Category: Thursday

  • Hate is a polished tomb

    Hate is a polished tomb

    Hate seems like other people’s torment until it growls in you. Sometimes, it glowers in the eyes of a bigot and the scowl of a predator. Sometimes, it seethes in the quiet glances of their prey.

    These days, it shrieks in the rant of the Nigerian wild – our virtual wilderness to be precise. Here, we relive the infernal crud of frantic personae: the political animal, apolitical pacifist, hyperbolic ‘influencer,’ data-fabulous millennial, and the defiant Gen Z, scud to the shore of national consciousness on the world wide web – all hoisting tribal banners and interests. 

    Whatever the bent of their politics, they cuddle one prejudice and cringe from the other as their vanities dictate. Such is the tenor of political correctness that has seen many clash in defence and furtherance of random bigotries or a desperate demagogue. Journalists, activists, rights activists, and failed political aspirants afflict our social space like pitiless hooligans.

    They mistake lava for wit and molten banality for intellect. Their voices weigh like a thundercloud; whether debating celebrity scuffles or their political preferences, their passions sparkle and flit from fetid intelligence to brilliant witlessness.

    There is a cult of ignorance knifing through Nigeria right now, ripping all that should bind us apart – particularly in cyberspace. This cult thrives on anti-intellectualism and base sophistry – derogatorily dismissed as otellectualism in Yoruba parlance, to connote the presumed intellectual’s acquiescence to be corrupted by what the Yoruba term as ‘ote’ translatable as ‘perfidy’ or ‘treachery.’

    This strain of anti-intellectualism  rifles through our sociopolitical and cultural lives, nurtured by the false notion that the freedom of speech means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’ or that ‘my malevolence is just as good as your benevolence.’

    The malady manifests in cyberspace in real time. In this public space, everybody becomes a wilding, trading bitter realism, infantile whim, and pseudo-idealism with awful relish.

    The guts and sinews of every stereotype and theme-park hatred are validated via mind-numbing sloganeering, toxic bigotries, sophistry, and outright lies.

    A casual visit to Facebook or Twitter manifests as a pilgrimage; the esplanades of public discourse unfurl to a sordid, cutout version of anarchic thinking, replete with ethnoreligious bigotries and the hassle of incomprehensible logic. Then, there are the strange movements and morbid ideologies – all fostered and marshalled from bizarre platforms.

    In this public wilderness, everybody pontificates. Everyone mutates from philosopher to savage pawn and vice versa; they all speak impressive and atrocious lingo. Call it our patois of rebuke and immoderate assemblies.

    Read Also: Atiku, Obi and fellow election deniers

    En route to the 2023 elections, we encountered Nigerians of vast mental stripes in our social space: the BATIFIED, ATIKULATE, AND OBIDIENT. Once you get past the facade of slogans and artifice, it’s mostly the same defiant, virulent passion driving the mob.

    Even after the elections, the bickering persists. We see the savage mutations of the political Nigerian: persons of presumed higher learning, persons afflicted by poverty, persons of affluence, authority, and high glamour. The lambent complexion turns muddy. The aura vanishes. Integrity is innately borne and espoused as a kernel of character but respect is a gift under no one’s control. It peaks and ebbs as spectator mood at a crunch soccer tie.

    A familiar decline from admiration to disillusion, hope to disenchantment festers in the citizenry’s public engagement with one another and their elected representatives.

    Our greatest undoing, however, would be our inability to douse the flames of hatred incited by our bigotries and cutthroat politics; post-2023 election, our politics must be rid of rancour. There is no excuse for maligning an individual, group, or social divide for their political choices at the just concluded elections.

    Where such mayhem subsists,  everybody gets burnt: the ruling class, opposition parties, the entitled elite, and the wealthy upper class. At the bottom of the cauldron, however, roasts the incorrigible hordes of the boondocks, or ‘base’ electorate if you like.

    Through the inferno and chaos, we must seek a redefinition of the Nigerian patriot. We must learn from the chaos overseas. Again, I reiterate that Nigerians learn from the Afghan experience. In the wake of the United States-backed NATO’s sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan, Gaisu Yari, an Afghan refugee, now grantee of the Open Society Foundation (OSF), recalls his flight from his homeland as his darkest hour.

    As the U.S. and NATO commenced their hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan, he had just four hours to pack up every personal item in his apartment. He had to decide, without wasting time, what to take and what to leave behind—knowing that he might never see anything left behind again.

    “One rule kept circling through my mind: Pack the life you have created here in Afghanistan into one suitcase and never forget the dreams of the people of this land,” he recalled.

    Thus in barely four gruesome hours, he anxiously stuffed a few belongings in his bag and parted with his life, his work, and everything that made him Afghan. In a pain-filled memoir, Yari revealed that he cried all through his perilous trip to the Kabul airport. He hadn’t enough time to say goodbye to loved ones.

    And as much he tried to conjure ways to plan, resist, and fight to stay in Afghanistan, with each passing moment, ”it became gut-wrenchingly evident that we had lost our chance,” he said.

    One year after his painful departure from his homeland, Yari relives the agony of his flight; he relives the pain of saying goodbye to his tearful mother on the roof of an old house, where he had been hiding from the Taliban for three days.

    He eventually evacuated to Poland, landing with his family in a refugee camp with scarce food or resources. Even so, Yari is luckier than fellow refugees and Afghans who fled to Poland, France, Canada, and the U.S. At least, he enjoys the momentary boon of an OSF grant thus he might not have to really worry anymore about the quality of his provisions, living space, and food supplies.

    Yet every day he rues the misery of refugee life, the pain of sudden flight, those stolen moments with his mom, and the aching feeling of being abandoned.

    Every new dawn he spends abroad lacerates him to the bones and leaves a thick welt on his psyche. He realises that he is living some of his “darkest days a year after leaving” his homeland.

    Would Nigerians learn from the sad fate of the Yaris of the world?  Yari and fellow Afghan refugees never imagined that their country ”could fall back into the hands of the Taliban—and that no one could save it.” 

    As they fled, many of them took with them, what they thought was important. “A prosecutor told Yari in his OSF-sponsored documentary, “Afghan Voices” that he brought his  knowledge and experience to the U.S. “But does that matter here in the United States? No,” he said. Quite instructive.

    And despite their initial patronage by the bleeding heart  Western press, Afghanistan has faded from global news headlines.

    As we heal from the 2023 elections, let us be guided by the Afghans’ experience. Nigerians must desist from rancorous engagement with each other.

    We must scorn chaos and poisonous interventions by aliens, whose major interest is to abolish our sovereignty, plunder our resources, and strip us bare to devious elements.

  • Atiku, Obi and fellow election deniers

    Atiku, Obi and fellow election deniers

    Resorting to the judiciary for election disputes as enshrined in the 1999 constitution, section six and part VIII of the Electoral Act 2022, has become part of our electoral process. Although the ideal as many have argued is that INEC remains the final arbiter in all elections matters but as many others have also argued, any provision that offers relief to the aggrieved and prevents a loser from appealing to the mob is unarguably healthy for the democratization process.

    The problem with Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi however was that they are sore losers who having failed to win the popular votes or meet the twelve-two-third of 36 states and Abuja constitutional spread threshold, tried to use the judiciary to upturn the result of the election through technicalities.

    While that option was being half-heartedly pursued, they resorted to lies, misinformation  and propaganda using the social media, all designed to assassinate the character of the winner of the election even as they moved from one TV platform to another issuing incendiary statements aimed at undermining the integrity of the judiciary. Many believed it was all part of an elaborate sinister plan to create social dislocation through their disruptive behaviour during the eight months the nation was held hostage, if they could not have it.

    Some of the unintended consequences of their unpatriotic act of trying to undermine the legitimacy of a free and fair election won round and square by their opponent however was the unveiling of themselves as sore losers driven not by consideration for the stability of our nation but by their own naked ambitions. That it was all about them and not about us, the facts stare us all on the face.

     Atiku had contested for the presidency six times jumping from one political platform to the other until 2023 when he, in breach of PDP constitution and by appealing to ethnic sentiments, secured the party’s presidential ticket which immediately led to the fragmentation of the party into four. Similarly, Obi had jumped from APGA, the platform that gave him an opportunity to serve as a two term Anambra governor to PDP where he was rewarded with VP slot to Atiku in the 2019 election.

    With PDP constitution which zoned its presidential ticket to the south, Obi was convinced 2023 was his turn until Atiku, driven by his own inordinate ambition manipulated the outcome of PDP primaries with the help of Tambuwal. Obi resigned from PDP, joined Labour Party, the all-purpose vehicle for distressed politicians. He decided to pay Atiku back in his own coins by returning to the east to equally exploit the ethnic and religious sentiments of his marginalized Igbo people that had served PDP faithfully for 22 years. Although polls after polls conducted by his supporters among urban immigrant youths placed him ahead of other contestants, he came a distant third having lost woefully in nearly all the 19 northern states.

    And if you are still in doubt that it was all about these two sore losers with a common world view and not about Nigeria, let us interrogate their activities since they discovered from election results from their polling agents across the country by February 27, two days after the election, that the election was lost and won.

     Unlike President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015, both sore losers, despite not meeting any of the constitutional requirements to become president claimed victory and headed to the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) alleging massive rigging and INEC’s failure to deploy the IREV for the simultaneous transmission of results. With a unanimous ruling of the five judges, their case was dismissed. The ruling aired live was hailed as ‘sound in law’ by leading lights of the legal profession.

    Both headed for the Supreme Court without any new evidence beyond Atiku’s attempt to hang on to a straw in form of the president’s faulty Chicago University records that has been in the public space since 1999 when he ran for governor in Lagos State.  Once again, the seven Supreme Court judges in a unanimous decision dismissed Atiku’s case and spent less than five minutes in dismissing the case of Obi whose lawyers the judges insinuated were on a safari.

    Read Also: Atiku congratulates Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan on Appeal victory

    For leaders and true democrats who care about our crisis of nation-building, that was an opportunity to end all forms of disruptive behaviours and join the winner of the election in addressing some of our self-inflicted  problems by the likes of Atiku and Obi who because of the Nigerian factor, are multi billionaires without owning any industry.

    Instead, the two sore losers and their parties once again roundly rejected a judgment hailed by legal giants including Prof Itse Sagay, Robert Clarke, Chief Mike Ahamba, Koyinsola Ajayi, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Sylva Ogwemoh, Babatunde Fashanu and Wahab Shittu, all Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), as ‘unassailable’. PDP without proof claimed that “the majority of Nigerians are alarmed and disappointed and gravely concerned with the reasoning of the Supreme Court” while Atiku accused INEC and the judiciary of “being trapped in an evil web of political machination”.

    But they are not alone.  There are other elections deniers who, because their only reality is the picture in their heads, believe Nigeria is a zoo as long as Nigerians refuse to swallow their warped prejudices. We have Obiageli Ezekwesili, a former minister of education and solid minerals, who described the Supreme Court’s verdict affirming President Bola Tinubu’s victory as a ‘judicial enthronement of criminality’.

    We also have in the group, our New York based Adichie Chimamanda , a world acclaimed fiction writer and one of the best thinkers of the century,  who from the hearsay reports of her cousins back home, was persuaded the result of the election was “ so unacceptably and unforgivably flawed”. She went on to query US President Joe Biden for “endorsing a president-elect who according to her “has emerged from an unlawful process”. Finally, she accused The Washington Post of intellectual laziness” for accepting INEC’s “officials claim that non-simultaneous transmission of the result’ by IREV was due to technical glitches and not sabotage”.

    We also have Professor Pat Utomi, a political economist reputed for working closely with eminent Nigerian politicians since the collapse of the second republic but today says ‘democracy must be brought down because it is not working for us’. For him, “his problem is not whether the Nigerian revolution is imminent; it is knocking on the door. The burden on my soul is that it could be the dawning of Robert Kaplan’s Coming Anarchy that may be a chauffeur-driven passage on the road to Somalia.”

    We can add to the list Charles Oputa, a veteran singer and social activist, who with alleged prodding of Obasanjo took the youths out on the street of Abuja after Tinubu’s victory demanding for an inauguration of an interim national government or the take-over by the military.

    Finally since history often repeats itself, let us draw a parallel between election deniers of 1993 and 2023. In 1993, we had as key players Ibrahim Babangida, Olusegun Obasanjo, Bashir Tofa, Arthur Nzeribe, Chukwuemeka Ezeife, Walter Ofonagoro, Clement Apamgbo and Tom Ikimi etc. Today we have Obasanjo, Obi, Atiku, Ezeife, Utomi, Ezekwesili, Adichie and Charles Oputa among others.

    But we know it is more about them and less about us.  And that is why the Nigeria these election deniers cannot control is a Lugard’s zoo or a failed state. Atiku accused INEC and the judiciary of “being trapped in an evil web of political machination”.

  • Supreme Court: Muhammed’s swansong

    Supreme Court: Muhammed’s swansong

    To Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and his camp, the Supreme Court’s Oçtober 26 verdict was a devastating blow. Reason: Atiku had invested a lot in what he thought was an unassailable case to unseat President Bola Tinubu. Atiku spent time, energy and money to fish for ‘after-discovered evidence’.

       Atiku had other mission beyond being president. It was a case of either him or any other person, but Tinubu. As long as it was Tinubu that was going to be president, the Wazirin Adamawa was determined to fight it until the last drop of his blood.

       After Tinubu was declared winner of the February 25 poll, Atiku, in exercise of his right, went to the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC), the constitutionally recognised tribunal for challenging the outcome of the poll.

       His lawyers were to, in what the Supreme Court described as a joke taking too far, turn round on appeal to say the PEPC is not a tribunal. It is trite that election disputes are not handled by the regular courts. As they are sui generis (of their own kind), they are handled by courts specially constituted for that purpose and backed by specific laws.

       Unlike common law cases which come up in court everyday, elections are seasonal and so the disputes. Elections are held at intervals, depending on the timeline fixed by countries. In Nigeria, they are held every four years, except the off-season elections which are held as exigencies demand. Election tribunals are creations of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which confers them with exclusive power.

       According to Section 285 (1) of the Constitution, the National Assembly Election Tribunals, shall, to the exclusion of any court or tribunal, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions related to that poll and other incidental matters.

      For the presidential election, the Court of Appeal is designated as the tribunal to adjudicate on disputes arising from it. From the outset, it was glaring that the February 25 poll would end up at the tribunal. Everything pointed at a contentious election. The supporters of Atiku and Peter Obi of Labour Party (LP) were hell-bent on ensuring that the election went their respective principal’s way, come what may.

      At the PEPC, Atiku lost hands down. The tribunal  threw out his petition for lacking in merit, declaring that he did not provide any facts to back his claim that Tinubu was not qualified to run.

      The petitioner, the tribunal held, only pleaded non-disqualification without providing particulars thereof. Atiku’s lawyers tried to cure the defect on appeal. The Supreme Court saw through their plan and stopped them in their tracks. The court said they could not introduce fresh evidence at that stage of proceedings which was not canvassed at the tribunal. To wriggle out of the dilemma, they said the PEPC was not a tribunal, but a conventional court.

    Read Also: Supreme Court verdict: First Lady hails ruling as the ‘Lord’s doing’

      But, Section 239 of the Constitution stipulates that the Court of Appeal, shall to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine whether any person has been validly elected to the office of President or Vice-President. It goes without question that the PEPC sat as a tribunal to hear Atiku’s petition and his lawyers did not object.

      The apex court dismissed the objection outright. Atiku is whining that the court was unfair to him by dismissing his laughable claims, especially the evidence he imported from the United States (US). He points at what former Supreme Court Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammed said at his valediction a day after the verdict to justify his spurious claims. Muhammed had said the panel that heard the appeal should have been composed of people from the country’s six geopolitical zones. Is that so?

       His answer was: “in the interest of justice”. I do not get his point. Is he saying that the justices will do justice according to the zone they come from and favour any candidate from there even if his case is bad? That will be the day when the Supreme Court starts to do justice according to where their Lordships hail from!

      Muhammed might have meant well in his assessment of the judiciary (I refuse to call it criticism), but he went about it the wrong way. Is the Supreme Court’s verdict flawed because the panellists did not come from all the geopolitical zones? It is not. The panellists did justice according to the law and not where they came from. Thank God, Muhammad was not on the panel. Otherwise, he might have ruled in favour of his kinsman or near-kinsman, according to his postulation.

       Does this have anything to do with ego? In a profession where seniority is cherished, Muhammed found himself serving under his junior at the bar, Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Kayode Ariwoola. He was called to bar on Saturday, July 2, 1977, four years before Ariwoola became a lawyer on Saturday, July 11, 1981. This is an accident of life over which humans have no control. It is not the making of either of them, but the wish of God.

      People learn to live with such things and I do not expect Muhammed’s case to be different. Sadly, what Muhammed has done is to give Atiku, his ilk, and some lawyers the munition with which to attack the apex court. They can continue, if that will make them happy, but is this what Muhammed wants after spending 47 years in the judiciary?

  • Ancient and modern political institutions in Nigeria

    Ancient and modern political institutions in Nigeria

    Some of the dynasties in some of the Nigerian principalities like those of Ile Ife, Benin, Oyo, Argungu, and Wukari are about 1000 years old. They have survived in one form or the other through the ages going through transformations, dynastic marriages and foreign infusions as the environment demanded. The point I want to make is that the current political leaders do not have much to teach the holders of traditional political titles who are the embodiment of ancient wisdom passed from past generations to them.

    Political party formation apart from protest movements against certain urban levies such as water rate in Lagos is just about a century and a half years old compared with our ancient traditional institutions. This is why modern Nigerian politicians, military or civilian, have many times found themselves relying on traditional leaders for advice. Nigerian politicians always find traditional rulers useful during the time of crisis or when they need political support or traditional legitimacy. This was particularly the case during military regimes when politicians were out of combat to put it in military language. 

    In the First Republic, politicians legitimatised themselves in office by having traditional rulers confer honorific titles on them so that they could be addressed as a chief and not ordinary mister. The ones in the North of Nigeria preferred to be addressed as “Alhaji” to separate them from ordinary men. There was a tendency during the military regime for positions of traditional political leaders of emirs or Obas to be hotly contested by serving or retired military leaders as happened first in the North and later in the Southwest of Nigeria. In other words, traditional leadership continues to remain so relevant that not only top civil servants, university lecturers but also business tycoons and military officers want to become traditional rulers rather than to support those who find traditional political institutions undesirable, undemocratic, obscurantist and therefore unnecessary and should therefore be abolished. 

    In the current democratic regime, politicians are afraid of outspoken traditional rulers to the extent of either trying to muzzle them, buy them off and if they cannot be muzzled, to just remove them from office. Despite this tendency, there has been nowhere in Nigeria where concerted efforts have been made to abolish them. This is because the ordinary people who have no love or trust for politicians want to keep their traditional rulers as embodiment of their collective culture and tradition. Among the Igbo, the Tiv and others who are by tradition socio-politically segmentary without a long history of centralised political tradition and consequent powerful traditional rulers ruling over vast pieces of land have tended to create brand new ones. This is because they assume that those of their compatriots who have centralised political institutions are at a political advantage in competition for political power in the Nigeria.

    Read Also: Military rules out coup in Nigeria, says Armed forces dedicated to democracy

    Two events in the Southwest in recent times have troubled me. These are the judgment of removal from office by an Ogbomosho High Court against his royal majesty, the Soun of Ogbomosho, Oba Afolabi Laoye as if he were a minor political office holder and, the invitation of the members of the Oyomesi (Council of kingmakers led by the Bashorun or prime minister) to the office of the EFCC to answer queries over their purported choice of an Alaafin, a choice apparently unacceptable to the incumbent governor of Oyo State.

    Before the summon to the EFCC office, the Oyo State governor had openly said “the position of the Alaafin was not for sale”. These two events happening in two of the most important Yoruba kingdoms call for introspection and profound thinking about our cultural future. In our tradition, once the king has gone through traditional rites at Ipebi ,  that is  the end of the process and only God can remove him from office.  This does not mean a traditional ruler is free to commit illegality but we must not treat their positions with levity and expect everyone to later respect them after they have been shaken up through legal or executive humiliation. We cannot undermine them publicly and expect them to recover. But we have situations where in some instances in Yorubaland and in the same Oyo State, a ruler who had been in office for over 20 years is summarily removed from office by judicial fiat and the traditional institution is thrown as it were to ruins without anyone thinking about societal consequences.

    Law should always take into consideration the societal demands and necessity before judgements affecting the society are passed. We are not dealing with textbook judgements but with the lives of people. The legislatures in states where there are recognised ancient stools should pass legislations forbidding the toying with traditional kings by the courts or political leaders once the kings or Obas have been installed or where traditional institutions charged with their selections have discharged their responsibilities according to ancient unquestionable rites.

    The present situation in Oyo where members of the Oyomesi are being dragged before institutions created by modern politics should not be allowed without raising a point or two. The Oyomesi is a thousand year old institution created by ancient Oyo which by age and practice has come to stay and should be regarded as superior to any ephemeral institution that may be removed or replaced by another one because of the vagaries of changing modern African politics.  We must also scrupulously guard against the introduction of the two monotheistic universal religions of Islam and Christianity as qualifications for the throne in Yorubaland. We pride ourselves of seeing religion as a personal choice and not a condition for ascending traditional thrones.

    One of the important lessons we must learn from all these interventions by politicians and the courts in areas totally beyond their power and understanding is that we must so codify the laws of our traditional institutions that politicians in government and the judiciary do not have the power to influence the choice of our traditional rulers. The institutions should protect themselves by pruning down the number of ruling houses which originally were one dynasty before as a result of growth became several. We can learn from the tradition in Benin, a sister and related principality, where only the first child of an Oba has a claim to the throne. If that would be too drastic, we can have just two alternating families which in the case of Oyo since 1900 have become two. Once the Oyomesi chooses a person from the right family, the head of government’s role is mere ratification and crowning. This is what happens in normal climes where constitutional monarchies remain and the question of a king on the throne being sued and removed from the palace will not happen. This is simply a travesty of tradition and we must avoid situations where elected rulers as happened recently in Kano, simply removed a king with gubernatorial fiat. This must never be allowed in Yorubaland as happened in the past or where the stipends of rulers were stopped or reduced to pennies because of politics. After having said this, the behaviour of our rulers must be beyond reproach and they must hold themselves to higher standards than those expected of politicians. They must realise that at the end of the day when their subjects reject them through their misconduct, no higher ruler except God can save them because the voice of the people is the voice of God.

  • Lamentations of a loser

    Lamentations of a loser

    Talk is cheap. A few weeks ago after his fishing expedition to the United States (US), Atiku Abubakar, the standard-bearer of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the February 25 presidential poll, made a public promise. It was at what he called a world press conference to present his lawyers’ finding after the voyage of discovery. He was so sure that he had a bomb of evidence in his hands, which would easily win him his appeal then pending at the Supreme Court.

     Without batting an eyelid, he promised to abide by the apex court’s decision no matter how it went.. The court threw out his appeal against the September 6 verdict of the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC), which affirmed President Bola Tinubu as duly elected. Atiku was never going to fulfil his promise and that became clear yesterday when he addressed another briefing in Abuja on the apex court’s October 26 verdict. He had nothing for the highest court in the land but harsh words.

    The court, he claimed, misdirected itself by dismissing his appeal. The court, he claimed, endorsed fraud, identity theft, impersonation, certificate fabrication and perjury at the expense of justice. Atiku spoke like a typical politician, imputing motives to the seven-man panel of Justices’ action. “If the Supreme Court implies by its judgment that crime is good and should be rewarded, then Nigeria has lost and the country is doomed irrespective of who occupies the presidential seat.

      “If the Supreme Court decides that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) can tell the public one thing and then do something else in order to reach a corruptly predetermined outcome, then there is really no hope for the country’s democracy and electoral politics”, Atiku said. Did the apex court misapply the law in determining his appeal? Did Atiku’s lawyers make a strong case for him? The court is no respecter of persons or institutions; it is only interested in doing justice to all that appear before it. This is why the scale of justice is blind.

    The court did not just throw away Atiku’s appeal as he insinuated yesterday. He lost because his appeal did not stand on strong grounds. There was nothing else their lordships could have done but dismiss the appeal on all the seven issues distilled for determination. The judgment rested on the profound work done by PEPC, which five-man panel of Justices first dismissed Atiku’s petition for lacking in merit. The Supreme Court also found the appeal unmeritorious. It is no mean feat for the President to have won unanimously at the PEPC and Supreme Court. The victory speaks volume about the quality of his legal representation.

     In affirming his election, the PEPC held that Atiku did not provide any evidence to show that Tinubu was not qualified to contest. Elucidating on this point on appeal, the Supreme Court held that the appellant could not file fresh evidence at this stage to buttress his claim of non-qualification of the President since the 180 days for the prosecution of the case had lapsed. Atiku had come back from US with a deposition by Chicago State University (CSU) Registrar Caleb Westberg purporting that the certificate Tinubu submitted to INEC did not emanate from the school, where he graduated from in 1979. But the CSU maintained that Tinubu was his product, who was issued a diploma after graduating with honours.

    “The 180 days having expired, the lower court therefore, no longer has the jurisdiction to allow the deposition sought to be introduced into the trial of this petition. This is the law, which at this stage, is elementary. Consequently, since the lower court no longer has the jurisdiction to entertain any such application, it follows that this Supreme Court also has no jurisdiction to allow the deposition to be used in this appeal. Let me state it clear that the 21 days provided for the filing of election petitions, having long expired, even if the applicants had applied for an extension of time to amend their petition in order to bring in the deposition, it would not have been granted based on the provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

     “More so, there are no paragraphs in the petition to accommodate the case of forgery… one wonders what the appellants intended to do with the deposition since appeals are heard on the issues distilled for determination by the parties in court”, the court said. Atiku’s lamentations in the wake of the verdict cut no ice. His lawyers did not help his case in any way. Their claim that the election was vitiated because the results were not uploaded in real-time as promised by INEC was dismissed outright. The court said: “the non-transmission of results on the INEC portal, IReV, cannot be a ground for nullifying the election. The failure to transmit results to IReV did not affect results of the election. IReV is a storage  and not a collation mechanism”.

    Read Also: UPDATED: FBI rules out release of documents on Tinubu

     Atiku and his lawyers undid themselves. Rather than admit their fault, they are blaming their lordships for their tardiness. Were they expecting the court to conduct their case for them? The court answered the poser thus: “It is clear that the appellants having not put forward their perceived rightful scores to rebut the results put forward by INEC, the law presumes its (INEC’s) version as correct. It will not matter whether the appellant can prove having won most states or if the first respondent admits that much. The figures before us show that the second respondent (President Tinubu) won the highest number of votes and was accordingly returned elected.

    “From where, therefore, do we manufacture evidence to support the appellants’ claim that they scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election or that there was non-compliance with the Electoral Act which affected the validity of the election? The case is done and dusted. But Atiku is still pining, contrary to his promise to let things be after the verdict.  To him, there can be no stronger evidence of the ‘injustice’ done him than the claim of former Supreme Court Justice Musa Dattijo, who retired on Friday, of corruption in the judiciary.  Atiku is just looking for any straw to hold on to.

  • The Supreme verdict

    The Supreme verdict

    Yesterday, the legal dispute over the February 25 presidential election won by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the governing All Progressives Congress (APC) was laid to rest forever.

    The Supreme Court upheld the September 6 verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), also known as the Tribunal, which affirmed Tinubu as the winner of the election.

    The apex court dismissed the appeals by Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) against the verdict.

    The thrust of their appeals was that the tribunal erred in law when it held that Tinubu did not require 25 per cent of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to win the election.

    The FCT issue was a bone of contention even before the election. Lawyers expressed divergent opinions on it. Former Nigerian Bar Association president Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) stirred controversy when he wrote to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) a month before the poll to make its stand known on Section 134 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which states the requirements for winning the election.

    The section reads: “A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election – (a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and (b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the Federation and the FCT.”

    Shortly after INEC declared Tinubu winner on March 1, Atiku, Obi, and their parties went to town, accusing the electoral umpire of constitutional breach.

    They claimed that INEC should not have declared Tinubu elected when he did not score 25 per cent of the votes in Abuja.

    Is that the interpretation of Section 134 (2)? If a candidate wins in all 36 states but fails to get 25 per cent in FCT, will that count against declaring him validly elected?

    The PEPC answered both questions in the negative. The five-man panel of Justices held that FCT is like a state and cannot enjoy a “special status”.

    Read Also:Tinubu’s victory at Supreme Court ends unfounded stories – Rep

    Upholding the PEPC’s position, the apex court asked rhetorically: “Are you saying if someone scores 25 per cent of votes in 30 states, but not in Abuja, he should not be President? Is that how you interpret the law? That is not the law. The Supreme Court agrees with the court below.”

    The court said the framers of the Constitution did not intend that FCT should be conferred with a special status, adding if that was their intention, they would have stated it expressly.

    “The Constitution is for everyone and not for some selected people,” Justice John Okoro, who read the lead judgment, declared.

    With that proclamation, the highest court in the land settled the Abuja conundrum. In future elections, it will be taboo to talk of winning 25 per cent of votes cast in FCT before a candidate can become president.

    Atiku did everything to make his appeal succeed. But it was all to no avail. His fishing expedition to the United States (US) for “after-discovered evidence” came to naught.

    Although he came back with a deposition by Caleb Westberg, the Registrar of Chicago State University (CSU), the alma mater of the President, the apex court said the trip was an exercise in futility.

    The court held that issues not raised at the court of original jurisdiction could not be brought up on appeal.

    That, it said, would amount to going out of the record of proceedings compiled at the lower court for adjudication on appeal.

    According to Justice Okoro, the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to admit new evidence. The appellant’s application, he said, was also against the provisions of the Electoral Act, which governs election petitions.

    Election petitions, he said, were sui generis (of their own class) and must be handled strictly within the special laws created for resolving such disputes.

    “There cannot be any amendment by introducing new facts not contained in the election petition as stated in Section 132 (7) of the Electoral Act,” Justice Okoro said.

    He said the deposition could not be brought in at this stage because it was not submitted at the PEPC, which heard the original petition within the 180 days stipulated by law.

    “We cannot activate Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to admit fresh evidence. We cannot grant the leave sought. There is no paragraph in the petition alleging forgery. It is not in the interest of justice to admit the deposition,” the Justice added.

    In his concurring judgment, Justice Emmanuel Agim pointed out that the deposition which was made in a lawyer’s office before a stenographer had no seal.

    Besides, being a document obtained outside the country, it was not registered locally before the appellants sought to tender it. The deposition failed all known legal tests of integrity, he noted.

    He explained that it did not bear the signature of a notary public, but was said to have been sworn to in a court in Chicago.

    The deposition was, therefore, rejected because it was not canvassed at the PEPC.

    The court declared that the appellants failed to perfect their pleadings despite having additional 21 days to do so after frontloading them.

    It said the appellants sought to ambush the respondents by bringing fresh issues at a stage that the defendants could no longer reply.

    “The purpose of the 21 days is not to bring in fresh evidence but to enable the petitioner (now appellant) to respond to new claims arising from the respondent’s reply to the petition.”

    The apex court said this while agreeing with the PEPC for ignoring the testimony of Mr Enahoro Ebah whom Atiku’s lawyers cross-examined even when he was not listed as a witness in the petition, details of which they frontloaded.

    Ebah, in his testimony, alleged that Tinubu forged the certificate he submitted to INEC. He claimed that the diploma certificate the CSU gave Tinubu on request was different from what the President presented to INEC.

    His testimony was set aside because he was not listed by the petitioner as one of his witnesses.

    In the lucid verdict of the Supreme Court, hailed by political watchers last night, the Justices said the issue of not uploading the outcome of the election in real-time on the INEC Result Portal (IReV) was not illegal. Although it noted that the action was capable of making the public lose confidence in the process as INEC had promised to upload the results as announced at the polling units, it said it was not enough to invalidate the election. Agreeing with PEPC, the apex court said the results could be collated manually in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

    The appellants failed to prove how INEC did not comply with the law in collating the result, the court added.

    “The appellant did not produce any original or certified true copy of the evidence it wants the court to rely on.

    “The Electoral Act empowers INEC to determine the best method to use during the election. The IReV portal is not a collation system, even though it is part of the election process.

    “The failure of IReV does not mean that the collation of results must stop. The non-availability of the presidential election results on the IReV portal did not invalidate the election,” the seven-man panel of Justices declared.

    The court said the failure of the appellants to provide results to back up their claims of winning the election was fatal to their case. It said the only results before it were those provided by INEC and they showed that the second respondent (President Tinubu) scored the highest number of votes and was declared winner.

    It added that only polling agents who witnessed what transpired at polling units could testify as to what happened there and not third parties who could only narrate what they were told.

    This, the court said, was hearsay evidence which is not admissible under the Evidence Act.

    It said the appellant’s lawyers were tardy and not diligent in the prosecution of their cases, dismissing as a dry joke their claim that the PEPC was not a tribunal for presidential election disputes.

  • Between hope and false fruit of rebirth

    Between hope and false fruit of rebirth

    The political class farms and harvests Nigeria as if she were an oyster and public office, the pearls. From Olusegun Obasanjo, Goodluck Jonathan to Muhammadu Buhari, successive administrations  eventually yielded to plunder by forces possessing the corridors of power and perimeters of governance in general.

    Pundits contend that, like his predecessors, President Bola Tinubu may feign the pursuit of the public good in alignment with his gospel of ”Renewed Hope” for a while but he will eventually lose steam. 

    This writer doubts that. His professed patriotism may beget symbolic gestures that would augur well in the interest of all, in the long run, if he could truly steer Nigeria out of the doldrums of misgovernance.

    Yet pundits argue that his government is chock-full of the usual characters; they claim that the new faces in his team may become swarmed and subsequently drown in the seductive channel of sleaze.

    So doing, his government may keel over and freeze in the sprawl of the proverbial paper tiger; stripped of sentient teeth, it becomes symbolically castrated.

    Cynicism leads to sadism. Can folk be less cynical? Tinubu contends with his most provocative descent into the maelstrom of toxic politics and governance. At the moment, his ritualized personality totters through a labyrinth of odds as he is sucked into the maw of Nigeria’s subterranean nature; will his government truly serve as a vessel of Renewed Hope or will it loom like a titanic funnel with a frail voice, half shrieking, half roaring in dubious clamour?

    In previous dispensations, Nigeria’s leadership handled the country like a funeral economy, where the public officer was a slayer and pallbearer.

    Think of him as ‘His Excellency’ who refused to build good roads but scurries to accident scenes to mourn the dead.

    Think of him as a mass murderer, who embezzles security and health funding thus afflicting the country with lingering terrorism and rising maternal mortality.

    Think of him as a cold cook, the mortician who denied Nigeria a functional health system that he might exploit citizenry panic, and steal health funding, in the throes of a global pandemic, like the coronavirus.

    Think of him as a grim reaper. Apology to the honest, humane public officer, if he ever truly exists.

    As Nigeria reclaims her corpus from the claws of misgovernance and hardships imposed by the removal of fuel subsidy, fresh afflictions manifest in sick bloom thus presenting the dubious public officer and his billionaire associates in the private sector interminable prospects as patriots and saviours, rhetoricians and pallbearers.  

    Read Also: How college workers, students attacked our operatives, by EFCC

    Nigerians stirred to a rude shock as members of the 10th National Assembly, despite the tough economic situation, jettisoned the recommendation of RMFAC and opted to buy luxury vehicles as operational vehicles for “legislative oversight,” a move that many Nigerians have described as insensitive.

    The Senate has, however, justified the decision to buy imported SUVs for lawmakers. Speaking to the press in Abuja on Tuesday, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Services, Sunday Karimi, dismissed criticisms, saying that ministers who ride about four official vehicles were not criticized.

    His remarks followed reports that the House of Representatives members were set to procure 360 luxury Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) valued at N57.6 billion. According to reports, each SUV would cost at least N160 million.

    These are the lawmakers that Nigerians expect to work with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to sanitise public governance, stabilise the economy, and revamp education, security and healthcare, among others.

    For public officers in the legislative chambers, inflation, terrorism, banditry, a comatose economy, and unemployment, aren’t contiguous vehicles of compassion. The executive probably fares no better, as hinted by Karimi.

    Their gestures of patriotism and love for the masses are dubious assertions of power, class and dominance. They affect no self-sacrifice, only refinements of self-love and domination.

    The pervasive inflation, insecurity, and cash crunch experienced by the populace post-fuel subsidy offers veritable opportunities for social re-engineering and remedial measures by the incumbent political class.

    President Tinubu must make social and economic palliatives work for every segment of society irrespective of gender, tribe or social class. Nigerians expect him to fulfil his pledge to review the federal budgetary culture, revamp national infrastructure, drive an import substitution agenda, reform the taxation system whereby the rich will pay more for what they consume, and lastly fight corruption, inefficiency and waste in government.

    Nigerians expect him to fulfil his pledge to manage inflation, renegotiate foreign debt obligations, and devise a national industrial plan that extends tax and other credit facilities, encourages domestic manufacturers and develops major and minor industrial hubs in all geopolitical zones.

    His palliatives must be relatable to the people’s needs thus negotiations to increase the minimum wage must be wrapped up and devised to serve the interest of the masses.  It wouldn’t hurt his administration to devise measures like affordable public transport fuelled with cheaper energy sources, among other incentives.

    “Let the poor breathe!” the masses chant across social media platforms; this new refrain has, over time, attained toxic undertones as a language of disenchantment and protest.

    Beneath the rage carelessly spun and hurled in social space, however, manifests positive suasion for peace and patience with the new government. A new league of patriots emerge through the womb wall of our travails, preaching forbearance despite the threat of grislier hardship.

    Against the backdrop of it all, the crows are circling. This minute, Nigeria’s “friends from abroad” intone basement giggle, like the proverbial ghommid plundering beneath our nation’s sandcastle. Tinubu must beware of the patronage of the ‘superpowers’ of the world. Perhaps he sees the chill beneath their smiles.  

    They have seen him reiterate his intent to make Africa the centrepiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy. They have heard him declare Nigeria’s focus on Africa as the fulcrum of its policies on economy and foreign policy. They have estimated the import of Nigeria’s commitment to successful integration and implementation of trade policies, security and border controls with her African neighbours.

    It would be naive of Mr President to believe they applaud all these. His government must brace its hide against a slew of brazen and subtle assaults on her interests at home and abroad.

    With the rise and growth of globalisation, the calculus and dynamics of colonial domination have assumed more subtle and treacherous forms; superpowers of the so-called “First World” have redesigned their conquest expeditions to suit the poetics and mathematics of their “enlightened self-interest.”

    To counter this meta-colonial complex, the federal government must partner with progressive social actors to reinvent our national narrative in the language of patriots and deeds of an exalted ethic. This is neither a call to stifle constructive criticism nor self-censorship. Rather it’s a call to decolonise the Nigerian mind and political space.

    It’s about time we stopped being fawning and defenceless before oppressive hierarchies. Nigeria must no longer incur debts of impotence and naivete in the global comity of nations.

    As Nigeria struggles to rebuild, we must also scorn Europe’s lure and bouquets of dubious advocacy. Think of the West as the proverbial paramour who comes offering the worm with the apple while inviting our private glances to her public pleasures.

    But while other nations may consume the worm with the apple, let Nigeria eyeball it as a false fruit of rebirth. We must be wary of her sullied patronage including her gift of gendered and sexuality freedoms.

  • The Israeli-Palestinian crisis

    While discussing the fate of Jews, Blacks and Arabs sometimes in 1963, Leopold Sedar Senghor, the great African philosopher, poet, author and first president of Senegal referred to them as a “Trilogy of suffering peoples”. As an African, one can empathise with the Jews and Arabs as part of the tripod of victims of the powerful western imperialism. The West dominated Africa and left the aftermath of discrimination following the slave trade, slavery and colonialism on Africans and people of African descent. The Jews suffered from the Spanish Inquisition, anti-Semitism generally in the Anglo-Saxon world pogroms from the Russians and poles and the holocaust from Nazi Germany and their Frankish cousins, the French. The Arabs did not fare better until the vast oil discoveries in their lands in the 20th century. The Palestinian problem goes back to the British mandate established over Palestine in 1918 after the First World War.

    Before that time, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire from 1517 to 1917.  The Ottoman Turkish Empire suffered defeat along with the German Empire in 1918 and like Germany, Austria- Hungary (the Hapsburg Empire) and Italy lost all colonies and subject territories ruled over by Berlin, Ankara, Vienna and Rome. During the war, Lord Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary had promised the Jews a home in Palestine while also telling the Arabs there they would be free from Turkish rule thus promising the same territory to Jews and Arabs .This is the kernel of the problem. When it became impossible to do this  following ethnic violence between the two Semitic peoples, the Jews and the Arabs, Britain transferred the problem to the United Nations which favoured the creation of two states in Palestine, one Jewish the other Arab.  Israel declared itself an independent Jewish state on May 4, 1948 and the American president, Harry S. Truman recognized the state the same day and thus began the origin of tacit and open American support for Israel no matter what it does.

    Since that time the Jews and the Arabs have fought over the issue of who owns Palestine in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 and 2006.  This is apart from battles and skirmishes directly between Israelis and Palestinians over decades since 1948. The United Nations has passed many resolutions on the Israeli- Palestinian question, the most famous of which was passed after the 1967 war. This resolution number 242 asking Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders which at the same time guaranteed secure borders for Israel was deliberately nebulous and totally unenforceable. The United States has routinely vetoed any resolution that may be injurious to the existence of Israel and other resolutions have been obeyed by Israel in the breach.

    Read Also: NACA partners journalists, social media influencers on HIV/AIDS stigma

    The pivotal role of the United States in unravelling the knotty problem of Arab- Israeli question came between 1993 and 1995 during the Presidency of Bill Clinton when an agreement between the two sides were signed in Washington DC after serious negotiations in Oslo permitting the two peoples working towards a two states solution (The Oslo protocol). Unfortunately, the excitement and enthusiasm did not last long and the old enmity resurfaced. The emergence of the current Binyamin Netanyahu government with his heavy dependence on right wing nationalists who would rather take the entire old Palestine as a Jewish homeland has made the possibility of some kind of two states solution virtually impossible. Gaza and the occupied West Bank have been frozen in time and there has been regular encroachment by Israeli settlers on the West Bank. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s control of the West Bank of the Jordan River has become ineffective while Gaza has been fenced in by the Israeli administration thus reducing the situation in Gaza to what critics have described as an open prison in which more than two million Palestinians are herded. It has now been revealed that it seems the Netanyahu policy was to encourage the extremist HAMAS group in Gaza in order to reduce the possibility of a two state solution by exposing the weakness of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and making it totally untenable to negotiating with HAMAS which does not even recognise Israel. In the meantime, most of the Arab states had reached a modus vivendi with Israel. Recognition had come from Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, the Gulf States, Qatar and under considerable American pressure, Saudi Arabia was seriously considering recognising Israel under the so-called Abrahamic (Ibrahimic) accord.

    The position of the Palestinians had become hopeless and no one was seriously talking about a two states solution and the Netanyahu government was encouraging Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In Israel itself, there was the ongoing paralytic protest over the government’s decision to whittle down the power of the Supreme Court over legislations. Critics have suggested that the government somehow was not paying attention to warnings about security breach before the Hamas’ military wing struck on October 7, in which 1400 Israeli citizens were killed and the kidnapping over 200 people living in settlements near Gaza Strip.

    This was a great tragedy for Israel which had lived under the illusion that its security was watertight. Most of its Western allies led by the United States rushed to Israeli defence and declared that Israel had the right to defend itself. This Carte Blanche is being exploited by Israel to mean total destruction of Gaza and not just the Hamas party and government. The world-wide demonstrations against Israeli bombing of the Palestinians have forced the Western powers to advise Israel not to impose a regime of collective punishment against the Palestinian people. More than 5000 Palestinians have died under the fire of Israeli bombs not only in Gaza but in the West Bank.

    Israel is saying it did not just wake up to levy this war on the Palestinians. They were provoked by the murderous rampage of Hamas on October 7. The policy of Israel is to totally wipe out Hamas and to make it impossible for them and their successors to levy war against Israel. Israel has been involved in asking about one million Palestinians living in Gaza city to move out of the city towards the southern part of the Gaza Strip before it commences ground military operations to wipe out all traces of the Hamas government in Northern Gaza. The world is also getting worried about the conflict metastasising into a wider conflict possibly bringing Iran and consequently the United States into the conflict. This fear must be behind President Joe Biden’s private warning of the Israeli government not to overreact.

    The question to ask is what Israel would then do with Gaza city after its military operations. Will it take it over and cleanse it of its Arab population? Will the PLO be installed there at the point of the gun? These are questions which the Israeli government must think through before its military operations in Gaza.

    Whatever the outcome of the current crisis in Israel, the critical players must find a solution to the problem of how to satisfy the national feelings of the Palestinians while guaranteeing the security of Israel. Whatever the formula may be worked out, the Jews have no other home than Israel. Anything short of that is a non-starter. Some have suggested a secular state in the whole of old Palestine in which Arabs and Jews will be free to practise their religions. That will not work because Islam and Judaism are not just religions but ways of life. Having suffered the genocide of the holocaust, the Israelis will never agree to any regime in which they are not in total control of their own security. These are the fundamental issues and the world must be seized of the way out of the complex problems. The United States which has from 1948 injected itself into the middle of this complex situation is perhaps the only country that can guarantee Israeli security and persuade the country to find an acceptable geographical solution to the Palestinian problem in which the twin siblings of Israelis and Palestinians can live securely and exist in the same womb.

  • Obi’s wolf’s cry

    Obi’s wolf’s cry

    It has become a pattern for which Peter Obi,  Atiku Abubakar and their bands of rabblerousers are known. When things are not going their way, they resort to blackmail. They start by crying wolf, where there is none. They mastered the trick in the run-up to the February 25 presidential election when they saw that they had no chance whatsoever in the poll.

    Just last week, this reporter warned here that they will be up to the same old trick once the Supreme Court starts sitting on their appeals against the September 6 verdict of the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC), also known as the Tribunal, which affirmed Preident Bola Tinubu’s victory in the election.

    It is not that one is a prophet. It is just that a leopard cannot change its spots. Obi of the Labour Party (LP), Atiku of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and many of their misguided supporters known as Obidients and Atikulators have a penchant for tarring others while portraying themselves as saints. Nobody except them, they claim, know what is good for the country.

    While Obi is riding on the shoulders of youths to take them for a ride, Atiku is enjoying the backing of many failed and upcoming politicians who use him as their ATM. Obi and Atiku are expected to know better, but since they are enjoying the noise being made by their people, nothing else matters. Both of them know that they did not win the election. They even knew beforehand that they were not going to win.

    How could they have won when a house divided against itself has never been known to stand? They went into the race divided and they lost woefully. They find it hard to swallow this bitter pill of defeat. Their way out, it appears, is to take the country down with them. Are these then leaders? If a prospective president cannot take defeat in his strides, then he is not worthy of the high office he seeks to occupy.

    As I predicted last week, Obi has already started throwing stones not only at Tinubu, but also the court. Hardly had the Supreme Court reserved judgment in his appeal than he went on Twitter now known as X to sermonise on morality, law, justice and leadership. It was his usual style of rousing his mob of supporters to take up arms. Why this early resort to blackmail, deceit and lies? Has he seen the handwriting of what will happen to his appeal on the wall?

    I do not understand why Obi went hysterical on X, imputing what is not to the judiciary. He wrote like a frustrated man. He made no sense at all in what he said, except to his co-travellers. The apex court has only reserved judgment and he went overboard. His insinuations and innuendos about the character of a leader and the judex (judicial officers) are nothing but the cacophonous noise of a bad loser. Why are Obi and Atiku such sore losers?

      Calling the judiciary names is not the hallmark of an aspiring national leader. It is this same judiciary that Obi wants to destroy that restored him as governor in Anambra State in 2007 . Or has he forgotten that? If the judiciary was good then, what makes it bad today? Oh! Is it because the PEPC ruled against him? There lies the problem with Obi and Atiku. Anything in their favour is a cinch, while the contrary could only be a fraud.

    Read Also: Ministry set target to achieve new foreign Affairs’ vision

      These people want to stand on the moral high ground when every fibre in their bodies shows how ugly their character is. The judiciary is a sacred institution which should not be dragged into any political fight the way Obi and Atiku are doing. Once you submit to the authority of the court, the right thing to do is to wait for its decision instead of taking the law into your hands, as Obi did, with his X thread, moralising and sermonising.

       How clean is Obi sef? Does he have the moral force to impugn the character of others? Very soon, some people go open book for am, as Fela once sang. Obi cannot go on appeal and expect to determine the case in his own terms. His Rule of law and the credibility of leadership that was posted on X on Tuesday, barely 24 hours after the Supreme Court reserved judgment on his appeal is contemptuous of the highest court in the land.

      On what moral authority did he question “the fairness of the judiciary and the transparency of judiciary operatives”? Obi cannot preach morality to anybody, with what the world knows about him as contained in the Panama Papers. How many of the Justices that he is running down were named in that scandal? None. So, who should be preaching “fairness and transparency” to who?

       From his X thread, something sticks out and that is he has lost faith in his own appeal, even before judgment is delivered. Like many other Nigerians, I cannot wait for the verdict.

    Day of judgment

    I had finished writing the above piece when news broke that the Supreme Court will today deliver judgment in the Atiku Abubakar’s and Peter Obi’s appeals against the September 6 verdict of the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC), which affirmed President Bola Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 election. I concluded the piece by saying that I was looking forward to the verdict.

        The Supreme Court sent notices to the parties yesterday to that effect. Will the apex court uphold or upturn the Tribunal’s decision? The public will know where the pendulum swings in a few hours. But some of the parties are already jittery, going by their statement in the social and traditional media. They need not be anxious. The Supreme Court will do justice in this matter, according to the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

       Anyone expecting the court to go outside those provinces is living in delusion. Hopefully, the nation will take a breather from the unnecessary acrimony over the election after this final decision which will lay the issue to rest forever, whether or not any party is satisfied with it. I rise.

  • Day of judgment

    Day of judgment

    I had finished writing the above piece when news broke that the Supreme Court will today deliver judgment in the Atiku Abubakar’s and Peter Obi’s appeals against the September 6 verdict of the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC), which affirmed President Bola Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 election. I concluded the piece by saying that I was looking forward to the verdict.

        The Supreme Court sent notices to the parties yesterday to that effect. Will the apex court uphold or upturn the Tribunal’s decision? The public will know where the pendulum swings in a few hours. But some of the parties are already jittery, going by their statement in the social and traditional media. They need not be anxious. The Supreme Court will do justice in this matter, according to the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

    Read Also: NACA partners journalists, social media influencers on HIV/AIDS stigma

       Anyone expecting the court to go outside those provinces is living in delusion. Hopefully, the nation will take a breather from the unnecessary acrimony over the election after this final decision which will lay the issue to rest forever, whether or not any party is satisfied with it. I rise.