If a candidate contests by order of Court and scores over 2 Million Votes but then goes to the same court to complain of unlawful exclusion, lawyers know that he has brought a frivolous action. Please stop citing Awolowo Vs Sagari. Awolowo NEVER sought invalidation of the election as these jokers did. For any Nigerian (whoever he may be) to ask Nigerians to go and line up to vote twice in one year is simply WICKED. Even an Alkali Court would never make such oppressive order and for Atiku Abubakar to wish that for the country clearly betrays his level of patriotism. (He probably acted on wrong advice) NOBODY should beg these Petitioners to stop here. They should be applauded for going on APPEAL to the Supreme Court. The outcome would be the same not because of a corrupt judiciary but because the Petitions are frivolous and unsound in law. It is unfortunate that Chief Gani Fawehinmi (who has started a fine tradition of evaluating (professionally) Court Judgements is currently indisposed and I wish him speedy recovery. Chief Ahamba, a respected senior member of the Bar has exercised his freedom of speech in condemning the justices but his case in 2007 is no different from that in 2003 nor will the condemnation make a difference. He knows the "ins and outs" of the Supreme Court but should educate the others what to expect. He is canvassing his client's views NOT those of Nigerians. Yar'Adua rightly dedicates the victory to Nigerians and adds that power belongs to God. NOBODY can make himself President of Nigeria. Any of those who have "been there" before should "first go find somewhere siddon" We have tacitly allowed them to escape with their loot but they should leave Nigeria alone for now. That also means they should allow Yar' Adua to concentrate. (And his dad to rest in retirement) ... SO THAT NIGERIA MAY "MOVE FORWARD" (Dr Abati you don't have to use such uncharitable words on the Court of Appeal. Remember: NO CHERRY - PICKING!) TO SAY THAT THE ELECTIONS WERE NOT PERFECT IS REPEATING THE OBVIOUS. BUT TO DECLARE ANOTHER PARTY'S CANDIDATE WINNER WHEN PDP CONTROLS 70% OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IS BRAZEN INJUSTICE. ANNULMENT WAS SIMPLY NOT AN OPTION. JUSTICE MUST BE DONE NO MATTER WHOSE OX IS GORED. That explains why the President is still in Aso Rock. ariteni: Point of correction: Neither Atiku nor Buhari asked the Appeal Court to declare them as the winner of the election. They approached the Court to seek the nullification of the election on the ground that the election was a farce and that the result is astronomically and unacceptably manipulated. Please, always get your facts right before jumping into arguments. Presidency

tanibaba  # 8 | 03.03.2008 04:00

Dr. Abati I am really shocked that you could write this piece. I sincerely hope that you are not just trying to play to the gallery. Indeed what is at stake here is your own integrity. I don’t know if you listened to or read the judgement. If you did then one wonders why you wrote these lines: One thing that is clear in all this though is that Nigerians are unhappy about electoral malpractices and the brazen violation of the people's right to choose by those who rig elections. In the election petitions that have been determined so far, there is none in which the rigging of elections has been made a central issue. Mostly, the cases have been determined on the basis of technicalities. Nothing is being done about those who steal ballot boxes, and stuff them with votes, the policemen and other security agents who facilitate this criminality, and the beneficiaries, who steal the people's mandate. So if rigging was not made a central issue on what basis did you assert that there were electoral malpractices. Rigging couldn’t have been because all the parties rigged. But in your wisdom you have presented two opposing views in one sentence. Bravo Both Buhari and Atiku had asked the court to upturn the April 21, 2007 Presidential elections on the grounds that the election was marred by irregularities, voting did not take place in about 29 states, and in Atiku's case, he insisted that he was unfairly and unjustly excluded, the symbol of his party did not appear on the ballot papers, which in addition were not numbered serially. The Court of Appeal ruled that the case presented by the petitioners lacked merit, because they did not provide enough evidence to justify their pleadings nor was there enough evidence to show a failure of substantial compliance with the Electoral Act 2006 in the conduct of the 2007 elections. Mr. Reuben Abati I am happy for you that you did not read law. If you did you may not have been as successful as you are as a journalist. Are you aware of the doctrine of estoppel in law. If indeed ballot papers were not serially numbered, your picture was absent etc and you went ahead to partake (and indeed voted ) in the elections and you now turned round after losing to claim reliefs and you expect the court to grant you such reliefs then you must be a joker. Enough of these childish statements please; they are campaign after elections. Did you listen to the judges on the grounds for not granting the relief of exclusion? The principal officers of PDP(Tom Ikimi and co) averred and indeed gave evidence to the effect that Alhaji Atiku was “the presidential candidate of AC in the April elections” and yet the party is claiming exclusion. Can a learned lawyer help me here. Sentiments apart, I am disappointed that you penned these lines. And why did you not include in your essay those proofs that the court said were not provided. Why did you have to side with the losing parties in view of their glaring omissions and unseriousness to the extent that you will issue these uncomplimentary verdict on the judiciary when you wrote: What has been demonstrated is how the independence of the judiciary is so central to its integrity. Where a shred of doubt can be raised about a court's integrity, then whatever judgement it offers is automatically tainted. In its ruling in the Presidential election petition case, the Court of Appeal Abuja has raised loud questions about its own integrity which can only damage the place of the judiciary as a modulating factor in the democratic process. Please let us be serious and let us know that when you are looking at someone’s yansh, someone else is looking at yours. Dr Abati it is time you realized that you are not just another journalist. taslim

i-go-better  # 9 | 03.03.2008 05:44

=tanibaba;4294993236>Dr. Abati I am really shocked that you could write this piece. I sincerely hope that you are not just trying to play to the gallery. Indeed what is at stake here is your own integrity. I don’t know if you listened to or read the judgement. If you did then one wonders why you wrote these lines: So if rigging was not made a central issue on what basis did you assert that there were electoral malpractices. Rigging couldn’t have been because all the parties rigged. But in your wisdom you have presented two opposing views in one sentence. Bravo Mr. Reuben Abati I am happy for you that you did not read law. If you did you may not have been as successful as you are as a journalist. Are you aware of the doctrine of estoppel in law. If indeed ballot papers were not serially numbered, your picture was absent etc and you went ahead to partake (and indeed voted ) in the elections and you now turned round after losing to claim reliefs and you expect the court to grant you such reliefs then you must be a joker. Enough of these childish statements please; they are campaign after elections. Did you listen to the judges on the grounds for not granting the relief of exclusion? The principal officers of PDP(Tom Ikimi and co) averred and indeed gave evidence to the effect that Alhaji Atiku was “the presidential candidate of AC in the April elections” and yet the party is claiming exclusion. Can a learned lawyer help me here. Sentiments apart, I am disappointed that you penned these lines. And why did you not include in your essay those proofs that the court said were not provided. Why did you have to side with the losing parties in view of their glaring omissions and unseriousness to the extent that you will issue these uncomplimentary verdict on the judiciary when you wrote: Please let us be serious and let us know that when you are looking at someone’s yansh, someone else is looking at yours. Dr Abati it is time you realized that you are not just another journalist. taslim The absolute lack of quality in the argument of many of those in support of the charrade called election/judgement is enough testimony that this great Nation is in the hands of Duncedom; this post by this so-called Tinababa is just another emphatic emphasis.

peterclaver2006  # 10 | 03.03.2008 07:16

Well written and right on the point. I think it is the judiciary that has inadvertently put itself on dock for all these mess. The redemptive work the Supreme Court needs to do, and I have no doubt it will do it, remains the only option the Nigerian judiciary would embrace on this issue. The judgment was predictable and it was delivered with a comical hue that exposed their shady intents. Striving to hide under an unexplainable and highly vacuous judicial authority to give a stamp of legality to the kind of bizarre robbery the scums and shameless sons of dogs visited on this country last April, is a bizarre and fruitless enterprise the judges of the appeal court and the reprobates that appropriated that rotten judgment will find impossible to drive home with Nigerians. Those that are clinking glasses and dancing to the altar of the god of evil that their fruit of robbery and vote stealing has been given a legal stamp are only having a temporary fun. I say this with the rich history of the developments that tailspinned into the biggest electoral heist in human history in April 2007, which curiously, this judgment struggled to justify. Being able to prove a case beyond all reasonable doubt is no than a borderless excuse compromised judges employ to justify their nefarious acts. I don’t give any damn about it because it lacks scientific rigor and takes only the dark minds of a flimsy judge to utter and no more. It is ridiculous that some people are quoting this phrase to justify their watery victory at a tribunal whose compromised statue was well-known before it mounted its awkward comedy last Tuesday, as if it means anything more than a flimsy excuse for a judge to compromise oneself, as it can still be a statement of fact. Curiously, none of those who applaud the so-called judgment, because it plays to their greed and looting instincts, except the yahoo yahoo professor and shameless con artist, Maurice Iwu has been able to claim that the sham election was free and fair. Instead they claim superior appearance on court based on the deliberate effort of some compromised judges to pervert justice. Is it not curious? A court judgment should be able to confirm a fact but curiously this one runs contrary to the facts every Nigerian and the entire world knows. This is the reason why it is a fraud and will certainly not stand, even should the Supreme Court go ahead and uphold it, which I seriously doubt. The Supreme Court will certainly start its demystification, as the appeal court has done, should it deliver such wonky and dawdy judgment on the elections petitions and it has recently shown a string of consistency in recent times to upturn the dirty machinations of the same frauds that concocted the electoral fraud of April, who are drinking themselves to stupor, abusing and denigrating the entire world for standing up to their efforts to sustain fraud and corruption and make it a part of the Nigerian life. Then people will abandon the courts and resort to any sly means to achieve their ends. What happens to salt that has lost its flavour; it is thrown away and trampled by men. That is what is happening to the Appeal Court and its jeun jeun five judges presently and it will continue until Nigeria frees itself from the desperate claws of remorseless cannibals.

---

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

---