Legal giants yesterday said the Supreme Court judgment that confirmed the election of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is unassailable.
Eminent lawyers Prof Itse Sagay, Robert Clarke, Chief Mike Ahamba, Koyinsola Ajayi, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Sylva Ogwemoh, Babatunde Fashanu and Wahab Shittu, all Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), as well as Dr Fassy Yusuf, believe the verdict cannot be faulted.
Sagay said the judgment was not surprising as petitioners did not present very strong cases to invalidate the February 25 presidential election.
He said it would be difficult for any petitioner to meet the legal requirement of producing witnesses from every polling unit where malpractice occurred to prove it in court.
“There are 176,974 polling units in Nigeria. So, if you’re complaining of widespread malpractice, how would you produce the witnesses? That was why Dakuku Peterside lost to Nyesom Wike at the Supreme Court.
“I studied that case and I concluded that until the Supreme Court amends that decision, no one can win an election petition against a governor or president based on polling unit malpractices, because you won’t be able to bring all the witnesses.
“On that ground alone, the petitioners could not establish that there was any substantial non-compliance or failure to stick to the rules,” Sagay said.
The SAN said it was “a big joke” to argue that the winner of a presidential election must score 25 per cent in Abuja as if the FCT is superior to other parts of the countries.
Sagay said there was also no guarantee that the allegation of certificate forgery could have been successfully proven at the tribunal had it come up.
“It was going to be an impossible task to raise it at this late stage. Maybe they would have stood a chance if they had presented it at the tribunal. But how can forge something you already have?
“The university admitted that the President attended the school and graduated, so what is he forging?
“If you look at the whole case, it was an impossible thing to prove.
“So, we as Nigerians must learn to accept election results and not prolong our agonies by trying to fight against very clear victory that the INEC has determined,” the eminent lawyer said.
Clarke, who spoke on Channels TV, said it was mission impossible for Atiku and Obi.
He said,
“The facts are very clear. There is a limitation of time in a pre-election matter. They had the opportunity, but they never brought it (new evidence) them.”
Clarke added,
“The Supreme Court has never upturned or set aside any election result in Nigeria. Why should they when INEC says: ‘We have done our job and these are the results. If you are not happy, come and challenge us and bring your result.’
“We have to make sure that INEC is not be given that advantage of presenting documents and the courts have no alternative than to accept them as correct.”
Clarke advocated a review of the 1999 Constitution to change the political landscape.
“We need to look at the 1999 constitution and the law that says for you to contest election, you must belong to a political party.
“The problem is in the system that allows you and I to manipulate it. Most of what is happening is manipulation.
“So what I am saying is that the laws that we operate is the problem we have. If we don’t sit down and change the laws, things cannot improve. We need to change the constitution,” he said.
Ajayi stressed that “the electoral laws create great hurdles to cross” for petitioners, adding that there was a “fallacy” in the argument that a candidate needed to score 25 per cent in Abuja to be declared the winner.
He also fauled the undue criticism of the Judiciary, which he said remained the last hope of all.
Adegboruwa hailed the judgment, describing it as “sound in law”.
The activist lawyer blamed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the loss of confidence in the process.
He wondered why there is no provision for sanctioning INEC for failing to keep its pre-election promise to upload election results on the iREV.
Adegboruwa, in a statement, said;
“What then is the penalty for the electoral umpire that failed Nigerians upon its voluntary undertaking?”
The lawyer urged the National Assembly to amend the Electoral Act 2022 “to give us transparent elections”.
He added,
“We cannot continue in this fashion. The use of technology is to prevent manipulation of election results.
“I urge INEC to help Nigeria by keeping to its guidelines and public statements and undertakings.”
Ogwemoh believes the apex court’s decision on the 25 per cent is sound.
He said,
“It is a very correct and sound decision. There is no way you can isolate Abuja and say you must win there to be elected as president.
“For instance, if somebody wins 30 states, even 31, 32, 33, are you going to stop him from becoming President because he didn’t win Abuja?
“That is not the intention of the provision. I have always maintained that position. So, it is a very sound judgment.”
On the certificate issue, Ogwemoh said;
“Once you are out of time, you are out of time. These are criminal issues and you can’t ask the Supreme Court to start determining criminal allegation in election matters. It will be difficult.”
Fashanu said the so-called strong points in the appeals by Atiku and Obi were dead on arrival.
“The iRev matter had been decided in favour of INEC in the Osun State case of Governor Adeleke, and the courts were not likely to depart from it so soon.
“The petitioners needed to prove that Tinubu did not win a majority of lawful votes or that his election was substantially tainted by electoral malpractices as would affect the election result substantially.
“But they did not call enough of their polling agents to prove the allegations in the areas claimed to be affected.”
Fashanu said placing Abuja above other states would have amounted to turning justice on its head.
To him, Atiku’s Supreme Court mission was “a waste of time, energy and money”.
“In the first place, this was not part of the grounds properly presented before the election petitions court.
“Even if the Supreme Court wanted to bring it in, it had no jurisdiction to do so (no legal power in common man’s parlance).
“Even if the evidence could be admitted, it was not shown that it could not have been made available at the lower court with reasonable diligence.
“This is because the issue about the president’s faulty Chicago University records has been in the public space since 1999 when he ran for Governor of Lagos State.
“A diligent litigant would’ve started a pre-election procedure to disqualify him and applied to the US court even before the presidential election was held or at least, during the trial of the election petition at the Court of Appeal,” Fashanu said.
Shittu said like Pontius Pilate, President Tinubu has been washed clean of all allegations.
“Issues of FCT, alleged forgery, electronic transmission, fresh evidence and majority of lawful votes were resolved in favour of Mr President.
“This is not only a victory for the President but a triumph of constitutionalism, democracy and the rule of law including the sanctity of the electoral process,” the law teacher said.
Yusuf believes the verdict is “sound and unassailable”, adding that litigants will now know how and when to bring issues before the tribunals and the appellate court.
“I believe that we legal practitioners have a lot to learn from the two judgments of the Supreme Court in respect of Atiku’s and Obi’s appeal,” he added.
