Experts at the recent International Law Association (ILA) Arbitration Committee (Nigeria) maiden ‘Rise To Professional Stardom Series (RPSS)’ programme have praised Nigeria’s arbitration credentials, but urge practitioners to step up the fight against misconceptions that African arbitrators lack integrity. ROBERT EGBE reports.
Nigeria has some of the world’s best arbitrators, experts have said, but the country must stand firm against misconceptions that African arbitrators have an integrity deficit.
They spoke in Lagos during the just concluded International Law Association (ILA) Arbitration Committee (Nigeria) maiden ‘Rise To Professional Stardom Series (RPSS)’ program.
The programme which held on February 2, featured renowned international arbitrator, Dorothy Ufot, SAN, as the keynote speaker, among other experts.
The Committee’s Chairman, Tolu Aderemi, expressed concern in his opening remarks about what he considered the not-too-impressive active play of African arbitrators in the global space.
He lamented that there is an erroneous perception that some African arbitrators lack integrity noting that this is what accounts for parties preferring foreign appointment into arbitration panels.
He emphasised the wrongness of this perception, saying Africans have a duty to correct it.
“Nigeria has some of the finest and best brains in arbitration, most of whom have been involved in landmark arbitration decisions. Do we have one or two cases of those who do not make us proud? Yes, like in other parts of the world. This infinitesimal number should not be a barometer for judging other brilliant ones”, Aderemi stated.
The Arbitration Committee Boss further admonished his colleagues that African arbitrators must not only demonstrate the intellectual capacity of international arbitration laws, principles and procedures, they must also be seen to have uncommon integrity and be of unquestionable character.
In his closing statements, Aderemi reiterated that the ILA Arbitration committee is committed to cutting-edge training on international arbitration and urged those interested in international arbitration to take advantage of the 2023 ILA, Arb Committee training calendar.
In a fireside chat anchored by ChannelsTV Journalist, Shola Soyele (who is also the ILA, Arbitration Committee Publicity Director), the RPSS Honouree, Dorothy Ufot, SAN, encouraged arbitrators to always seek to achieve excellence.
She said the only way to do it is by demonstrating intellectual capacity and not attracting attention by any means other than the intellect.
The international arbitrator noted that arbitrators must ensure that they consciously live a balanced life; work with like-minded hard working colleagues, and ensure the home front is peaceful by marrying an understanding spouse, but also not sacrifice the home on the altar of work.
Mrs. Ufot also admonished aspiring arbitrators to embrace volunteering as registrars or assistants as this is the only way they can learn.
At the same time, she encouraged that decent and commensurate remuneration should be given to deserving young arbitrators.
She also encouraged arbitrators to be courageous when sitting on international panels alongside their foreign counterparts saying that is the only way to earn respect.
The lawyer also encouraged them to attend international conferences and training and keep the network created during these training very close.
A past Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Mr Tunde Busari, SAN encouraged younger lawyers to offer themselves for arbitration services as this gives young arbitrators visibility in international arbitration.
Busari also decried the art of laziness on the part of young arbitrators when given opportunities.
According to him, it is becoming a culture for young arbitrators to demonstrate a culture of entitlement even when they have not satisfactorily provided the service.
In his view, some young arbitrators’ assistance makes the job of the senior arbitrator even more complicated.
Busari encouraged arbitrators to develop a mastery of international laws as this is a potent weapon to becoming relevant in international arbitration.
The Rise To Professional Stardom (RPSS) is one of the flagship programmes of the ILA and according to the Program’s Director, Deinma Dibi, there will be only four of the Series in a year.
He encouraged members and intending members to take full advantage of the mentorship session.
Mr. Dibi reiterated the primary purpose of the Association, which is to provide training and capacity development.
He encouraged intending members to take advantage of the stellar faculty which comprised leading international and Nigerian arbitrators.
The RPSS, which started with a cocktail sponsored by Mr Bisi Makanjuola, a partner with the firm of Olaniwun Ajayi LP, had in attendance both lawyers and non-lawyers including the Managing Director/CEO of Heritage Bank, Mr, George-Taylor, the head of Rules and Adjudication, Nigerian Exchange, Mr Toyin Adenugba, Foluke Akinmoladun, Delayo Oriekun, Dr. Foluke Dada, Colonel Arigbe and several other high profile non-lawyers.
Last Thursday’s killing of the President of Ejemekwuru Customary Court in Oguta Local Government Area (LGA) of Imo State, Nnaemeka Ugboma, shocked the country and threw the Bar and Bench into mourning. The brazen, cold-blooded execution-style murder by gunmen was the latest in a growing list of acts of violence against judicial officers. ADEBISI ONANUGA examines how the incident will affect the justice sector and how it can be curbed.
Last Thursday in Ejemakuru, Oguta Local Government Area (LGA) of Imo State, gun-toting men on motorcycles stormed the Ejemekwuru Customary Court in broad daylight.
By the time they left, there was a dead body on the court’s hallowed grounds: it belonged to the court’s President, Mr. Nnaemeka Ugboma.
The gunmen arrived on the court’s premises in a commando style and went straight to the courtroom where Ugboma, was presiding over a case. They dragged him outside while the court was in session and shot him dead at point-blank range before escaping on their bikes.
“The jurist was killed in his court while sitting. His killers came with motorcycles. They came into the court, dragged him out, shot him dead and drove off,” a witness said .
According to several eyewitness accounts, the gunmen shot sporadically into the air as they made good their escape while people fled the scene.
The incident caused pandemonium as litigants, court staff and even residents fled in different directions for safety.
It was said that nobody knew they were killers until they heard the gunshot. When they looked outside, they found the jurist on the ground in a pool of his blood.
A source said the slain jurist was a 1991 law graduate and hailed from Nnebukwu community in the Oguta Local Government Area of the state.
Protest by customary judges in Imo
President of the Customary Court, Ihiagwa, Emperor Iwuala was devastated by the news of the death of his colleague.
He said: “We are indeed in perilous times. We have vowed not to sit until the whole issue is resolved.”
An unfortunate incident
Chairman of the Owerri Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ugochukwu Allinor, described the incident as “an unfortunate situation.”
He said: “It is an unfortunate situation. A jurist that is carrying out his legitimate duty would just be mowed down in broad daylight brazenly and the person will just walk away like that? It then means nobody is safe.
“We totally condemn it. It is never heard of, and if we continue like this, we are heading to anarchy where a sitting jurist is attacked in his court and brought down. There is a problem.”
Police deploy tactical team
The spokesperson for the Police in the state, Henry Okoye, said Ugboma’s corpse was recovered at the back of the court building where it was dumped by his assailants and that it was deposited at the mortuary.
“Investigation is ongoing. Tactical teams have been deployed to the area to track down the assailants, apprehend them and bring them to face the full wrath of the law,” Okoye added.
Growing attacks on judges
Ugboma’s murder is not the first on judges as reports of such attacks are becoming increasingly common.
Mrs Aigbonoga
On Monday, January 9, 2023, the President of Igueben Area Customary Court, Mrs. Precious Aigbonoga, was kidnapped at Ugoneki on her way to the court in Igueben Local Government Area of Edo State. The jurist is the wife of Mr. Afebu Aigbonoga, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Candidate for the Etsako West Constituency 1.
Justice Nwosu-Iheme
On Wednesday, October 30, 2019, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, Benin Division, Justice Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, was kidnapped by gunmen numbering four, in Benin, capital of Edo State. Her police orderly, Inspector A. I. Momoh, was killed by the gunmen before whisking her away.
As at that time, Justice Nwosu-Iheme was the chairman of the three-man panel sitting on the appeals arising from the 2019 State and National Assembly elections in Edo State. .
Justice Dogo
Justice Abdul Dogo, a judge of the Federal High Court, Akure Division, was kidnapped on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 by gunmen while travelling from Abuja to Akure. The incident happened at Ibilo town, Edo State. Shortly after, the abductors contacted the family, demanding a N50 million ransom. He was released three days after, on Friday night October 25, 2019 with his driver.
Security concerns in court
Stakeholders have often expressed concern about the level of security provided for judges. They noted that aside from Police orderlies, the courts do not seem to be properly secured, are too porous and expose judges to various forms of attack. They decried the situation whereby court security is left to private security firms whose personnel may not be properly trained and equipped or armed to protect court officials. Stakeholders also observed that most times when judges sit in court, their police orderlies sit too far away from them or chat away outside the court rooms. They said this makes judges easy prey to attacks in courts, kidnapping on the roads and possible outright killing by assailants.
Lawyers react
Former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), Chief Wale Taiwo (SAN), Kunle Adegoke (SAN) and Wahab Shittu (SAN) Dr Fassy Yusuf, and Convener Access to Justice (A2J), Joseph Otteh condemned the Ugboma murder, describing it as shocking and a desecration of the temple of justice.
Judicial decline
Dr. Agbakoba said: “This is an absolutely shocking news and continues the lamentable decline of the judicial process. It is very sad that our judges already working under slave like conditions are now exposed in the way that led to the shooting to death of the President of the Customary Court of Imo State.”
State failure?
Chief Taiwo described the murder as “one step further into the abyss.”
“It is one thing is for a judicial officer or state prosecuting counsel to get ambushed while outside the court, a risk which most of us are too well aware; another thing is for such attack to take place right in the courtroom or precinct of the court premises.
“”This unfortunate incident is a failure on many levels and calls into question the security arrangement for our judicial officers especially in the South East zone which has seen heightened security challenges in the last few years.”
Judges’ security compromised
Taiwo asked some salient questions that have been agitating the minds of many.
He said: “Was there no police orderly on duty to ward off such imminent attack?Given the recurring attacks in that part of the country, did the government shirk its responsibilities to provide adequate security cover for the judge? Could the security of the judge have been compromised? Could there be any subterranean motive unconnected to the victim’s assignment as a judge? Could the attack be a random incident to feed into the unending agitations in that part of the country? Could this be an attempt to strike fear into some of our judicial officers in that part of the country? Could the coming elections be the motive?”
He repeated his claim that the murder was an indication of “a failure of the state. A judicial officer of whatever category or caliber is a manifestation of the existence and authority of the state.”
The lawyer reasoned that judges and magistrates “are the guiding spirits endowed with the authority to ensuring that we are all protected and our rights and liberties not jeopardized.
“When judges suffer the cruel fate of being the victims of such violation of rights and liberties, what becomes of the ordinary members of the society?”
Edge of anarchy
Taiwo admitted that attack on judges is a universal phenomenon. He noted that in the discharge of their duties, some decisions will not situate well with some litigants and lawyers alike.
Nevertheless, he reasoned that when attacks on judges go beyond verbal criticism, which the appeal process could be pursued to remedy, the society will be tethering on the edges of anarchy.
He recalled the 2009 incident in the same Imo State when Justice Florence Durcha-Igwe of the state high court escaped a gun attack in which her police orderly and driver suffered severe gun shot wounds.
“This like many other incidents have become too many, and it is even more alarming when attacks take place inside the precincts of the courts. What is the likely effect of last Thursday’s unfortunate incident on the judiciary?”
He noted that judges are supposed to carry out their assignments and dispense justice without fear or favour. He expressed fear that when some of the judges are getting attacked and losing their lives while carrying out their sacred duties, most of them might be influenced or made to submit to pressure or compromise their positions. He said this is because survival is a natural instinct and the desire to remain alive comes first.
“The sad development should be nipped in the bud fast. We can only hope that the security agencies would pour over the available facts and information, carry out a thorough investigation and bring the perpetrators to justice. The governments at all levels should also step up the security for our judicial officers to avoid such ugly and unfortunate incidents from festering.”
Citizens mustn’t take law in hands
Adegoke described the development as very sad.
He said: “It is unnecessary and unfair to the judiciary. For citizens to take up arms against members of the judiciary is a total desecration of a government whose third arm is meant to maintain peace, accord and harmony among the citizens so that aggrieved citizens will not engage in lawlessness and wanton assassination of one another in the name of seeking justice.
“That is the reason the constitution has put in place the judiciary as the third arm of the government meant to interpret the laws. Where citizens take up arms against members of the bench, the implications is that officers of our judicial institutions will no longer have the courage to sit and determine cases and interest of litigants before them”.
Adegoke said where the individuals involved do not understand the implications of their acts, they are unleashing war on the nation. He urged that whatever step is taken to contain the act should not be seen as act on any section of the country, adding that wherever it happens, whether in the north, the east or the west, it must be resisted by the state and “individuals must be fished out to face the wrath of the law.”
The lawyer noted that judicial officers are not parties to matters before them. “Their duty is basically to interpret the law and determine cases fairly in accordance to the law in order to attain justice. Where such members of the judiciary no longer have the courage as a result of unnecessary attacks by citizens on whom they were appointed to render services, then we are in a nation that has lost focus, its direction and the future definitely is no longer available to that nation,” Adegoke said.
He added: “I would rather implore individuals and leaders in such a community to assist in ensuring that such rudderless, lawless and uncontrolled elements are cautioned. No matter the level of their grievance, there are provisions in the law for channeling their grievances. To that extent, we have the magistrate courts, we have the high courts, the court of appeal and the supreme court where a citizen feels his right or interest has not been adequately protected by the court of first instance”.
Attack a sacrilege
Shittu said the attack on the judge and the judiciary in Imo State was a sacrilege and portends grave danger.
This, he argued, may have shown that insecurity in Nigeria has risen beyond tolerable limits.
“It may have also shown that no one is safe again in this country- not even those charged with the responsibility of dispensing justice to hapless citizens,” he added.
Shittu argued that the incident is a major assault on the capacity of the state to deliver security and welfare to the citizens. He said it is also a major indicator of a failing state where anarchy looms.
“It is a sad, worrisome and frightening dimension to the security situation in Nigeria.
“The question is: Who is next? Who is safe? Where is safe? I dare say no one. I dare also say no where is safe. Sad. Very sad.”
“The perpetrators of the Imo judicial murder should be fished out and made to face the music. Unless and until we institutionalise a regime of consequences for criminal infractions, anarchy looms.”
Judicial officers have to watch their backs
Shittu said: “Coming back to the issue of the Presiding President of Ejemekwuru Customary Court, it means lawyers and judges must start to look at their backs while doing their jobs. That is very sad.
“Lawyers and judges have to be circumspect because they don’t want to be killed or brutally murdered. It is sad. The government must do something about this because a desperate situation requires a desperate solution”, he stressed.
Anarchy looms
According to Dr. Yusuf, the killing of Ugboma is another reflection of the state of anarchy prevalent in the country.
“We are talking now not because he was a lawyer but because this was another avoidable death. It ought not to be. It is indeed very sad that life is becoming more worthless in Nigeria and the earlier the government is able to address the situation, the better for everybody because we cannot continue to be in this state of anarchy. The East is not safe, the North-East is not safe, the South-South is not safe, the North-West, North-Central is not safe. Even the West and Federal capital are not safe. So, how do we resolve this situation?
“The government will need to come up with a strategy that will guarantee security of life and property, otherwise, the citizenry will be forced to resort to self help.
An attack on justice delivery
Otteh described the killing as “a horrendous and vicious attack on the delivery of justice, escalating a systematic pattern of attacks on institutions and infrastructure of justice in Imo State for a long while now.”
He noted that while physical buildings of courts in Imo State have been routinely attacked and burnt, “the vile, brutal killing of Judge Nnaemeka Ugboma takes the violent attacks against the Judiciary to whole new levels, unprecedented in Nigeria’s history.”
Otteh observed that prior to now, some courts had virtually stopped sitting in the state out of fear of attacks, and the targeting and killing of a judicial officer in the course of carrying out judicial duties will amplify and aggravate fears of safety and security which judicial officers, and indeed residents of Imo State entertain.
Politicisation of security condemnable
He lamented that Nigeria’s security forces were unable to prevent the killing of Judge Nnaemeka Ugboma, In his view, despite “clear evidence which showed that institutions of justice were very susceptible to these attacks and were specifically targeted for violence.
“It is also, on balance, possible to infer that the killing of Judge Nnaemeka Ugboma was facilitated by the government’s politicisation of safety and security in Imo State, and the war of attrition that has dominated the conflict between government forces and those of unknown affiliations, or as characteristically called “unknown gunmen”.
Better protection for judges
The lawyer urged the Imo State Judiciary to demand better protection of its judges and court houses.
“The Chief Judge of Imo State, aided by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, should take up issues of safety and security of Judges in the state with the Federal Government and its security forces”, Otteh advised.
The Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, in a majority judgment last Friday, declared former Governor Gboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) winner of the July 16, 2022 election and not Governor Ademola Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who was returned by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). ROBERT EGBE reviews the judgment.
The Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in the state capital Osogbo last Friday declared Gboyega Oyetola as the winner of the July 16, 2022 governorship election in the state.
The tribunal sacked Oyetola’s main challenger, Ademola Adeleke of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), who had been announced as winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) which conducted the poll.
But reversing that decision by a majority decision of 2 to 1, the tribunal annulled the election of Adeleke.
The tribunal directed INEC to withdraw the certificate of return issued to Adeleke and his deputy, Kola Adewusi, both of whom had been sworn in.
The three-man panel chaired by Justice Terste Kume directed that the certificate of return should instead be issued to Oyetola, so he can begin his second term in office.
INEC had on Sunday, July 17 declared Adeleke as the winner saying he won 17 of the 30 Local Government Areas (LGAs) in the poll.
It said Oyetola won in the remaining 13 LGAs, polling 375,027 votes while Adeleke claimed 403,371 votes.
The electoral umpire said Adeleke, a former senator and younger brother to the state’s first governor, Isiaka Adeleke, defeated Oyetola, by a margin of about 44,426 votes.
But the tribunal noted that the governorship election was not held in full compliance with the Electoral Act 2022, observing that it was characterised by, among others, over-voting.
It cancelled election in 744 polling units due to over-voting.
The tribunal said after deducting the excessive votes, the figure Adeleke polled came down to 290,666: lower than the 314,921 polled by Oyetola.
Oyetola’s petition
Dissatisfied by INEC’s declaration and return of Adeleke as the Governor of Osun State, Oyetola and the APC – as 1st and 2nd petitioners – filed a petition on August 5, 2022 challenging the result.
He alleged over-voting in 749 polling units and certificate forgery by Adeleke.
The 1st to 3rd respondents were INEC, Adeleke and the PDP.
The petitioners, through their counsel, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, listed three grounds.
They contended that the 2nd Respondent (Adeleke) was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election;
The 2nd Respondent “was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election and that the election of the 2nd Respondent was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.”
Grounds
The grounds for the petition included that Adeleke did not possess the educational qualification to contest the election.
The 2nd Respondent had also in 2018 submitted forged certificate to the 1st Respondent and also presented false documents for the contest of the 2022 governorship election.
Reliefs
Oyetola prayed the panel to hold that at the time of the election of Adeleke was not qualified to contest.
That all the votes recorded for Adeleke in the said election were wasted votes as a result of his non-qualification.
That on the basis of the remaining votes after discounting the votes recorded for Adeleke, in the said election, Oyetola has a majority of lawful votes.
That the votes recorded and/returned in 749 polling units in several Local Government Areas (LGAs), did not represent lawful votes cost in the said polling units in the said LGAs in the election.
That Adeleke was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast and his return by INEC as the governor was null, void and of no effect.
That Oyetola was duly and validly elected and ought to be returned as governor, having polled the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election, among others.
Judgment
In the majority judgment read by Justice Kume, the tribunal agreed with the petitioners that Oyetola won the election and not Adeleke, who was returned by INEC.
It, however, questioned INEC’s impartiality in the poll, accusing it of bias and manipulation.
INEC’s questionable role
Justice Kume accused INEC officials of tampering with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines to compromise the election in Adeleke’s favour.
The judge referenced a proverb by the late writer Prof. Chinua Achebe on how people were adapting to changes in Igbo society in colonial times.
He said: “The said conduct of the officials of the 1st Respondent, as shown in this judgement, makes the proactive decision of Eneke, the bird in the Novel, Things Fall Apart, 1958 by Chinua Achebe very instructive. In the said novel appears these words; “Men have learnt to shoot without missing, she has learnt to fly without perching.”
The tribunal chairman said electoral officials manipulated the BVAS machines but did not cover their tracks.
Why INEC’s synchronisation claim failed
The INEC counsel, Paul Ananaba, had during cross-examination argued that the election results in possession of the petitioners were incomplete because it was issued to them before the BVAS machines were synchronised.
Ananaba said the petitioners had therefore challenged the outcome of the election with incomplete data.
But the judge faulted the synchronisation of the BVAS machines after the election, noting that the results of the election were still not accurate after the said synchronisation of the BVAS machines.
“We have looked, and evaluated the evidence of the parties as shown in the exhibits before this Tribunal. The contents of the exhibits are clear as day. The said evidence is not from the fertile and creative imagination of learned counsel for the Petitioners, as erroneously submitted by learned counsel for the Respondents in their respective reply addresses on points of law to the issues under consideration,” he said.
He added: “The said ‘synchronisation’, rather than rhyme with each other are inconsistent and contradictory. The said exhibits tendered by the Respondents have not rebutted the presumption of regularity in favour of exhibit BVR and the other documents tendered by the Petitioners in this petition,
“In other words, the defences of the Respondents are plagued with fundamental mortal flaws highly irreconcilable and unreliable, incapable of defeating the credible evidence tendered by the Petitioners in respect of the 744 Polling Units were over-voting has been established.”
Umpire tampered with official records, violated Electoral Act
The Tribunal chairman maintained that evidence before the panel showed that the governorship election was conducted only in partial compliance with the Electoral Act.
“The inference, we hereby draw from the facts established by the evidence on record is that, the election conducted on the 16th day of July, 2022 was done in substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act (Supra), and the extant regulations made thereunder,” he noted.
“Moreover, exhibit BVR has not been withdrawn by the 1st Respondent who made and issued it. The Petitioners relied on exhibit BVR in maintaining this petition. The Respondents are hereby stopped from acting inconsistent with the import and tenor of exhibit BVR.
“Similarly, the exhibits tendered by the Respondents after exhibit BVR, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners were thought of after the declaration of result on the 17th day of July, 2022.
“The said conduct of the Respondents, especially, the 1st Respondent amounts to tampering with official records.
“The conduct of the 1st Respondent in the said election under consideration has produced multiple accreditation reports contrary to its avowed declaration to conduct free, fair and credible elections on the basis of one man or woman with one vote.”
Adeleke’s forgery
The Tribunal also held that the petitioners were able to prove a case of forgery against Governor Ademola Adeleke.
Justice Ogbuli, who gave a dissenting ruling on the judgement, aligned with the position of the majority judgment on the issue of disqualification.
The tribunal held: “Respondent through Mrs. Joan Arabs produced FILE D which was tendered in evidence. The said exhibit FILE D is in respect of the election conducted by the 1st respondent in 2018.
“Exhibit EC9, as earlier indicated, is the affidavit in support of the personal particulars of the 2nd respondent which he presented to the 1st respondent for the election of the 16th of July, 2022.
“On page two of exhibit EC9, the 2nd respondent (Adeleke), in his handwriting, wrote under (1) School Attended (Educational qualification with dates: Thus: (2.) Secondary Ede Muslim Grammar School, Eede – attended 1976 – 1981, Penn Foster High School Diploma -2021 (3). Higher Atlanta Metropolitan State College – BSC Criminal Justice 2021.
“On page 4, of exhibit EC9, there is a letter of attestation from Ede Muslim High School dated 22nd of May, 2016.
“Learned counsel for the petitioners, as earlier stated, referred to the different names in the schools reproduced above and the evidence admitted by RW2 under cross-examination, that Osun State was created in 1991, and as such, any evidence that a qualifying certificate or document stating that it was from Osun State in 1981 is a forgery”.
It added that by comparing Section 264 of the Criminal Code and exhibit EC9 “reveals that EC9 tells a lie about itself. In that regard, forgery of the said documents presented by the 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent has been proved. The same consequence applies to FILE D in so far as the contents therein relates to ‘Osun State’ that was not in existence before 1991.”
Consequence of forgery
Nevertheless, it held that the forgery case was not enough to disqualify him from contesting the election, adding that the PDP candidate had acquired additional qualifications.
“The question, however, is whether having found forgery in parts of exhibit EC9 and FILE D, the 2nd Respondent (Ademola Adeleke) is exonerated by exhibits 2R.RW6 and 2R.RW9. We think he is. It would have been otherwise if no other qualifying certificate of attendance at an institution had been presented to 1st Respondent for the election,” the tribunal held.
Journalist and public affairs analyst, Ismail Omipidan reasoned that this could be an albatross against Adeleke on appeal, should the justices make it a focal point.
Omipidan said: “As a layman, the mere fact that the Tribunal only says they “think,” shows that this is another potent pendulum that could swing against the interim Governor at the appellate court. Reason being that, the additional qualifications which were the basis of what I want to refer to as his temporary respite in the issue of qualification, was acquired using the O’Level that has been proven to be forged.
“Therefore, if we go by the popular axiom, you cannot build something on nothing and expect it to stand, it goes without any further probing that the interim Governor is yet to be let off the hook as far as his qualification to stand for the election is concerned. He can be disqualified for submitting a forged document as contained in his file with INEC.”
Coming battle at Appeal Court
The PDP and INEC faulted the judgment, vowing to upturn the verdict at the appeal court.
INEC’s Counsel Prof. Paul Ananaba, SAN, also faulted the judgment.
Ananaba said: “The tribunal chairman delivered what is called majority judgment; the second member of the panel gave a dissenting judgment while the third thanked everybody at the tribunal.
“These are the issues we will have to look into and get back to the commission. Anybody who listened to the judgment will know that only two people delivered the judgment and not three.”
Further faulting the judgment, he added that the BVAS was the primary source of what transpired on the day of the election.
According to him, a report issued after the election cannot be used as the primary source of what transpired on the election upon which the results would be declared.
On the contrary, Counsel to APC, Dr Abiodun Layonu, thanked the tribunal for restoring the victory of Oyetola as the winner of the governorship election.
Layonu also thanked Mr Akin Olujimi (SAN) and Mr Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) for leading Oyetola to victory at the tribunal.
He said that the judges at the tribunal considered the option of declaring Oyetola as winner in a majority judgment.
Falana: INEC wasted Osun State votes
Activist-lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, applauded the judgment, reasoning that it would take a near miracle for Adeleke to reverse the Tribunal’s verdict on appeal.
He blamed INEC for, in his view, wasting the votes of the Osun State electorate.
Speaking on Sunday during an interview on Arise TV, Falana said: “What the voters in those areas have to do is to sue INEC for damages that you have wasted my votes.”
Falana also said it will be a daunting task by Adeleke’s lawyers to overturn the verdict of the tribunal.
“Looking at the judgment, I believe very strongly that it is going to be a daunting task to impeach the judgment. INEC has to be held completely responsible for what happened.
“INEC will have to go back to the drawing table so that we will not have this experience. INEC will have to put its house in order, If we have this in a presidential election, where you issue one or two reports, it will have a crisis of monumental proportion,” he said.
Judgment sound – GSYF Director
Dep. Executive Director/Program Coordinator at Global Sustainable Youth Forum, Raymond Nkannebe, also agreed that the judgment was sound, saying Adeleke’s prospects of an upset is slim, and that his time at the government house is numbered.
The lawyer shared his review of the judgment on Saturday via his Twitter handle @RaymondNkannebe
He said: “One has read the two-part judgment of the Osun State Election Petition Tribunal, and I’m afraid this doesn’t leave @AAdeleke_01 in a good place from the little I know of our electoral jurisprudence and the attitude of the appellate courts.
“Barring any technical case which @AAdeleke_01 and his team might be able to set up at the appellate courts (and I don’t see any yet), it appears, most unfortunately that Adeleke’s time at the government house is already numbered as the prospects of an upset above is rather slim.”
Why Adeleke’s defence failed
Nkannebe also shed light on why the respondents failed.
He said: “Reading the judgement, there’s a sense in which the Respondents took comfort in the traditional position that to establish over voting, a petitioner has to call witnesses from all the polling units where over voting is alleged, failing which the claim cannot be proved.
“Until the recently passed Electoral Act, that was a big hurdle that faced most petitioners who would have to call as much as 800 witnesses within the short time allotted to a petitioner to prove his/her case especially where the geographical area of the challenge is large.
“At the time, the primacy of documents (whether certified or not) to establish claims in over voting was absent. The practice instead evolved the principle of “dumping” on the back of which most otherwise valid petitions, bit the dust.
“One would also observe that the Respondents erected their defence on the failure of the Petitioners to prove their case by making reference to the voters register – an error which with respect, the minority opinion of Hon. Justice Ogbuli fell into.
“With the coming into effect of the 2022 Electoral Act, and specifically by dint of Section 51(2), the litmus test of proving over voting has shifted from the voters register to the number of voters accredited by what is now the #BIVAS machine developed by @inecnigeria
He explained that Section 51(2) of the Electoral Act is unambiguous.
It reads: 51.-(1) No voter shall vote for more than one candidate or record Over voting. more than one vote in favour of any candidate at any one election.
(2) Where the number of votes cast at an election in any polling unit exceeds the number of accredited voters in that polling unit, the Presiding officer shall cancel the result of the election in that polling unit.
(3) Where the result of an election is cancelled in accordance with subsection (2), there shall be no return for the election until another poll has taken place in the affected polling unit.
The lawyer said with this innovation, the Draftsman of the legislation “had wittingly put the era of ‘Dumping of Exhibits’ or calling a long list of witnesses to prove a petition behind us. Thus why the case of the petitioners succeeded on the oral evidence of the two witnesses they invited.
“For the most part, this state of affairs left the case of the Petitioners largely unanswered.
“@AAdeleke_01’s case is not helped by the fact that the documents he relied upon: Exhibits RBVR 1-29 and RWC (his own version of the BVAS report) obtained one month after the election did not impeach the case of the Petitioners. As one finds out, it corroborates it on many counts.
“A juxtaposition of Exhibits RBVR (1-29) on the one hand, and Exhibits RWC with the polling unit results (EC8As) in the affected 744 polling units revealed egregious cases of over voting with #Oyetola and #Adeleke as beneficiaries.
“As the tribunal rightly held: ‘As shown in the table reproduced in this judgment, both the Petitioners and 2nd with 3rd Respondents benefitted from the over voting which, by credible evidence on record, happened in the election conducted on 16th July, 2022.’”
Oyetola’s ‘silver bullet ‘
Nkannebe reasoned that the petitioners had an ace up their sleeves.
He said: “Back to the Petitioners case, their own BVAS Report (Exhibit BVR) was said to have been issued on 17th July 2022 – whereas the document itself bears the date of 27th July 2023(some 10 days apart), but was however accorded probative value by the Court being a certified document.
“One could say it was the silver bullet of the Petitioners. A juxtaposition of the contents of the document through its 134 pages against the Polling Unit Results in the 744 Units clearly established incidences of over voting, yet @inecnigeria accredited the results. #pathetic
“In a bid to demure the credibility of Exhibit BVR, @AAdeleke_01 and his lawyers, contended that it was an “unsynchronised” version – a new addition to our electoral lexicon and which will certainly reverberate through the two courts above until the matter is laid to rest.
“Unfortunately, there was no basis to reach this assertion as their own version of the BVAS reports (RBVR 1-29 & RWC) was not labeled “synchronized” nor was it clothed any garb of superiority as the tribunal found.
“On the contrary, to the extent that Respondents’ version of BIVAS reports was allegedly issued in August – a month after the election, left the tribunal with no option but to conclude that it was a hatchet creation by @inecnigeria but which unfortunately did not do the trick.
“The implication of all the above is that the tribunal was left with three sets of BVAS reports: Exhibit BVR (relied upon by Petitioners); Exhibits RBVR 1-129 & RWC (relied upon by the Respondents) all of which revealed egregious cases of over voting when juxtaposed with the EC8As.
“Most importantly and quite unfortunately, @inecnigeria which was a party in the case and from whom the contradictory BVAS reports ensued had no answer to this mind-boggling revelations leading to the Tribunal’s censorship.
“In the end, the Tribunal by its majority decision one could say was on a firm ground to invoke the provisions of Section 136 of the Electoral Act to reset the state of play on the 16th of July 2022 in Osun State, which put #Gboyega ahead of #Adeleke in a largely flawed election.”
Minority judgment
But Justice Ogbuli disagreed with the majority decision, saying Oyetola failed to prove overvoting, among others.
The judge held: “I hold that the Petitioners have failed to prove issue of over voting by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. They also have not proved that the 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful voters cast at the election.
“I will need to point out that the inadequacies in our system such as power outage, network failure and paucity of relevant amenities should not be overlooked as we operate in a problem condition. It will be most unfortunate for a contestant who lost election to hurriedly apply and get a report from an incomplete source and then build a case on it to topple a candidate who has been declared the winner. It is exactly the case here. That is not the intendment of the extant Electoral Act.
“On the whole, I hold that the Petitioners’ case have not been satisfactorily proved. It ought to be and is hereby dismissed.”
Argument against minority decision
But Nkannebe faulted the decision.
He said: “The Minority Decision, with respect to Hon. Justice Ogbuli and as confirmed by my brother, did not inspire any hope. As far as dissenting opinions go, I’ve not seen any, with such scant regard for erudition. It is not the sort one could rely upon while ‘going upstairs’.
An Ikeja Special Offences Court yesterday heard how a couple, Amaechi Ndili, his wife, Chizoba and their company, Lionstone Offshore Services allegedly stole $4,666,234.28 from a company Hercules Offshore Nigeria Limited and converted it to their use.
Ndili and Chizoba are the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and Vice President of Lionstone Offshore Services respectively.
During resumed proceedings before Justice Olubunmi Abike-Fadipe, an accountant and business analyst with Hercules Offshore Nigeria, told the court how the couple allegedly used their company to dishonestly convert $4,666,234.28 received from Addax Petroleum Development Nigeria Limited on behalf of Hercules Offshore Nigeria Limited.
Led in evidence by the Prosecution, ACP Simon Lough (SAN), Okon, who is the first prosecution witness (PW1), told the court that Ndili in December 2009 came to Hercules Offshore Nigeria to discuss how the two companies would team up to carry out subcontract agreement based on his expertise and experience in the field.
Okon said Lionstone Offshore Services entered into a joint bidding agreement with Hercules Offshore Nigeria Limited in January 2010.
Under the terms of agreement, he said Lionstone would be responsible for submission of the tenders while Hercules would be responsible for technical and financial information.
It was agreed that Lionstone would be receiving payments and make remittance to Hercules Offshore Nigeria in accordance with terms of agreement.
The witness said Lionstone would be entitled to a one-time flat fee of $75,000 on the execution of the joint bidding agreement and annual amount of $150,000 per annum for three years, and a fee equal to two percent of the net charter hire.
After the joint bidding agreement, Lionstone submitted and was awarded $9,183,083 contract by Addax Petroleum Development Nigeria Limited.
He said payments would go to Lionstone Offshore Nigeria Services which will now remit the net amount less two percent to Hercules Offshore Nigeria Services.
The witness said from the inception of contract, Lionstone paid the invoice from Addax Petroleum less two percent until June 2012.
“From July 2012 till September 2013, Lionstone did not remit any money to Hercules again.”
He said when they made enquiry at Addax Petroleum, they were told that they have made full payment of the contract to Lionstone Offshore Nigeria.
Meanwhile, the defendants were re-arraigned on an amended four count amended charge bordering on conspiracy to commit felony to wit: stealing, stealing by dishonest conversion and stealing by persons having an interest in the thing stolen by the Prosecution, ACP Simon Lough.
They pleaded not guilty.
Counsel to the defendants, Ebun Shofunde (SAN) did not object to the re-arraignment of the defendant.
When Justice Abike-Fadipe asked if he wanted to withdraw his application objection to the initial charges against his client, Shofunde declined but informed the court of his intention to amend his application for preliminary objection to the suit.
Justice Olubunmi Abike-Fadipe has adjourned trial till today.
Socio Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has said that the idea behind establishing SERAP Accountability Clubs in tertiary institutions across the country is to create awareness on the need for accountability in younger generations.
The Deputy Director of the organization, Kolawole Oluwadare stated this at a civic engagement campaign titled “Stand-up for Human Rights” held at Shoregate Hotel, Joel Ogunnaike street, GRA, Ikeja.
The event also witnessed the induction mof new coordinators for University of Lagos (UNILAG), Akoka Chapter of the club, including the Coordinator, Nwaigwe David Ugochukwu; the Assistant Coordinator, Ifeoluwa Williams and Secretary, Obed Covenant Daberachi.
The respective coordinators for Lagos State University (LASU) included Zainab Eniola Jaji, Obega Favour, and Olayemi Ayomide Elizabeth.
According to Oluwadare, there is a need to imbibe in the younger generation how to hold those in government accountable for their actions.
“This meeting is to raise the next generation of accountability students. The idea is that after today, we leave you with a wealth of knowledge about our activities”, he said.
Oluwadare urged the new coordinators who will drive the affairs of the club, to ensure that they key into campus civic space campaign, priotising accountability conversation, so that government obey the law that it has signed as an institution.
He recalled that past coordinators of the club campaigned on different themes, such as water, health and electricity.
He impressed it on the coordinators that their assignment would involve issues bordering on data rights, corruption and electoral violations peculiar to election.
“The aims of engaging members of SAC across tertiary institutions in Nigeria in a dialogue is to discuss human rights, including rights to freedom of expression and assembly and to encourage students and student bodies to promote, advance and defend human rights.”
Kolawole also advised the students to be accountable in what they do in their private lives.
He noted that the migration syndrome presently bedeviling the country, would not be enticing to citizens if all is well.
He argued that advanced countries are social economic rights compliant and that that is why their citizens can enjoy amenities like roads, light, water and other basic rights.
Oluwadare urged the newly inauguarated officials to take the conversation further and key into a sort of symbiosis relationship with SERAP.
One of the former coordinator of the club, Valentino Adegoke explained how the participants could use the Freedom of Information Act to demand accountability from school authorities, politicians and government’s ministries.
A former Ikeja Branch Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Young Lawyers’ Forum (YLF), Yusuf Temilola Nurudeen, has been appointed a member of the NBA National Executive Committee (NBA-NEC).
NBA-NEC is the highest decision-making organ of the association.
In his new role, Nurudeen will work closely with 150 distinguished members of the Bar, including 38 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs).
The former Lagos State University (LASU) students union president was one of the 15 young lawyers appointed.
Yusuf said: “With boundless gratitude for the confidence reposed in me by the NBA President, Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), I undertake to give my best to the service of the Bar and seize this opportunity to adequately represent the young lawyers.”
Under Section 8(6) of the NBA Constitution 2015 (as amended in 2021), the NEC, subject to the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act and other provisions of the Constitution, possess powers to exercise control and management over the finances of the Association.
NBA-NEC appoints representatives to statutory, executive/judicial commissions or other bodies.
It also arranges for the Annual General Meeting through the association’s national secretariat, amongst others.
This morning l woke up to the sad reality that our Olalekan AbdulFatai Yusuf SAN is no more. It sounds unbelievable, but it is a sad reality.
We were close right from our SBS days between 1981 and 1982 where we cultivated friendship and brotherhood.It was not like we saw each other often, even if our law firms are not too far from each other. Our hearts always bonded.
A strong friendship doesn’t need daily conversations, doesn’t always need togetherness. As long as the relationship lives in the heart, true friends will never part.
And so it pains to know that our friend and brother is no more,at least in the land of the living.
It pains.However every pain teaches a lesson. Every lesson changes a person.
The lesson here for me and everyone else, is that as mortals, we cannot live forever. For each and everyone of us, one day it will be over.
This ought to teach us all that we need to embrace good deeds, and try to move closer to God, because one day for you and l , it will be over.
When that day comes, and no matter how long, how will you and l like to be remembered?
Myself and the departed Olalekan Yusuf SAN renewed contacts and togetherness as students of the Faculty of Law, University of Lagos between 1983- 86 and subsequently attended law school together in 1987.
And from that vantage point of knowledge, l now share testimonial about the departed learned silk.
The departed was married to Bimpe, a director of the National Library, a relationship that started from Ojoku Grammar school and blossomed at SBS ilorin.Both were inseparable and remain so till death separated them this morning. At SBS Ilorin , both always clung to each other like Romeo and juliet. To my knowledge, both never cut corners. The relationship may have shown the departed as one committed to relationships. Learned silk was fiercely loyal. I never saw the departed learned silk in any other intimate relationship with any other woman other than Bimpe throughout his life. What a devoted man he was.
The relationship blossomed and was blessed with successful children including a medical surgeon and legal practitioner, amongst others. The departed believed in quality education and gave all his children his best in terms of care and commitment to quality education.
In terms of commitment to relationships, l reference the departed’s closeness to our colleague, our late Ade olowomoran. Both of them forged friendships until Ade olomoran’s last hours, and Yusuf remained committed to his friend even after his sudden death after our service years in Kano. The departed never betrayed his friends.
One of my wife’s sisters is married to the learned silk’s Elder brother. I can confirm from the testimonial of my wife’s sister, that the departed silk was responsible for the upkeep and educational training of all his Elder brother’s children up to the University level and also supported the extended family with required resources. Such was his depth of humanity. My wife’s sister remain inconsolable with tears this morning as we called to offer our condolences.
I recall sharing the departed’s commitment to community services with the world at his last birthday. Singlehandedly, the departed impacted his native Ojoku community. He built a befitting police post for the community which he handed over to the Nigerian police force. Such was his devotion to community services.
The late departed ran a stellar and professionalised legal practice. His law chambers along Allen Avenue remain a delight in terms of organisation, architecture and library services. A delight and reference point for any professional.
Many will attest to the departed’s ex cellent taste and dress sense.He was always well turned out either in immaculate suits or native wears. He made such a huge impression such that the body of Senior Advocate accorded him the hosting rights in one of the body’s special functions.
Always reserved with admirable presence , the departed silk chose carefully his circle of friends. One of his closest friends that l know is Hakeem Ogunniran , the celebrated business lawyers who reigned as the CEO of one of the blue- chip companies in Nigeria. Both remain close friends, until death snatched our departed friend away this morning.
I can go on and on about the departed silk, including my last physical contact with him in his office, when he reiterated the professionalism of his practice and his determination never to pervert the course of justice by not offering bribes to any judicial officer for any favours whatsoever.
And so our AbdulFatai olalekan Yusuf SAN, the expert property/ commercial lawyer and litigator is no more.
He bade Farewell to the world this morning, and we mourn.
I mourn.
May Allah receive his gentle soul peacefully in Aljannah firdaus.
Amen.
And to Bimpe( the only woman in his life), his children, family, immediate and extended, his ojoku community, his in- laws in my native offa community, his colleagues and cycle of friends including the body of Senior Advocate of Nigeria and his retinue of clients including the estate of his rich client ( Estate of renowned chief Ayodele Ayoku), l say Farewell.
Farewell, Farewell, Farewell to our brother and friend, AbdulFatai olalekan Yusuf SAN as his body is interred at a solemn burial rites according to Muslim customs this evening.
On the 16th day of July, 2022, the 1st Respondent conducted Governorship election in Osun State. The 1st Petitioner was a candidate at the said election, under the sponsorship of the 2nd Petitioner.
The 2 Respondent contested the said Governorship election under the platform of the 3″ Respondent. Other political parties also sponsored candidates at the said election.
At the conclusion of voting at the various Polling Units in Osun State, the 1st Respondent declared and returned the 2nd Respondent elected candidate at the election, and, was returned as the Governor of Osun State on the 17th day of July, 2022.
Aggrieved by the declaration and return of the 2nd Respondent as the Governor of Osun State, the Petitioners have filed this petition on the 5 day of August, 2022.
The grounds of the petition are contained in paragraph 19 of the petition, which read as follows:
19. The Petitioners state that the Grounds upon which this Petition is based are as follows:
(a) The 2nd Respondent was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election;
(b) The 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
(c) The election of the 2nd Respondent was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.”
Petition grounds
The facts supporting the grounds of the petition are pleaded in paragraphs 20-68 of the petition. (See Vol. 1A thereof.)
The said grounds are as follows:
a. The 2nd Respondent did not possess the educational qualification to contest the election to the office of Governor of Osun State held on Saturday, 16 day 2022 conducted by the 1st Respondent.
b. The 2nd Respondent has also previously in 2018 submitted forged certificate to the 1″ Respondent herein along with his Form C.F.001 and also presented false documents to the 1 Respondent for the contest of the 2022 governorship election. The 2 Respondent’s study in any university is predicated on his high school result of the 1st respondent in 2018 and he did not go through the educational programme for the duration of time stipulated in the curriculum of the institution.
c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the 2″ Respondent, in his form EC9 declared falsely on oath that all the answer, facts and particulars” he gave in the form are “true and correct” and that he “fulfilled all the requirements for qualification for the office” he sought to be elected.
d All the votes recorded for the 2 and 3 Respondents on Saturday, 16 July, 2022 in the Osun State Governorship Election and the results declared by the 1st Respondent on Sunday, 17 July 2022 in respect thereof are wasted votes in that the 2″ Respondent was not qualified to contest the said election in the first place.
e. The 1st Respondent is obliged to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act which provide that for any person to vote, the Presiding Officer shall use a smart card reader or any other technological device as may be prescribed by the 1 Respondent for the accreditation of voters, to verify, confirm or authenticate the particulars of the intending voter in the manner prescribed by the 1 Respondent.
f. In the counting of votes cast at the polling unit and the collation of the results of the election it is the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units and the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling units that should be taken into account.
g. The total numbers of votes as well as number of accredited voters recorded in the respective Forms ECSA for those polling units on the one hand do not tally with the numbers of accredited and verified voters on the record of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System: (BVAS) for the same polling units.”
Petitioner’s reliefs
The Petitioner therefore sought the following reliefs, namely:
72 WHEREOF the Petitioners pray jointly and severally against the Respondents as follows-
a) That it may be determined that at the time of the Osun State Governorship election of 16 July, 2022, the 2nd defendant was not qualified to contest the said election.
b) That it may be determined that all the votes recorded for the 2 respondent in the said election are wasted votes as a result of the non-qualification of the 20 respondent.
c) That it may be determined that on the basis of the remaining votes after discounting the votes recorded for the 2″ respondent, in the said election the 1″ petitioner has a majority of lawful votes and has satisfied the constitutional requirement by obtaining the required spread, that is, 25% of votes in each of at least two thirds (2/3) of all the local government areas of Osun State.
d) That it may be determined that the votes recorded and/returned in 749 polling units in the following Local Government Areas, namely Ede North (101 Polling Unit); Ede South (19 Polling units); Egbedore (55 Polling Units); Ejigbo (58 Polling Units): lla (56 Polling Units) Mesha West (67 Polling Units): Irepodun (48 Polling Units); Obokun (36 Polling Units). Olorunda (103 Polling Units); and Osogbo (147 Polling Units) did not represent lawful votes cost in the said polling units in the said Local Government Areas in the Osun State Governorship election held on 16 July, 2022 and as having been obtained in vitiating circumstances of substantial non- compliance with mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
e) That it may be determined that the 2″ Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the Osun State Governorship election held on 16 July, 2022 and, therefore, the declaration and return of the 2″ Respondent by the 1 Respondent as the Governor of Osun State are unlawful, undue, null, void and of no effect.
f) That it may be determined that the 1 Petitioner was duly and validly elected and ought to be returned as Governor of Osun State, hoving polled the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election to the office of the Governor of Osun State held on Saturday, 16 July, 2022 and having satisfied the constitutional requirements for the said election by obtaining the required spread, that is by obtaining 25% of votes in at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the local government areas of Osun State:
g) That the 1 Petitioner be declared validly elected or returned in the said election.
h) An order directing the 1″ Respondent to issue a Certificate of Return to the 1 Petitioner as the duly elected Governor of Osun State
i) An order declaring null and void the Certificate of Return wrongly issued to the 2 Respondent by the 1st Respondent.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE
j) That the said election under reference was vitiated by substantial non-compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements which substantially affected the validity of the said election that none of the candidates in the said election can be validly returned as having won the said election.
k) That the Osun State Governorship election held on July 16″ 2022 is void on the ground that the election was not conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
l) That the Osun State Governorship election held on July 16″ 2022 be nullified or cancelled and 1″ Respondent be directed to conduct a fresh election to the office of the Governor of Osun State.
m) Cost of this Petition.
On Respondents’ Petitioners’ failure to produce voter’s registers
The submission by learned counsel for the Respondents that the failure to produce the voter’s registers in the Polling Units under contention by the Petitioners is fatal to the case of the Petitioners is not correct. The reason is not farfetched. The facts and the law applicable in this petition are different from the facts and the law applicable in the authorities cited by learned counsel for the Respondents for the mandatory use of a voter’s register in proof or otherwise of over-voting in an election in a Polling Unit.
Accordingly, we hereby decline to apply the good authorities of law cited by learned counsel for the Respondents in the mandatory use of voter’s register in respect of issues 2 and 3 herein. See Adegoke Motors Ltd vs. Adesanya & Anor (1989) LPELR-94 (SC) 1 at 5 – 6 para C, per Oputa, JSC (as he then was), of blessed memory, wherein he held inter alia as follows:
“There is now a tendency among our lawyers, and sometimes among some of our judges, to consider pronouncements made by justices of the Supreme Court in unnecessary isolation from the facts and surrounding circumstances those particular cases in which those pronouncements were made. I think it ought to be obvious by now, that it is the facts and circumstances of any given case that frame the issues for decision in that particular case. Pronouncements of our justices whether they are rationes decidendi or obiter dicta must therefore be inextricably and intimately related to the facts of the given case. Citing those pronouncements without relating to the facts that induced them will be citing them out of their proper context, without know facts, it is impossible to know the law on those facts……………that court decisions and pronouncements derive their strength, their persuasive potency, their inspiration and therefore their value as precedents from the fact of the case as pleaded and as presented.” (Underlining ours).
In other words, a case is authority for what it decides. See Anyankwo v. Okoye (2010) 1 SC (Pt.l) 30. For the sake of emphasis, and at the risk of repetition, where a statute under consideration is different from the statute under which a principle of law has been made by a court of law, the said principle of law, would for all intent and purposes be inapplicable in the determination of the issues in dispute under the new different statute
As shown in the table reproduced in this judgment, both the Petitioners and the 2nd with 3rd Respondents benefitted from the over voting which, by credible evidence on record, happened in the election conducted on 16th July, 2022.
The RWI, in her evidence also admitted the fact of over voting. Hear her evidence, when she testified under cross-examination by learned counsel for the Petitioners, thus:
I see paragraph 21.35 of page 413 of volume 2 of the 1st respondent statement on oath of witnesses.
I maintain paragraph 21.35 of my statement on oath. I see exhibit R.BVR at page 25. / see the entry on it. Accreditation is 313 as against 388 in my statement on oath. There is seeming over voting by 75 votes.
I see paragraph 21.36 on page 419 of my statement on oath. The accreditation is 830. The accreditation figure R.BVR is 793. There is seeming over voting of 37 votes.
I see paragraph 26.7 at page 548 of volume 2. The accreditation is 402. In exhibit R.BVR, it is 263 accreditation.
There is seeming over voting by 139 votes. I see paragraph 23.24 on page 476 of volume 2.
Accreditation is 448. In exhibit R.BVR, it is 224. There is seeming over voting of 224.
I did not say exhibit BVR was an interim document; but it is issued as at 27/7/2022, while synchronization was ongoing. Each BVAs machine has an identifier unique to it. . . . . . . . . . . . “
The said admissions were made by RWI on the 21/12/2022.
RW2, in exhibit 2R.RW2 on page 64 thereof admitted over voting in 6 polling Units.
Facts admitted need no further proof. See Sections 20, 21(1) read with Section 123 of the Evidence Act (Supra). The fact that the claims in this petition are declaratory in nature does not detract from the said admissions. This is so because the admissions are based on documents. See Eco Bank vs. Kunle & Ors (2018) LPELR44239 (CA) 1 at 23 – 25 paras, B- D. The said admissions are against the interest of the Respondents, and we hereby so hold.
Section 137 of Electoral Act
Learned counsel for the parties in this petition, addressed this Tribunal on Section 137 of the Electoral Act (Supra). The said section provide thus;
“137. It shall not be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.”
It should be noted that, it is not the duty of this Tribunal to question the propriety or otherwise of the National Assembly in making Section 137 of the Electoral Act (Supra). The duty of this Tribunal is to interpret the law as made by the legislature. The Respondents have also not shown which Section of the Constitution of Nigeria (Supra), or the Evidence Act (Supra), which Section 137 of the Electoral Act (Supra), is inconsistent with. Rather, Section 3 of the Evidence Act (Supra), renders Section 137 of the Electoral Act (Supra), applicable to “any” evidence admissible by “any” other legislation in Nigeria. The use of the word “any” in a statute means without any limitation or qualification. See NSA & Anor v. Tassang & Ors (2022) LPELR-57211 (CA) 1 at 33 – 37 para E. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the Respondents to declare as null and void Section 137 of the Electoral Act (Supra), is not correct. It is hereby dismissed.
We have looked, and evaluated the evidence of the parties as shown in the exhibits before this Tribunal. The contents of the exhibits are clear as day. The said evidence is not from the fertile and creative imagination of learned counsel for the Petitioners, as erroneously submitted by learned counsel for the Respondents in their respective reply addresses on points of law to the issues under consideration
INEC’s synchronization claim
The “synchronization” of the documents made by the 1st Respondent, and the physical inspection of same done by the 2ndd and 3rd Respondents, as shown in the table hereinbefore reproduced, run riot to the defences raised by each of the Respondents to this petition in respect of issues 2 and 3 under consideration.
The said “synchronization”, rather than rhyme with each other are inconsistent and contradictory. The said exhibits tendered by the Respondents have not rebutted the presumption of regularity in favour of exhibit BVR and the other documents tendered by the Petitioners in this petition.
In other words, the defences of the Respondents are plagued with fundamental mortal flaws highly irreconcilable and unreliable, incapable of defeating the credible evidence tendered by the Petitioners in respect of the 744 Polling Units were over-voting has been established. The inference, we hereby draw from the facts established by the evidence on record is that, the election conducted on the 16th day of July, 2022 was done in substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act (Supra), and the extant regulations made thereunder.
Moreover, exhibit BVR has not been withdrawn by the 1stt Respondent who made and issued it. The Petitioners relied on exhibit BVR in maintaining this petition. The Respondents are hereby estopped from acting inconsistent with the import and tenor of exhibit BVR. See Section 169 of the Evidence Act (Supra). See also Thaddeus v. Atule (2022) LPELR-57539 (CA) 1 at 57 – 59, paras, F – A; Agboguuleri v. Depo & Ors (2008) LPELR-243 (SC) 1 at 17 – 18, paras, C – C; AG. Rivers State v. A.G Akwa Ibom State & Anor (2011) LPELR-633 (SC) 1 at 21 – 22 paras F – A and Mabamije v. Otto (2016) LPELR – 26058 (SC) 1 at 15 – 16 paras C – B.
Similarly, the exhibits tendered by the Respondents after exhibit BVR, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners were thought of after the declaration of result on the 17th day of July, 2022. See Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba (Supra); Lawal v. State (2010) LPELR-46221 (CA) 1 at 23 paras B – C; PDP & Anor v. Aminu & Anor (2019) LPELR-47330 (CA) 1 at 34 – 35 paras C – D and Agbo v. State(2006) LPELR-242 (SC) 1 at 43 – 44 paras G – B.
The said conduct of the Respondents, especially, the 1stt Respondent amounts to tampering with official records. See Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba (Supra) at 20 – 21 paras F – A, per Nnaemeka-Agu (JSC) of blessed memory. The conduct of the 1stt Respondent in the said election under consideration has produced multiple accreditation reports contrary to its avowed declaration to conduct free, fair and credible elections on the basis of one man or woman with one vote. The said conduct of the officials of the 1stt Respondent, as shown in this judgment, makes the proactive decision of Nneke, the bird in the Novel, Things Fall Apart, 1958 by Chinua Achebe very instructive. In the said Novel, appears these words;
“Men have learnt to shoot without missing, she has learnt to fly without perching.”
How INEC can curb manipulation of BVAs Machines
Consequently, to forestall a manipulation of BVAs Machines in the conduct of elections in Nigeria by the 1st Respondent, the presiding officers at the Polling Units and other key staff of the 1 st Respondent should have on the vest worn by them, during conduct of elections, an electronic device embedded in the said vest, which will have audio, video and other data and information transmissible to a server dorniciled with either the Headquarters of the Police Force, NIGCOMSAT, or the office of the National Security Adviser, independent of the I St Respondent. The data stored at the server in any of the said offices would be a resource material for investigation, and, possible prosecution of any infraction that may occur in the use of the BVAs Machines at the Polling Unit level during the conduct of an election.
From the examination of the evidence of the parties in respect of issues 2 and 3, we find as a fact that over-voting occurred in the election conducted on the 16th day of July, 2022 in the manner stated in the table in paragraph 6.19 of the Petitioners’ final written address, already reproduced in the judgment.
The duty of this Tribunal is to deduct the said invalid votes from the lawful votes of the 1 st Petitioner and the 2 nd Respondent, to determine who had a majority of lawful votes at the said election. The table produced on page 30 paragraph 7.01 of the Petitioners’ final written address in response to the I st Respondents’ final written address and page 17 paragraph 6.21 of the Petitioners’ final written address shows a graphic demonstration of the lawful votes, after a deduction of invali
“The table below explains who won the election by majority of lawful votes cast between the parties:
Judgment entered for Petitioners
For the sake of emphasis, the total lawful votes for each of the candidates after the said deduction of the invalid votes is 314, 931 for 1 st Petitioner, and 290,666 for the 2 nd Respondent.
Consequently, the 2 nd Respondent did not score a majority of lawful votes cast at the election. The declaration and return is hereby declared null and void. The 2nd Respondent cannot “go lo lo lo lo” and “Buga won” as the duly elected Governor of Osun State in the election conducted on 16th day of July, 2022. See Kizz Daniel song, BUGA.
Rather, we hereby hold that the 1stt Petitioner scored a majority of lawful votes in the said election and is hereby returned as such.
The 1stt Respondent is hereby directed to withdraw the certificate of return issued to the 2nd Respondent, and issue it to the 1st Petitioner as the duly elected Governor of Osun State.
Accordingly, reliefs 72c, d in 744 Polling Units only, e, f, g, h and i already reproduced in the judgment are hereby granted.
Having granted the main reliefs, the alternative reliefs are hereby struck out.
APPREARANCES
Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, Chief Akinlolu Olujinmi, CON, SAN, Lasun Sanusi, SAN, Dr. Abiodun Layonu, SAN, Prof. Kayode Olatoke, SAN, l<unle Adegoke, SAN, H. O. Afolabi, SAN, K. K. Gbadamosi, SAN, M. Abdul Rasheed, SAN, M. Ozo Adebayo, SAN, Lukman Fagbemi, SAN With Nathaniel Aguniade, Esq., Sikiru Adewoye Esq, Esq., Isaac Abiodun Olaide, Esq., Ifeanyi Egwuasi, Esq., Olayinka Okedara, Esq., A. K. Adesile, Esq., Olalekan Thanni, Esq., Prof. B. A. Onoipidan, Esq., Lukman Akanbi, Esq., Oloyede Oyediram Esq, Esq., Dr. Festus G. Oyebade, Esq., Ibrahim Lawal Esq, Dele Abbass, Esq., Rashidi Isamotu, Esq., Oluseye Oluyombo, Esq., A. E. Elubode, Esq., L. A. Adebayo, Esq., A. Okunade, Esq., Chief Abimbola Ibe, Esq., Yemi l. Abolusodum, Esq., A. Abayomi, Esq., Opeyimi Arasi, Esq., M. Adeoye, Esq., Rasheed Olufawobi, Esq., U. O. Olufadi, Esq., A. Oledele, Esq., Oladipupo Aige, Esq., A. S. Amire, Esq., M. O. Adebowale, Esq., A. P. Olajolo, Esq., Dawerd Adejunmobi, Esq., V. D. Manye, Esq., Abolade Sunday, Esq., T. O. Olaluwoye, Esq., Fatima O. Raji, Esq., K. A. Adebisi, Esq., Hassana Abdullahi, Esq., N. O. Adetunji, Esq., and Akintunde Adegboye, Esq for Petitioners.
Prof. Paul C. Ananaba SAN, Chief Emeka Okpoko SAN, Chief Henry Akunebu SAN, With Sunday Abednego, Esq., Olakunle Faokunla, Esq., Jamiu O. Makinde, Esq., Olaniyi Aeije, Esq., Okechukwu Barrah, Esq., l. Evuluku, Esq., Tunde Salako, Esq., O. Jimi-Bada, Esq., Viba Kinteni, Esq., N. A. Kareem, Esq. and Juliet Okonkwo, Esq for the ISt Respondent.
Dr. Onyeku Ikpeazu SAN, Kehinde Ogunwumiju SAN With Niyi Owolade, Esq., Adekola Aliyu, Esq., l. N. l. Iheanacho, Esq., Bamidele Abolarin, Esq., Oluwasesan Dadi, Esq.,
Eze G. Alala, Esq., N. l. Harrison, Esq., M. M. Nworie, Esq., Chief A. Abdulsalam, Esq., Adebowale Oladinni, Esq., Hashim Abioye, Esq., Dr. Kehinde Kolawole, Esq., O. M. Adedolapo, Esq., O. Jimi-Bada, Esq., Samuel Obi, Esq., Shola Oyedele, Esq., Akano Emmanuel, Esq., W.A. Olopade, Esq., Bukola Onifade, Esq., S. O. Bakare, Esq., Opemipo Osunleti, Esq and Kose Adewole Esq for 2 nd Respondent.
Dr. Alex A. Izinyon SAN, N. O. O. Oke SAN, With O. Alli, Esq., Ayo Adesanmi Esq, Kolapo Alimi, Esq., C. S. Ekeocha, Esq., Alex Izinyon, Il, Esq., Henry Odunayo, Esq., Itodo George, Esq., T. Lamuye, Esq., M. O. Adedokun, Esq., Leka Alabi, Esq., Ropo Oyewole, Esq., B. Ebenezer, Esq., T. A. Giwa, Esq., Tai A. Princewill Adelugba, Esq., Akin Odumosu, Esq., O. S. Abisoyee, Esq and l. T. Tewogbade Esq for 3 rd Respondent.
The House of Representatives Adhoc Committee on the New Naira Notes has insisted that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) must comply with its Act regarding the phaseout of the old naira notes.
The committee, in a statement by its chairman Alhassan Ado Doguwa, rejected the 10-day extension for swapping old N1,000, N500 and N200 notes.
It said: “The 10-day extension for the exchange of the old naira notes is not the solution.
“We as a legislative committee with a constitutional mandate of the House would only accept clear compliance with sections 20(3),(4), and (5) of the CBN Act and nothing more.”
Section 20 (1-5) of the Act provides: “(1) The currency notes issued by the bank shall be legal tender in Nigeria at their face value for the payment of any amount.
“(2)The coins issued by the bank shall, if such coins have not been tampered with, be legal tender in Nigeria at their face value up to such amount or amounts as may be determined, from time to time, by the Bank.
“(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the bank shall have power, if directed to do so by the President and after giving reasonable notice on that behalf, to call in any of its notes or coins on payment of the face value thereof and any note or coin with respect to which a notice has been given under this sub-section, shall, on the expiration of the notice, cease to be legal tender, but, subject to the section 22 of this Act, shall be redeemed by the Bank upon demand.
“(4) It shall be an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than five years for any person to falsify, make or counterfeit any bank note or coin issued by the Bank which is legal tender in Nigeria.
(5) A person who refuses to accept Nigeria as a means of payment is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine of N5,000 or six months imprisonment: provided that the bank shall have powers to prescribe the circumstances and conditions under which other currencies may be used as a medium of exchange in Nigeria.”
Section 22 (1) provides: “A person shall not be entitled to recover from the bank the value of any lost, stolen, mutilated or imperfect note or coin.”
Although Doguwa has not specified exactly how the CBN violated the section, a Lagos lawyer, Theophilus Akanwa, does not see any violation of any aspect of Section 20 by the CBN.
He told The Nation: “My view is that CBN complied with the section by giving what I consider a reasonable notice when the policy was announced.
“The only problem that it needs to address is to ensure that the new notes circulate well and is available and not hoarded.
“If the new notes were available, these issues will not arise and Nigerians will not be faced with these challenges. So, the issue of availability needs to be addressed.”
A former member Ogun state Judiciary Service Commission, Abayomi Omoyinmi, partly shares similar views.
He said: “I believe that the CBN may have complied with the Act in part, in that the initial time on which the first notice was given last year may have been reasonable for the date which the new notes ceased to be legal tender.
“But once it has been redeemed by the CBN, the time given for the extension ought to be a reasonable one, which in this case I think they have failed to actually comply with the law because sections 20 and 22 cannot be read in isolation.
“In that case, I think the House of Representatives is right in rejecting the extension as same is short and fell short of being reasonable time within the law.”
But a Lagos lawyer, Festus Ogun, believes the CBN is under compulsion to accept old notes even after the validity deadline.
He was quoted by The Cable as saying: “The CBN does not have the power to give a deadline on submission or the surrendering of the old currencies.
“To say that old notes will no longer accept the old currency after a particular deadline is not supported by law.
“Section 20(3) is clear. It says that the CBN has a mandatory duty to redeem the old notes when presented to them or presented to the bank.
“Let’s even assume that the notice given was reasonable, the law states that the notice is only in respect of when the new currency would become the official legal tender.”
“It does not necessarily imply that the old currency can no longer be accepted by the bank even after the expiration of the deadline. The banks can accept it and present it to CBN because CBN has a duty to accept it from them.
“A lot of people, especially in the rural areas, do not have access even to banks and do not have access to this new legal tender. So, why should you render useless the money with them because of a particular deadline?
“The CBN is under compulsion to accept the old currency from our people.”
Many Nigerians believe it is time Nigeria emulated other African countries that allow their citizens abroad to exercise their franchise wherever they reside. In this article, a former prosecutor for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Nkereuwem Anana, argues that without diaspora voting, the 2022 Electoral Act is incomplete.
INSENSITIVITY TO DIASPORA VOTING:
Citizens are in the Diaspora when they live outside their country. Currently Nigerian laws do not provide for Nigerians living abroad to participate in an election by voting from where they are. This singular act has disqualified Nigeria from the league of modern democracies. So many activities could culminate in Nigerians living in the Diaspora; it could be as a result of insecurity, pilgrimage, studies overseas, political appointments, business opportunities etc.
There are so many implications and interpretations for disallowing Diaspora voting, it could mean most fundamentally that the nation has denied their citizens thereby making them non-Nigerians, it could mean that their right to vote and be voted for has been denied merely because they are abroad at the time, It could mean that the nation is insensitive to the plight of their citizens abroad. For the citizens, it means that the Nigerian state has rejected them, they are not valued, and they should not contribute to the development of their country because they are not in the country.
For the 2022 Electoral Act, as recent as it is, not to incorporate Diaspora voting means that the millions of Nigerians living abroad cannot determine who governs them when they return to the country and meaning that whoever emerges as the president was imposed on such persons. Being disenfranchised is different from voting for a candidate who could not emerge the winner of the election. Nigeria should not only be heard to be a democratic entity but to be seen as practising democracy. INEC which is the body responsible for conducting an election in Nigeria should by virtue of their functions be empowered to do any other thing that will promote free participation of election process by the citizens to elect their leaders. Nigerian citizens are not only those residing in Nigeria. At least in a presidential election, citizens should vote from anywhere around the world. The Electoral Act did not specifically prohibit diaspora voting and so since this is a general election where Nigerians are to vote, and Nigerians are not only those living in Nigeria, then whoever is a Nigerian no matter his place of residence at the time should vote. Before the amendment of the 2022 Electoral Act, INEC should allow diasporans to vote in the 2022 general election to elect their president.
Section 51 (2) of the Act states:
Where the number of votes cast at an election in any polling unit exceeds the number of accredited voters in that polling unit, the presiding officer shall cancel the result of the election in that polling unit.
It’s unfortunate that the Act itself has failed to interpret the meaning of accredited voters. Accredited Voters means the number of people who had registered earlier and have now made themselves available to vote at a polling unit on the election day. So once the number of vote cast is more than the number of persons who were accredited or cleared to vote then the election will be cancel at that unit.
That section has amended the section of the old Electoral Act which was the fulcrum of rigging of elections in Nigeria. Under the old Act, it is when the number of votes cast at an election in any polling unit exceeds the number of registered voters in that polling unit, that the Presiding officer shall cancel the result of the election in that polling unit. So you have a situation where for example 1000 people registered in a polling unit and only 100 turn up to vote, the remaining 900 is bonus for the politicians to fill in the gaps for whoever they want. That was the system referred to as structure in politics, that system is now history in our polity. There is nowhere the number of vote cast will be more than the number of accredited voters and the presiding officer or the electoral official will claim ignorant of it, so there should be a very sensitive punishment to such an erring electoral officer.
How can this even be possible with the use of the BVAS? How can the Commission cancel the result of an election because the vote is more than the accredited voters? Meaning that if the entire accredited voters in a particular polling unit was 100, one political party scores 90 votes with genuine accredited voters and another political party without duly accredited voters add 12 votes to make it 102, the entire votes are cancelled to the detriment of the political party that scored 90. The best thing to do is for INEC to spot out the votes that are in error and cancel them instead of cancelling the entire unit result. The S ection should be amended. The erring INEC officer should be dismissed.
SECTION 13(1) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT STATES:
A person who before the election is resident in a constituency other than the one in which he or she was registered may apply to the Resident Electoral Commissioner of the State where he or she is currently resident for his or her name to be entered on the transferred voters list for the constituency.
The above section is a misnomer. In a presidential election, all citizens of Nigeria or anyone who is qualified to vote in a general election in Nigeria should have the right to vote anywhere he resides within Nigeria. Where the individual was registered for the purpose of acquiring voters’ card should not be material. Like the ATM Card, you can withdraw your money from anywhere within Nigeria. The issuing branch of the ATM card is not important.
The said Section of the Electoral Act has disenfranchised a lot of Nigerians even on daily basis because people as we speak are changing locations. A lot of Nigerians who have migrated away from the constituency where they undergo their registration could not succeed in making their names to be entered on the transferred voters list of a new constituency as at the deadline for that effect. So many factors are responsible for an individual to relocate, it could be studies, visitation, job search, transfer, seminar etc. even people who are changing their location now are being disenfranchised as a result of the said Section. This Section of the Electoral Act needs an amendment. If the same Act authorises electronic transmission of vote, then why is it that by the said Section once you change location, you are not entitled to vote.
THERE IS NO PERMANENT VOTERS’ CARD
Section 16(4) of the Electoral Act states:
The Commission may, whenever it considers it necessary, replace all or any voters’ cards for the time being held by the voters.
Voters Card by all mathematical calculation need be permanent if the country is to cut the cost of producing new voters’ card at every time the need arises. The permanency of the card will mean that few individuals would demand for the new ones when the need arises. The Act contradicts itself when its mentioned permanent voters card in Section18(2) while Section 16(4) states that the Independent Electoral Commission can replace the cards when it considers necessary. Section 16(4) needs to be amended to a permanent voters’ card.
Section 18 (1) of the Electoral Act is wrongly interpreted by INEC and in consequence denies Nigerians the right to vote. It is the refusal of INEC to perform according to said Section that plunges Nigerians to hardship and all sort of suffering. This is the Section that carries the hardship faced by eligible voters in Nigeria.
The said Section states:
Whenever a voters card is lost, destroyed, defaced, torn or otherwise damaged, the owner of such card shall, not less than 90 days before polling day, apply in person to the electoral officer or any other officer duly authorize for that purpose by the Resident Electoral Commissioner, stating the circumstances of the loss, destruction defacement or damage
18(2) where the electoral officer or any other officer is satisfied as to the circumstances of loss, destruction, defacement or damage of the voters card, he or she shall issue to the voter a replacement permanent voters card.
Not less than 90 days before polling day means more than 90 days before polling day. There are so many situations that qualify one to require a new voters’ card which amongst others is the attainment of the age of majority, 18 years and also when ones voters card is lost, destroyed, damaged or defaced. Voters card should be applied for and collected by an individual faced by any of the above challenges. The voters’ card should not be given only when it is the time for an election. That is the reason for the crowd in INEC offices during election period trying to apply for the voters’ card. If only people should apply and get this card once they are supposed to apply for it, you will find out that when the time for election draws near, the INEC office will not be busy.
Applying for voters’ card only when the voting time is close is the reason why a lot of people are disenfranchised. Because INEC staff have not always been able to capture everybody before the deadline for such exercise. Not less than 20 million Nigerians who were willing to register could not register inconsequence of the registration deadline by INEC. So the question is WHAT DO INEC OFFICIALS DO AFTER ELECTION PERIOD? They should be made to use the time to register people who apply for the voters card so that during the time for it use, they will have less work to do.
Section 22 of the Act states:
Any person who
(a) Is in unlawful possession of any voters card whether issued in the name of any voter or not, or
(b) Sells or attempt to sell or offers to sell any voters card whether issued in the name of any voter or not, or
(c) Buys or offers to buy any voters card whether on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not more than N500, 000 or imprisonment not more than two years or both
The punishment contemplated by the said section over such offence is too meagre to dissuade people from committing the offence. Electoral offences should be in capital terms to dissuade would be offenders from embarking on electoral offences if we are to get it right. And also Section 73(3) also gives meagre punishment to a presiding officer who intentionally announces or signs any election result in violation of sub section 2 of the same Section.
Section 73(3) reads:
A presiding officer who intentionally announces or signs any electoral result in violation of subsection (2) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of N10, 000, 000 or imprisonment for a term of at least one year or both.
Almost all the punishment sections of the Act propound meagre punishment for the offence. Those Sections should be amended
Section 75 of the Electoral Act states:
Any political Association that complies with the provision of the Constitution and this Act for the purpose of registration shall be registered as a political party.
The interpretation Section of the Act has not interpreted which constitution it is referring and thereby leaving it to chance for Nigerians to fill in the gap. Section 75 of the Electoral Act should be amended for the purpose of knowing which constitution the Act is contemplating. The interpretative Section of the Electoral Act has interpreted just few words leaving the rest of it to chance.
Same in Section 85 (a) which states:
Any political party that holds or possess any fund outside Nigeria in contravention of Section 225 (3) (a) of the Constitution commits an offence and shall on conviction forfeits the fund or assets purchased with such funds to the Commission and in addition may be liable to find of at least N5, 000, 000.
The Act has left Nigerians in limbo as to which of the constitution is the Act contemplating
Section 84(8) of the Act states:
A political party that adopts a system of indirect primaries for the choice of its candidates shall clearly outline in its constitution and rule the procedure for the democratic election of delegates to vote at the convention, congress or meeting.
Delegates or indirect primary election should be abolished in our laws. The Electoral Act needs an urgent amendment to delete this section from it. The delegates themselves are chosen through a rigging system of the highest bidder. In a political party after the delegates are chosen, the candidates who bribes the delegates with the highest amount is the one they will vote for, such voting is normally and always not based on competence, capacity and integrity of the candidate. A better candidate who has no money to commit the offence of offering bribe to delegates or who refuses to bribe delegates will not be chosen by the delegates and so at the general election, the electorate are left with no option than whoever the delegates present. It is very undemocratic. In Nigeria delegatism is a fraud and so if the foundation is fraudulent don’t expect anything good until the needed amended of the said Section. No country of the world can get it right with the type of delegates election practice in Nigeria.
Section 101 of the Act States:
A person shall be qualified for an election under this part of this Act if he or she is educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent.
A 21st century Electoral Act of any country cannot contemplate school certificate as the least condition for eligibility to contest. Primary six certificate? Then there is no encouragement for those who aspire above that level. If I could contest for the office of a president with primary six certificate, then primary school certificate holders should be allowed to lecture in higher institution. This could be very laughable and if Nigeria could grow beyond tribal sentiment of any kind then the future of the country is at hand.
