The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Card reader not a substitute for manual voting, says Supreme Court

    Card reader not a substitute for manual voting, says Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has resolved the controversy over card reader and its status in electoral jurisprudence. It has held that the machine has not effectively replaced manual accreditation of registered voters in an election.

    It also said the card reader’s report alone was insufficient to prove allegations of over voting and non-compliance.

    The court is of the view that for a petitioner to prove electoral irregularities or non-compliance with the Electoral Act, he must call at least a witness from every polling unit affected, who must tender election results from the polling unit and be cross-examined.

    The court gave this explanation while making public its reasons for upholding the election of Dave Umahi as governor of Abia State in its earlier January 27, judgment. It gave its reasons on February 5 in the appeal marked: SC/1004/2015 brought against Umahi by Labour Party’s Edward Okereke.

    Okereke had, in his petition at the election tribunal, alleged non-compliance and over-voting. The tribunal and the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove his case –  a decision the Supreme Court upheld on January 27.

    Justice Nweze said the apex court chose to uphold the lower court’s decision because Okereke failed woefully to prove his case. He noted that the appellant failed to tender, along with card reader reports, voters’ register.

    He said Okereke failed to call witnesses from each of the voting points affected, but merely dumped result sheets from the polling units on the trial tribunal without calling the makers of such documents as witnesses.

    Justice Centus Nweze, who read the lead judgment, explained that since the National Assembly has not deleted the provision of Section 49 of the Electoral Act (2010), which allows manual accreditation, it would be wrong for any petitioner to seek to rely solely on the report of the card reader (which is intended as a supplementary measure to the already provided means of accreditation) to prove over-voting.

    “Even with the introduction of the said device, that is the card reader machine, the National Assembly, in its wisdom, did not deem it necessary to bowdlerise the said analogue procedure in Section 49 of the Electoral Act so that the card reader procedure would be the sole determinant of a valid accreditation process. It stands to reason that the card reader was meant to supplement voters’ register and was never designed or intended to supplant, displace or supersede it.

    “Put differently, what the lower court was saying, in effect, was that the petitioner failed to prove his allegations of non-compliance because he did not tender the voters’ register, statement of results in the appropriate forms, which would  show the number of registered accredited voters and the number of actual voters; and he did not relate each of the documents (he tendered) to the specific areas of his case in respect of which the documents were tendered, and show that the figures representing the over-voting , if removed, would result in his victory,” Justice Nweze said.

    Justice Nweze’s position in the Okereke case was earlier taken by the court in its January 8, 2016 judgment in the appeal marked: SC/907/2015: Shinkafi and another vs Yari and others (over the Zamfara governorship dispute).

    Justice John Okoro, who gave the lead judgment in the case, noted that the grouse of the appellants was mainly that there was over-voting and that because of that there was substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

    “To prove over-voting, the law is trite that the petitioner must tender the voters’ register. The court must also see the statement of result in the appropriate forms which would show the number of registered accredited voters and number of actual voters, and  must also relate each of the documents to the specific area of the case in respect of which documents were tendered,”  he said, adding that an appellant must also show that figures, representing over-voting, if removed, would result in victory for the petitioner.

    “There is no doubt that a petitioner is entitled to contend that an election or return in an election be invalidated by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

    “For a petitioner to succeed on this ground, he has to prove (a): that the corrupt or non-compliance took place: (b): that the corrupt practice or non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election.

    “There is need for a petitioner, who alleges over-voting to lead concrete evidence to show that there was indeed over-voting and that it inured to the winner of the contest.

    “Without doubt, over-voting in an election can be in favour of either the appellant, the respondent or other contestants, who participated and lost out at the election, but are not parties to the petition.

    “Therefore, the onus is on the petitioner to show that the over-voting was in favour of the respondent and that it was as a result of the over-voting that the 1st respondent won the election. This is why the law requires the petitioner to lead evidence right from the polling unit in order to show that the alleged over-voting was solely to the advantage of the respondent,” Justice Okoro said.

    Although many petitioners have complained abourt the inadequacy of time, lawyers have however agreed with the apex court’s position on the requirements of proof, but disagreed on the time limitation for the determination of election petitions.

    Joseph Nwobike (SAN) blamed the appellants for their failure to make strong cases before the court. Sebastine Hon (SAN) suggested a relaxation of the time limit for the determination of election petitions.

    Nwobike was of the view that the Supreme Court’s decisions so far amounted to an endorsement of INEC’s improvement in the conduct of election. He said the apex court deserved commendation.

    “To my mind, INEC did  a wonderful job in 2015. I say so because apart from being a voter myself, I participated in a number of election petitions, both those involving the National Assembly and governorship elections. So, I can say with all sense of responsibility that INEC did a wonderful job.

    “It is some of the tribunals and some of the panels of the Court of Appeal that were trying to confuse issues. But what the Suprme Court did was to validate what INEC did, in most cases, and to encourage INEC to continue to do a better job.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, the card reader is not part of our electoral system as set out in the provisions of the Electoral Act. Card reader accreditation regime was introduced as an addendum. And the Supreme Court stated that point very clearly – to the effect that the none-use of the card reader cannot be used to support an allegation of the none-compliance with the Electoral Act.

    “The non-use of the card reader cannot, in any way, be a basis for an election to be nullified.  So, I think what the Supreme Court did is fantastic and we must continue to pray for them and to bless them so that they will continue to render good judgments in Nigeria,” Nwobike said.

    He disagreed with those who think the 180-day provision limits the opportunity for petitioners to prove his case. He argued that a serious petitioner should always maximize the time allocated to him.

    “The primary responsibility of proving allegation of commission of crime is that of the person who alleges. So, if you are a petitioner and the ground of your petition is that there were malpractices at the polling stations or voting points, it is your responsibility to prove. How you go about it is not the business of any person.

    “The time limit is sufficient. There is no time constraint at all. I was involved in it. In fact, some tribunals sat from 9am to 9pm, with only an hour break. So to suggest there was insufficient time is to beg the question,” Nwobike said..

    On his part, Hon argued that decisions reached by court of law are based on many factors, which include the quantum of proof (which is the most decisive of all the factors), the position of the law, and the idiosyncrasies of the Justices.

    “My experience shows that there could be public outcry against certain decisions, but when it comes to tendering of evidence and proving and disproving of facts, it is a different ball game. For instance, the court has held several times that, for you to prove electoral malpractices, you must  call witnesses from each of the polling units affected, either voters or people, who witnessed what you are complaining about.

    “What we have seen are instances where a petitioner calls just one witness to prove irregularities in several local governments or polling units. Clearly, that was insufficient.

    “In spite of public outcry, the Justices cannot use their private knowledge of certain facts to reach decisions. Connected to that is that precedents have been laid down. They have to follow these precedents, except they are formally invited to overrule themselves. In none of these cases have the Supreme Court been invited to overrule its previous positions on those issues.

    “Looking at the issue from the surface, one may query why it appears the Supreme Court is giving a stamp of authority to what INEC did. But you should know that what happens on the field is different from what happen in the courtroom.

    “Sometime, you could field your star witness and when he gets to the witness box, he messes you up.  He messes up the entire case. But, the man on the street, who did not know what happened within the courtroom, thinks that these things actually happened, why is this particular decision being reached this way?

    “So, that is the best explanation I can give. I do not think the Supreme Court has decidedly resolved to toe a particular line by refusing to remove a sitting governor, or so. I believe that when a strong case is made, the court will decide otherwise,” Hon said.

    On the argument that there is little a petitioner could do within the few days allocated to him within the 180 days the tribunal has to determine a petition, Hon argued for the need to review this provision to allow parties sufficient time to present cases.

  • Governorship Disputes: Questions over Supreme Court verdicts

    Governorship Disputes: Questions over Supreme Court verdicts

    At the  last count, the Supreme Court had handed out verdicts  in respect of 12 governorship election appeals, holding only in favour of the incumbents, a development that has raised questions as to whether the seeming consistency of the apex court was a mere coincidence or the failure of the petitioners to prove their cases. Eric Ikhilae reports.

    THE Supreme Court’s resolution of electoral disputes so far, particularly in relation to governorship elections, appears to be drifting against the grain of general expectation. Many Nigerians and non-Nigerians alike   who witnessed sheer brigandage in some of the states during the last general elections, are still stunned by the apex court’s verdicts, affirming the outcome of such elections.

    In the about 11 of such cases decided so far  by the Supreme Court , a trend seems  to have emerged, tempting many to assume that the apex court has made up its mind not to void the election of a sitting governor.

    While it simply affirmed the decision of the lower court (Court of Appeal), where such court had upheld an  election, the Supreme Court has proceeded to upturn the decision of the lower court where it had voided the election of an incumbent.

    These are evident in the decisions so far rendered by the apex court  in the cases involving Abia, Akwa-Ibom, Benue, Ebonyi, Gombe, Delta, Nasarawa, Rivers, Oyo, Ogun,  Yobe and Zamfara states.

    In Abia State, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had returned the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Okezie Ikpeazu as winner of the last governor ship election in the state.

    Dissatisfied with INEC’s decision, the candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Alex Otti challenged the election outcome at the state’s governorship election petition tribunal. The tribunal upheld Ikpeazu’s election and dismissed Otti’s petition.

    Otti proceeded to the Court of Appeal, Owerri, Imo State which,on December 31 unanimously reversed the tribunal’s decision and declared the appellant  winner of the election,

    Justice Omoleye, who read the lead judgment, was of the view that the APGA candidate scored 164, 444 valid votes to defeat Ikpeazu, who scored 114, 444 votes.

    Justice Omoleye said the cancellation of the elections held in three LGAs of Obingwa, Osisioma Ngwa and Isiala Ngwa by the returning officers after the results were uploaded to INEC was wrong.

    His words:”In the Electoral Act, the Returning Officer has the right to only declare results of elections and not to cancel elections.

    “This panel discovered that the earlier results uploaded to INEC headquarters correspond with the correct valid registered voters in the three LGAs, while that awarded to the respondent shows over voting and therefore null and void.’’

    This time, Ikpeazu appealed to the Supreme Court, and in its judgment on February 3 this year, the apex court set aside the decision of the lower court and upheld INEC’s return of Ikpeazu as the duly elected governor of Abia State.

    Although the lower court provided reasons for its decision, the Supreme Court has promised to provide reasons in support of its position on February 26.

    In Akwa-Ibom, INEC declared PDP’s Udom Emmanuel  winner, a decision the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Umana Okon Umana challenged at the election tribunal, and in its judgment on Novemeber 21 last year, the tribunal voided election in 18 of the state’s 31 Locla Government Areas and ordered a re-run within 90  days.

    Emmanuel and Udom appealed the decision, with the PDP candidate seeking to set aside the decision of the tribunal, while the APC candidate asked that the election be cancelled in the entire state and a re-run ordered.

    The tribunal in its judgment on December 18, 2015 dismissed Emmanuel’s appeal and held in favour of the APC candidate, voiding the governorship election in the state and ordered a re-run within 90 days.

    Emmanuel however carried the day on February 3 this year when the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the lower court. Justice Centus Nweze, who read the lead judgment in the unanimous decision of a seven-man bench led by the Chief Justice of Nigerian (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, held that the Court of Appeal misdirected itself in voiding the whole election.

    The court has also reserved its reasons till February 15.

    In the case of Benue State, the candidate of the APC, Samuel Ortom was returned as winner by INEC. PDP’s Terhemen Tarzoor challenged the election at the tribunal, but had his petition dismissed for lacking in merit.

    He had earlier lost at the Court of Appeal on the ground that he could not prove that Ortom was not a valid candidate for the election. He had claimed that the APC’s candidate did not emerge from a valid party’s primary as required under the Electoral Act.

    In its judgment on January 15 this year, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision to the effect that Tarzoor’s appeal was without merit on the ground that he lacked the necessary locus standi to query the nomination and sponsorship APC candidate while he was not a member of that party.

    In Ebonyi, Labour Party’s candidate, Edward Nkwegu challenged the return of PDP’s Dave Umahi as the winner of the governorship election. The tribunal, in its judgment in October last year, in Abakaliki (the state capital) dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked merit on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the improprieties alleged.

    At the Court of Appeal, Enugu, the decision of the tribunal was upheld, forcing Nkwegu to appeal to the Supreme Court. And in its judgment in January, the apex court upheld the decision of the tribunal and lower court on the ground that the appellant failed to prove its case.

    Specifically, the apex court, in this case, put to rest the confusion over the position of card reader in the electoral jurisprudence of the country. Justice Nweze, who read the lead judgment, held that since the National Assembly has not deleted the provision of Section 49 of the Electoral Act (2010), allowing manual accreditation, it would be wrong for any petitioner to seek to rely solely on the report of the card reader (which is intended as a supplementary measure to the already provided means of accreditation) to prove allegation of over-voting.

    “Even with the introduction of the said device, that is, the card reader machine, the National Assembly, in its wisdom, did not deem it necessary to bowdlerise the said analogue procedure in Section 49 of the Electoral Act so that the card reader procedure would be the sole determinant of a valid accreditation process. It stands to reason that the card reader was meant to supplement voters’ register and was never designed or intended to supplant, displace or supersede it.

    “Put differently, what the lower court was saying in effect, was that the petitioner failed to prove his allegations of non-compliance because he did not tender the voters’ register, statement of results in the appropriate forms, which would show the number of registered accredited voters and the number of actual voters; and he did not relate each of the documents (he tendered) to the specific areas of his case in respect of which the documents were tendered, and show that the figures representing the over-voting , if removed, would result in his victory,” Nweze said.

    In Delta State, Labour Party’s Great Ogboru and APC’s O’tega Emerhor went before the election tribunal to challenge INEC’s declaration of PDP’s IfeanyiOkowa as winner of the election. They both lost at the tribunal, forcing them to appeal before the Court of Appeal, which also held against them.

    On February 2, the Supreme Court also dismissed the separate appeals filed by Ogboru and Emerhor against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The apex court, in a unanimous decision, held that both appeal lacked merit. Justice Musa Mohammed read the lead judgment. The court has reserved its reasons till February 15.

    APC’s InuwaYahaya had approached the election tribunal in Gombe State challenging the election of PDP’s Ibrahim Dankwambo as the state governor. The tribunal threw out the petition and upheld the election.

    Dissatisfied, Yahaya went to the Court of Appeal, Yola, which affirmed the decision of the tribunal, forcing him to appeal to the Supreme Court. But in its judgment earlier this year, the apex court also affirmed the election of Dankwambo, holding that the appellants, among others, failed to prove its case.

    Former Information Minister and candidate of APGA, LabaranMaku challenged the election of Umaru Tanko Al-Makura as governor of Nasarawa State at the election tribunal. He alleged among others, non-compliance and over-voting.

    In its judgment, the Justice Halima Shammaki-led tribunal, held that the petitioner could not prove his allegations of electoral malpractices beyond reasonable doubt.

    Justice Shammaki added, “The petitioner failed to provide credible evidence where he alleged that the election was marred with violence in some places, unlawful declaration of votes, inflation of figures, mutilation and over voting.

    “That the petitioner could not prove beyond reasonable doubt where he alleged that card readers were not used in some polling units, he also failed to sort out ballot papers tendered before the tribunal. It was not the business of the tribunal to sort them out for the petitioner”.

    “Based on that, I therefore strikeout the petition filed by Labaran Maku of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) against Umaru Al-Makura of All Progressives Congress (APC)”, Justice Shammaki said.

    Maku appealed to the Court of Appeal, Makurdi, which upheld the decision of the tribunal. On January 21, the Supreme Court dismissed Maku’s appeal, upheld the lower court’s decision and also affirmed Al-Makura’s election.

    In Rivers, APC’s Dakuku Peterside challenged the return of PDP’s NyesomWike as winner at the tribunal. The Suleiman Ambrosa-led tribunal sat in Abuja and upheld Peterside’s petition; nullified Wike’s election and ordered a re-run in 90 days. The Court of Appeal, in Abuja affirmed the tribunal’s decision.

    In its unanimous judgment of January 27, a seven-man bench of the Supreme Court, led by the CJN, set aside the concurrent decisions of the tribunal and lower court, and upheld Wike’s return. Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun read the lead judgment. The court has promised to make available reasons for its decision on February 12.

    Shortly after the last election in Ogun State, PDP’s candidate, Adegboyega Isiaka challenged the election of APC’s Ibikunle Amosun at the tribunal. He lost and headed for the Court of Appeal in Ibadan, Oyo State. The lower court dismissed the appeal for his inability to substantiate his allegation of irregularities and non-compliance.

    On February 2, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision and reserved its reasons till February 15.

    In Oyo, APC’s Abiola Ajimobi was declared winner of the election, a result Accord Party’s Rashidi Ladoja challenged at the tribunal. He lost and appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan, Oyo State. The lower court in its judgment on December 17 last year, upheld the decision of the tribunal delivered on November 27, 2015 on the ground that the appellant failed to prove its case.

    The Supreme Court  again, in a judgment on February 2, upheld the lower court’s decision and affirmed the election of Ajmobi. Its reasons are yet to be made public.

    INEC declared APC’s Ibrahim Geidam winner of the governorship election in Yobe State, a decision PDP’s AdamuWaziri challenged at the tribunal. A three-man tribunal led by Justice Mojisola Dada dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner was unable to prove its allegation of malpractices. The Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal’s decision, same way the  Supreme Court did on February 3, with a promise to provide reasons at a later date.

    In Zamfara, candidates of the PDP and APGA, Mamuda Aliyu Shinkafi and Abdullahi Shinkafi challenged the victory of APC’s Abdulazeez Yari at the tribunal. They had alleged substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act and over-voting. They lost up to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed their appeals for lack of proof.

    On January 8 this year, the Supreme Court acted in like manner, holding that the appellants’ appeals lacked merit for their inability to lead sufficient evidence to prove their allegation.

    Justice John Okoro, who read the lead judgment in the appeal by PDP and its candidate, noted that since the grouse of the appellants was that there was over-voting and that, because of that, there was substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act, they ought to have tendered voters’ register to prove their allegations.

    Okoro said the appellant must also relate each of the documents to the specific area of the case in respect of which documents were tendered.

    He added that the appellant ought to have shown that figures, representing over-voting, if removed, would result in victory for the petitioner.

    “To prove over-voting, the law is trite that the petitioner must tender the voters’ register.

    “The court must also see the statement of result in the appropriate forms which would show the number of registered accredited voters and number of actual voters,” the court said.

    “From the finding above, I agree with the court below that the appellants failed woefully to prove over-voting in accordance with the principles laid down by law.

    “There is need for a petitioner who alleges over-voting to lead concrete evidence to show that there was indeed over-voting and that it benefitted the winner of the contest.

    “Without doubt, over-voting in an election can be in favour of the appellant, the respondent or other contestants who participated and lost at the election but are not parties to the petition.

    “Therefore, the onus is on the petitioner to show that the over-voting was in favour of the respondent and that it was as a result of the over-voting that Yari won the election,” he said.

    “In this case, the appellants alleged that there was over-voting by 86,045 votes.

    “Assuming that the appellants were able to prove over-voting by that figure, a reduction of that number from the score of the first respondent (Yari) put at 716,964 votes will not make any difference,” Justice Okoro said.

    He was also of the view that, for a petitioner to succeed on the ground of corruption, he must prove that corrupt practices or non-compliance actually took place. He added such petitioner must also prove that the alleged infraction substantially affected the result of the election.

    The seeming consistency in the decision of the apex court on the cases so far decided has attracted divergent views, with some arguing that it appears the Supreme Court has made up its mind not to sack any governor this time around. And that it has elected not to rock the boat, but to retain the status quo in many instances.

    There are those who also argue that the seeming consistency in the apex court’s decision was an endorsement of the improvement in the conduct of elections by INEC, which informed why petitioners appear to now find it difficult to prove allegations of malpractices and non-compliance.

    However, critics are of the view that while the Supreme Court’s reason are being awaited, it is obvious that the seeming “endorsement” role being performed by the apex court this season, betrays a failure on the part of the legal practitioners, who have failed to make sufficient cases for their clients.

    There is also the argument it seems that lawyers and the petitioners were at sea as to the actual position of the law in relation to card reader and its role in proving over voting and non-compliance. This was the case up until the January 8 when the Supreme Court made a definite pronouncement on the issue in the appeal marked: SC/907/2015 between Shinkafi and another vs Yari and others, a position Justice Nweze further elaborated on,  on February 5, in the appeal marked: SC/1004/2016 between Edward OkorekevsUmahi and others.

    Observers have also queried the position of the Supreme Court that proof of electoral  irregularities requires that a petitioner must call at least a witness in every voting point/polling unit in a local government or state to prove such allegation  in the state or local government.

    They claim  that this position is skewed to the detriment of the petitioner who can hardly do anything meaningful within the 180 days required under the extant Electoral Act, for the election tribunal to hear and determine election an petition.

    They want a review of this provision if the essence of electoral disputation is to cure perceived injustice and purify the nation’s electoral process.

    Lawyers, including Joseph Nwobike (SAN), Sebastine Hon (SAN), Dr.Abdullahi Ahmadu and Ibrahim Zikirullahi of the group, Transition Monitoring Group (TMG) have equally disagreed on what informed the consistency in the pattern of judgments by the Supreme Court.

    While Nwobike blamed the appellants for their failure to make strong cases before the court, Hon suggested a relaxation of the time limit for the determination of election petitions. Ahmadu said the court should be guided by societal interest and should not be swayed strictly by the dictate of the law. Zikirullahi said the position of the apex court so far was an endorsement of electoral  impunity and fraud.

    Hon argued that decisions reached by court of law are based on many factors such as the quantum of proof (which is the most decisive of all the factors), the position of the law, and the idiosyncrasies of the Justices.

    “My experience shows that there could public outcry against certain decisions, but when it comes to tendering of evidence and proving and disproving of facts, it is a different ball game. For instance, the court has held several times that, for you to prove electoral malpractices, you must  call witnesses from each of the polling units affected, either voters or people, who witnessed what you are complaining about.

    “What we have seen are instances where a petitioner calls just one witness to prove irregularities in several local governments or polling units. Clearly, that was insufficient.

    “In spite of public outcry, the Justices cannot use their private knowledge of certain facts to reach decisions. Connected to that is that precedents have been laid down. They have to follow these precedents, except they are formally invited to overrule themselves. In none of these cases have the Supreme Court invited to overrule its previous positions on those issues.

    “Looking at the issue from the surface, one may query why it appears the Supreme Court is giving a stamp of authority to what INEC did. But you should know that what happens on the field is different from what happens in the courtroom.

    “Sometimes, you could field your star witness and when he gets to the witness box, he messes you up.  He messes up the entire case. But, the man on this street, who did not know what happened within the courtroom, thinks that this things actually happened, why is this particular decision being reached this way?

    “So, that is the best explanation I can give. I do not think the Supreme Court has decidedly resolved to toe a particular line by refusing to remove a sitting governor, or so. I believe that when a strong case is made, the court will decide otherwise,” Hon said

    On the argument that there is little a petitioner could do within the few days allocated to him within the 180 days the tribunal has to determine a petition, Hon argued for the need to review this provision to allow parties sufficient time to present their cases.

    “As it is now, the petitioner is kept at a very disadvantaged position. How can you call witnesses from all polling units, where there are over 2000 polling units, and the tribunal has only just 180 days? It is practically impossible to call over 2000 witnesses within the time allocated to you.”

    On his part, Nwobike was of the view that the Supreme Court’s decisions so far, amounted to an endorsement of INEC’s improvement in the conduct of election. He said the apex court deserves commendation.

    “To my mind, INEC did  a wonderful job in 2015. I say so, because apart from being a voter myself, I participated in a number of election petitions, both those involving the National Assembly and governorship elections. So, I can say with all sense of responsibility, that INEC did a wonderful job.

    “It is some of the tribunals and some of the panels of the Court of Appeal that were trying to confuse issues. But what the Suprme Court did was to validate what INEC did, in most cases, and to encourage INEC to continue to do a better job.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, the card reader is not part of our electoral system as set out in the provisions of the Electoral Act. Card reader accreditation regime was introduced as an addendum. And the Supreme Court stated that point very clearly, to the effect that the non-use of the card reader cannot be used to support an allegation of the none-compliance with the Electoral Act.

    “The non-use of the card reader cannot, in any way, be a basis for an election to be nullified.  So, I think what the Supreme Court did is fantastic and we must continue to pray for them and to bless them so that they will continue to render good judgments in Nigeria,” Nwobike said.

    He disagreed with those who think the 180-day provision limits the opportunity for petitioners to prove his case. He argued that a serious petitioner should always maximize the time allocated to him.

    “The primary responsibility of proving allegation of commission of crime is that of the person who alleges. So, if you are a petitioner and the ground of your petition is that there were malpractices at the polling stations or voting points, it is your responsibility to prove. How you go about it is not the business of any person.

    “The time limit is sufficient. There is no time constraint at all. I was involved in it. In fact some tribunal sat from 9am to 9pm, with only an hour break. So to suggest there was insufficient time is to beg the question.

    Ahmadu argued that law and courts do not exist for themselves, but to moderate societal contradictions by acting as arbiter in disputes between institutions and individuals in a given state.

    “In all honesty, I do not think the court should close its eyes to electoral impunity or encourage same on the pretext of apply the law. The law does not exist at the detriment of truth and justice. The law should be made to serve the cause of justice and social interests.

    “We should all know, including these Justices that hide under the claim of law to visit injustice on their people, that we can only practice our trades in a peaceful society. Where a country is in turmoil, I doubt if the Justices of the Supreme Court would be able to sit and ply their trade. I just hope everyone is listening,” Ahmadu said.

    Zikirullahi, in a statement he endorsed as Chairman of TMG noted that the  judgments by the apex court,  particularly on Rivers and Akwa Ibom States, have merely given judicial imprimatur to the damaging mind set of rapacious politicians who would stop at nothing in their bid to subvert the will of the people.

    “What these judgments have effectively done is to ridicule Nigeria in the eyes of the international community, while diminishing our country’s stature in the comity of lovers of democracy around the world.

    “Painfully, the biggest losers are the ordinary people in the states who have been denied their democratic choices on account of the violence and impunity that characterized the polls in those states.

    “In the end, what the Supreme Court has succeeded in doing is to spit on the graves of all those innocent Nigerians who lost their lives as a result of the activities of those hell bent on subverting the will of the people.

    “On behalf of the scores of Nigerians, whose lives were cut shut by the activities of election riggers, we take solace in the fact that even beyond the justice of the Supreme Court there is the justice of the Almighty. And in due course, those who wilfully killed and maimed in the desperate bid to capture power, would be held to account on state governorship elections recently handed down by the Supreme Court.

    “The disturbing trend in these judicial pronouncements is in the fact that the apex court has elected to give judgments, and not justice.In the face of unrepentant attempts to subvert the will of the people in a good number of the cases, the court has curiously turned a blind eye”, Zikirullahi said

     

  • Oyegun, Rivers poll and Supreme Court

    Oyegun, Rivers poll and Supreme Court

    Following hard on the heels of President Muhammadu Buhari’s complaint in Ethiopia about the headache he was having in aligning the judiciary with his anti-corruption war, the All Progressives Congress (APC) chairman, Odigie Oyegun, has given the Supreme Court his own spectacular broadside. The ruling party does not seem to mind that it’s rather trenchant views are beginning to look like a coordinated campaign against the judiciary. Speaking at a town hall meeting with Nigerians in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, last Sunday, President Buhari noted the stultifying effect the judiciary was having on his anti-graft war. “On the fight against corruption vis-à-vis the judiciary, Nigerians will be right to say that is my main headache for now”, the president was quoted as saying.

    He is not the only one to yield to exasperation and irritation over what they describe as deliberate imposition of judicial bottlenecks. Party chairman, Mr. Oyegun, was even more direct and unambiguous. Addressing party leaders from Rivers State who visited him in Abuja to complain of political and judicial developments in Rivers State, he had said: “The APC national leadership has not neglected party leaders and supporters in Rivers State. The state has always been in the front-burner of discussion and decision in the party. There is obviously something fundamentally wrong in Rivers State which needs to be investigated and addressed. Your visit has had a sober effect on me. This meeting will kick-start urgent actions to address what went wrong. As of today, there is an attempt being made by INEC to bar us from elections in Anambra and other states. We must address these issues. I still find the judgement on the Rivers State governorship election totally astonishing. There is something fundamentally wrong in the judiciary.”

    Not satisfied to just note what seemed to him a juridical anomaly in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Rivers State governorship election petition, Mr. Oyegun emphasised that the court judgement was astonishing. By suggesting in the same breath that the situation in Rivers State would be investigated and addressed, it was taken by some critics, especially in the PDP, that he was referring to the Supreme Court judgement. He has denied he had the apex court in mind when he talked of investigation or probe. Of course he could not have had the court in mind. For, assuming that were the case, it would not be immediately clear what unprecedented steps he and his party could take to probe the judgement. Even though his statement did not directly refer to the apex court, by suggesting that the Rivers judgement was astonishing, and that something fundamental was wrong with the judiciary, Mr Oyegun may have needlessly courted and stoked controversy. This is because in many ways, unfortunately, the APC government has appeared to orchestrate some kind of pressure on the judiciary, blaming that third arm of government for everything that is amiss with the anti-graft war. This sort of pressure has never before been applied by any elected government in the history of Nigeria, certainly not even under the worst of governments — military, conservative or progressive. Notwithstanding these facts, Mr. Oyegun has promised the Rivers State chapter of the APC that their matter — and it is not clear what matter — would be investigated and addressed.

    If anyone thought what was uppermost in the mind of the APC chairman was jurisprudential anomaly or even his commitment to his party’s ideological conviction, they were grossly mistaken. Something else bothered him; and that thing was materialism, not political or legal altruism. According to Mr. Oyegun, “We have lost very important resource-rich states to the PDP. No matter how crude oil prices have fallen, it is still the most important revenue earner for the country.” Both the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), to which the APC has eventually lost Rivers at the Supreme Court, and the ruling party, which had won the petition at the Tribunal and Appeal Court levels, do their calculations in terms of rich and poor states. Somehow, they give the impression that much more than what they could do for and with the 36 states in Nigeria, they are propelled more by something much baser, something distinctly unedifying, something quite ordinary in measure, something uninspiringly in naira and kobo.

    Given the orientation of the APC leadership in Abuja, the future of democracy and the judiciary, more than at any other time in the country’s history, will be sandwiched between the president’s headache and the party chairman’s pecuniary projections. It is a future fraught with danger for the third arm of government, a future far more dangerous than they encountered even under military rule. For the APC chairman to talk unprecedentedly of something fundamentally wrong with the judiciary, perhaps because a few judgements went in favour of the opposition, indicates very clearly that he does not fully appreciate the implication of his statement both politically and judicially. Politically, it demonstrates that the APC could be regarded as a bad loser and an increasingly hubristic and intolerant party. Judicially, it suggests the ruling party is not bothered that its attitude to the judiciary could be construed as an indirect attempt to put unhealthy and inimical pressure on the courts.

    Mr. Oyegun will be the third notable personality in the ruling party to openly speak unflatteringly of the judiciary. The unlikely first person to do so was the Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, who alluded to the need to purge the judiciary of bad eggs in order to align it with the government’s anti-graft war. He had said: “As we may be aware, this administration promised Nigerians that it will promptly address the challenges facing our nation in the three areas of corruption, economy and security. Let no one be in doubt, the legitimate expectation of Nigerians in this regard shall be met. In this regard therefore, I am reiterating that the fight against corruption shall be total and will not exclude judicial officers, who are found wanting. After all, it is beyond doubt that a corrupt judge cannot meaningfully contribute to the fight against corruption. In reality, it cannot be over-emphasised that systemic corruption and impunity are prevalent in Nigeria, and that they cut across all sectors of the society, unfortunately, including the judiciary  an institution that is universally believed to be the hope of the common man.” Mr. Malami was criticised for his harsh view of the judiciary.

    The president himself also indicated that there were “allegations of judicial corruption…dilatory tactics by lawyers sometimes with the apparent collusion of judges to stall trials indefinitely thereby denying the state and the accused persons of a judicial verdict…and negative perception arising from long delays in the trial process that have damaged the international reputation of the Nigerian judiciary, even among its international peers.” After referring to the judiciary’s pace and style as the headache he was suffering in his anti-corruption war, it is not surprising that the APC chairman felt confident to speak of something fundamentally wrong with the judiciary. Clearly, the judiciary is in trouble.

    It is curious of Mr. Oyegun and damaging to the APC’s credibility that though the Supreme Court was yet to give reasons for the judgement in the Rivers case, party leaders have come to a conclusion that astonishing or fundamentally wrong things were happening in the judiciary. A significant number of Nigerians, more out of ignorance than anything else, are also exasperated with the judiciary. They complain of curious judgements, slow delivery of justice, undue and unnecessary adjournments, etc. But neither the complainants nor the grumbling and intimidating federal government has carried out an in-depth study of why the judiciary appears unresponsive to the demands of the moment. The judiciary has suffered appalling and disgraceful declining budgetary allocations over the past five years, and it is understaffed, overworked and poorly equipped. In most of the states, there is no financial autonomy, and virtually everywhere, prosecuting agencies nurturing secretive interests bungle cases so horribly that justice could not be served. Yet, inexplicably, all the problems are heaped on judges.

    The ruling APC appears sadly bent on whipping up emotions against the judiciary. This is counterproductive and unwise. If, as Mr. Oyegun suggests, the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Rivers case and perhaps other cases are astonishing, who will make it less astonishing? Retired justices? And if hypothetically, a few things are found amiss in any of the judgements, could it be established they were procured by financial inducement, political bias or plain incompetence? And even if any of these is established, who would reverse the decisions? The APC must measure its responses before they provoke a judicial crisis. The judicial reforms they speak so fluently about, but which they have not presented any concrete plan nor voted substantial money for, should precede their lust for blood. They must not create conditions where one day mobs of dissatisfied and agitated litigants and party faithful would storm the courts, eject judges and create a judicial and even existential stalemate for Nigeria.

     

  • Saraki disappointed over Supreme Court ruling

    Saraki disappointed over Supreme Court ruling

    The President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki has expressed disappointment at the ruling by the Supreme Court dismissing his appeal against his trial by the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    A statement issued on Friday by his Media Adviser, Yusuph Olaniyonu, noted that the Senate President was alarmed that the apex court dismissed the six grounds on which he filed the appeal.

    The statement reads: “The Senate President however will like to put it on record that the facts of the substantial matter are not before the Supreme Court since the apex court was only invited to rule on some preliminary issues in the process of commencing the trial.

    “The Senate President believes he will have his day in the court to prove his innocence of the charges preferred against him during the trial proper.

    “Dr. Saraki will like to thank everyone who has expressed support for him from the beginning of the case. He assures everyone that at the end of the day truth will prevail and justice will be served.”

    [news_box style=”2″ display=”tag” link_target=”_blank” tag=”Saraki” count=”6″ show_more=”on” show_more_type=”link”]

     

  • Supreme Court judgements are celebration of impunity – TMG

    Supreme Court judgements are celebration of impunity – TMG

    The Transition Monitoring Group (TMG) has described the various Governorship elections judgement being churned out by the Supreme Court as a celebration of Impunity.

    The group in a statement issued in Abuja Friday and signed by its Chairman, Ibrahim Zikirullahi also described the various judgements as a slew of verdicts.

    He said what the supreme courts now give judgments and not justice.

    The TMG said in the face of unrepentant attempts to subvert the will of the people in a good number of the cases, the court has curiously turned a blind eye.

    TMG said, “For us, it is absolutely shocking that the Supreme Court has decided to act as if it exists in another planet.

    “TMG is perturbed by the strange legal reasoning that has informed the blank cheque that the court has given to election riggers.

    “We make bold to say that while the legal premise behind these judgments is best known to the apex court, the open reward for electoral impunity does not resonate with the Nigerian people.

    “As the foremost election observation coalition in the country, we see the Supreme Court judgments as clear cut attempts at legalising electoral robberies.

    “These judgments, particularly on Rivers and Akwa Ibom States, have merely given judicial imprimatur to the damaging mind set of rapacious politicians who would stop at nothing in their bid to subvert the will of the people.

    “What these judgments have effectively done is to ridicule Nigeria in the eyes of the international community, while diminishing our country’s stature in the comity of lovers of democracy around the world.

    “Painfully, the biggest losers are the ordinary people in the states who have been denied their democratic choices on account of the violence and impunity that characterised the polls in those states.

    ” In the end, what the Supreme Court has succeeded in doing is to spit on the graves of all those innocent Nigerians who lost their lives as a result of the activities of those hell bent on subverting the will of the people.

    “On behalf of the scores of Nigerians, whose lives were cut shut by the activities of election riggers, we take solace in the fact that even beyond the justice of the Supreme Court; there is the justice of the Almighty.

    “And in due course, those who wilfully killed and maimed in the desperate bid to capture power, would be held to account on state governorship elections recently handed down by the Supreme Court.

    “The disturbing trend in these judicial pronouncements is in the fact that the apex court has elected to give judgments, and not justice.

    “In the face of unrepentant attempts to subvert the will of the people in a good number of the cases, the court has curiously turned a blind eye,” the statement said.

  • Supreme Court okays Saraki’s trial at CCT

    Supreme Court okays Saraki’s trial at CCT

    The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by the  Senate President Bukola Saraki to stop his trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT)  for lack of merit.

    The  6-man panel of judges  led by Justice Walter ruled that the CCT was properly constituted to exercise jurisdiction over the Senate President’s trial.

  • CCT: Supreme Court decides Saraki’s fate Friday

    CCT: Supreme Court decides Saraki’s fate Friday

    Can the Chairman and a member of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) legally conduct proceedings where the Constitution says it must be constituted by two members and a Chairman?

    Was the CCT wrong to have assumed jurisdiction over the trial of Senate President, Bukola Saraki, charged with false asset declaration, without one of its members?

    These are among the issues to be decided Friday by the Supreme Court as it delivers judgment in the appeal brought before it by Saraki.

    Saraki’s appeal is against the October 30, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja which dismissed an earlier appeal by Saraki with which he challenged the jurisdiction of the CCT to try him for alleged false declaration of assets.

    Saraki was arraigned before the CCT on September 22 last year on a 13-count charge after much resistance for the Senate President, prompting the tribunal to issue a bench warrant for his arrest.

    Although he pleaded not guilty to the charge, he subsequently challenged the power of the CCT to try him he challenged the composition of the tribunal and the legality of the charge, which he said was not endorsed by the Attorney general of the Federation (AGF).

    In its judgment on October 30, a three-man panel of the appellate court, in a split decision of two-to-one held that Saraki’s appeal lacked merit.

    Justices Moore Adumein (presiding) and Mohammed Mustapha resolved the six issues raised in the appeal in favour of the respondents including the CCT, while Justice Joseph Ekanem dissented on one issue, which was whether an official of the Federal Ministry of Justice was competent to endorse a charge in the absence of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    While Justices Adumein (who read the lead judgment) and Mustapha dismissed the appeal, Justice Ekanem, in his dissenting judgment‎,‎ upheld the appeal, discharged and quashed the Senate President’s trial before the CCT.

    Justice Adumein, in the lead judgment, rejected all argument by Saraki, including his contention that the CCT, being an inferior body to the Federal High Court, ought not to have proceeded with his trial despite an order by the court.

    He held that Sarakiks complaint about not being personally served with the charge “was of no moment having appeared and taken his plea before the tribunal.”

    “On September 21, his counsel also appeared before the tribunal and made series of application without raising the issue of non-service,” Justice Adumein said.

    On whether two of the CCT three members form a quorum, Justice Adumein, though noted that  there was “lacuna”  in the laws, held that “the Interpretation Act has resolved the has becomes a helpful piece of legislation” by providing that a member of the tribunal and its Chairman could validly sit and conduct proceedings.

    Justice Adumein upheld the argument by respondents’ lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), to the effect that by the provision of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act, two members of the tribunal (including the Chairman) form quorum to validly conduct its proceedings

    He also held that by the provisions of Section 174(1) and (2) of the Constitution, where there is no substantive AGF, any law officer in the office of the AGF could validly file  charges.

    “M.S Hassan, a Deputy Director in the department of the AGF is eminently qualified to initiate criminal proceedings.

    “The Solicitor-General of the Federation, in the absence of the AGF may perform any of the duties and shall have the same powers as are imposed by law on the AGF,” the judge said.

    On the issue of the tribunal not being a court, Justice Adumein held that “there is no inherent difference between the tribunal and the court.”

    He noted that “the terminologies and phrases used in the CCT Act, such as “arraignment”, “arrest”, “taking plea”, “guilty” and “conviction” are associated with criminal proceedings.

    “The Code of Conduct Tribunal is a criminal court, albeit with limited jurisdiction,” he held.

    “Having resolved all the issues against the appellant, I hold that the appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Adumein said.

    Justice‎ Ekanem, who dissented on a single issue, held that the absence of Attorney-General of the Federation had made the charge to become defective.

    He was of the view that the failure by M. S. Hassan (who endorsed the charge) to indicate who authorized him to file the charge, in his letter to the tribunal seeking leave to file the case, rendered the charge incompetent.

    While arguing his client’s appeal before the Supreme Court on December 3, Saraki’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), who said six issues were formulate for the court’s determination, argued that the CCT was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction over his client’s trial because it was not properly constituted.

    He argued that by the provision of Paragraph 15(1) of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution, the CCT could only legally conduct its affairs where the Chairman sits with two members. He said it was only the Chairman and a member that sat in the trial of his client.

    Daudu also argued that the CCT was not a court with the capacity to exercise criminal jurisdiction.  He contended that having not been a court created under section 6 of the Constitution, it lacked the power to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of superior courts.

    He also argued that the CCT, being an inferior court with the status of mere disciplinary body for erring public officers, cannot apply the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 in its proceedings.

    He urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and grant all his prayers.

    Lawyer to the Federal Government, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the majority decision of the Court of Appeal, to the effect that Saraki’s trial before the CCT, with two judges sitting out of three, was in order.

    He argued that Paragraph 5(1) of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution only relates to the composition of CCT, but that the Constitution was silent on the number of members that constitute its quorum.

    He said where such lacuna exits, it was for the court to recourse to the Interpretation Act for help. He said under the Interpretation Act, two member of a three-man tribunal form quorum and could legitimately conduct business.

    Jacobs also argued that the CCT, being a body with limited criminal jurisdiction could apply ACJA 2015 in its proceedings. He contended that since the tribunal had applied the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) and Criminal procedure Code (CPC) for its proceedings before the introduction of the ACJA, the new law, which replaces the CPC and CPA automatically, becomes an applicable law in the proceedings before the CCT.

    As against Daudu’s argument that the enforcement of the Attorney general of the Federation (AGF) was necessary before a charge could be validly filed before the CCT, Jacobs argued that any officer in the office of the AGF could validly initiate proceedings before the CCT where there is no AGF in office.

  • Supreme Court affirms Akwa Ibom, Abia governors elections

    Supreme Court affirms Akwa Ibom, Abia governors elections

    The elections of Akwa Ibom state governor Udo Emmanuel and Dr Okezie Ikpeazu of Abia State have been affirmed by the Supreme Court sitting in Abuja.
    Details later

  • Supreme Court okays Ajimobi’s, Okowa’s elections

    Supreme Court okays Ajimobi’s, Okowa’s elections

    •Ladoja’s ‘distraction has ended’ •‘Emerhor, Ogboru should apologise to Deltans’

    The Supreme Court has upheld the elections of Governors Abiola Ajimobi (Oyo), Ifeanyi Okowa (Delta) and Ibrahim Geidam (Yobe).

    The apex court in separate decisions dismissed all the appeals challenging the elections.

    The court promised to provide reasons for its decisions on February 15.

    Justice Mary Peter-Odili, who delivered the lead judgment in Yobe’s case said: “I have reviewed the records in this appeal and the briefs filed by the parties. I find no merit in the appeal and I hereby dismiss it.

    She did not award cost but ordered the parties to bear the costs.

    Other members of the seven-man panel agreed with her lead judgment.

    Justice Clara Bata Ogunbiyi read the lead judgment in the case of Oyo.

    She said: “I have read all the processes filed in this appeal. I have also considered all the arguments by parties. I dismissed the appeal.”

    Justice Ogunbiyi also dismissed as an abuse of court process, an appeal filed by Rasheed Ladoja of the Accord Party.

    She awarded no cost, but said she will provide reasons for her decision on February 15.

    Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammed read the lead judgment in one of the appeals on Delta governorship election also dismissed the appeal

    He said: ?”I have carefully considered the records of appeal in this case. I have also considered the arguments by counsel and thier briefs, I find no merit in the appeals.

    He ordered the parties to bear thier cost and promised to give the reasons for the judgment on February 15.

    There were two appeals from Delta State. One by Great Ogboru of Labour Party. That appeal was dimissed by Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammed.

    The second appeal which was filed by the All Progressives Congress?’ candidate, Olorogun Otega Emehor was dismissed by Justice John Okoro.

    Justice Okoro said he found ?no merit in the appeal and promised to give reasons for the judgment on February 15.

    Okowa yesterday called on the All Progressive Congress (APC) candidate and his counterpart in Labour Party (LP), Olorogun O’Tega Emerhor and Chief Great Ogboru to apologise to Deltans for distracting them with legal battles they knew were not justifiable.

    Okowa spoke yesterday in Asaba at a thanksgiving service held shortly after the Supreme Court upheld his election.

    He said Emerhor and Ogboru knew they did not win in the election, yet, they went to the Elections Petition Tribunal, to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court, subjecting Deltans and lovers of the state to uncertainties.

    “It is time to forgive and move on, I also believe that my opponents should apologise to all Deltans because, they knew the people’s choice but they just wanted to go through this legal process.” He added: “I have forgiven them but I think they need to apologise to Deltans because they distracted the people.”

    In a sermon, the Chaplain, Government House Chapel, Ven. Charles Osemenam said: “We are celebrating the unity among us, we are celebrating love among Deltans, God never fails and with God, all things are possible, God is doing great things in our state.

    The Oyo State governor yesterday expressed gratitude to the people for their support during and after the 2015 election.

    In a statement by his Special Adviser on Communication and Strategy Mr Yomi Layinka, yesterday, Ajimobi said the Supreme Court judgment handed down freedom to the people of the state and paved the way for consolidation in his good works.

    “At last the Supreme Court has graciously freed the people of Oyo State from the painful distractions mounted on their path by Senator Rashidi Ladoja and his Accord Party in the past many months.

    “Three times the victory of Senator Abiola Ajimobi at the 2015 governorship election was challenged, three times he has been resoundingly declared winner. Although all men and women of  goodwill pleaded with the Ladoja camp to accept defeat and cooperate with the winner in the onerous task of rebuilding the legacies of our heroes past, they bluntly refused.

    “Although other contestants from other parties quickly conceded defeat and indeed proceeded to congratulate the winner, Senator Ladoja and his party refused to play the gallant losers, preferring instead to fight to the finish.

    “But we were never for once bothered knowing full well that the people had spoken so clearly and unmistakably on that historic April day by returning a vote of confidence in the candidate in whom they were well pleased.

    “Now that their fight is exhausted and their wind vanes broken, we hope a senator Rashidi Ladoja and his band will henceforth turn their energies to better and more productive ends in the interest of our dear state and its development.”

    “ The APC in Oyo State in a statement by its Director of Publicity and Strategy, Olawale Sadare, noted that former Governor Ladoja had thrown away the remnant of respect which he commanded as a supposed statesman by deliberately wasting the time and resources of the good people of the state when he used needless litigation to slow down the pace of governance since April 2015 when he contested and lost the election.

    “Now that the highest court in the land has ruled that Ladoja did not win any election as he was wont to make some people believe, he should be ready to move on with life and try hard to convince the world on why he must not be made today for his numerous corruption cases. Undoubtedly, Ladoja’s desperation to return power as the governor of Oyo State was informed by his plan to cover up his record as the one who inflicted the pain of financial backwardness on the Pacesetter state when, as governor between 2003-2007, he supervised the looting of the treasury.

    “Recently, it was also revealed that he (Ladoja) was involved in the Dasukigate by owning up to the collection of a whooping N100m from Chief Tony Anenih being part of the $2.1b meant for the purchase of arms by the immediate past administration of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. But for this singular act, the insurrection of the Boko Haram would not have thrived to the extent of claiming several thousands of innocent lives and properties estimated as trillions of Naira if funds meant for equipping the military and security agencies were not diverted for the benefit of few corrupt individuals within and outside the Peoples Democratic Party including a former governor of Oyo State, Senator Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja.

     

  • Ladoja congratulates Ajimobi

    Ladoja congratulates Ajimobi

    The governorship candidate of Accord in the 2015 election in Oyo State, Sen.  Rashidi Ladoja, has congratulated Governor Abiola Ajimobi on his victory at the Supreme Court.

    Ladoja had approached the apex court to upturn Ajimobi’s victory in the election after losing at the two lower tribunals. But the Supreme Court dismissed his petition Tuesday for lack of merit.

    Following his loss, Ladoja in a statement by his media aide, Lanre Latinwo Tuesday, congratulated Ajimobi on his victory and called for support for Ajimobi’s administration.

    He said the Supreme Court judgment brought the electoral process to an end.

    Ladoja, who is a former governor of the state, thanked his supporters, party faithfuls and everyone who supported him in the course of the election and judicial process.

    He stressed that this is the time to join hands with the governor to move the state forward, as the ruling of the Supreme Court puts finality to the election process.

    Ladoja said he would continue to offer himself for service of the people and improvement of the state.

    He also encouraged all the people in the state to work and pray for the governor towards the betterment of the state, adding that it’s only in a peaceful atmosphere that true development can take place.