₦airaland Forum

-“Let justice be done, though the heavens fall” (Lord Mansfield, 1705-1793).
-“Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide; in the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side” (James Russell Lowell, 1819-1891).

Until now, there was no reason to raise the question about substantial justice untainted with legal subterfuges – like the Supreme Court decision which declared a fourth place finisher in an election the winner; after awarding him more votes than INEC announced were counted. The Nigerian judiciary, since that judgment, had steadily reduced public confidence in the Third Estate of the Realm.

We are in the season again when justice would be tested to the limit. But, it is not only magistrates and “Your Lordships” who will be on trial before the entire world and posterity. Every Nigerian taking a position on this matter, in the court of public opinion is also on trial. Our ethical standards are on display as well. Each one of us is being asked to declare our position on alleged forgery and doubtful particulars – as well as omissions of relevant facts.

I am aware that: “Money makes everything legitimate, including bastards” (Jewish proverb). But, for once, for the sake of our nation, we should not allow ourselves to be swayed by money or appointments. Only by facts.

One Federal High Court Justice already ruffled feathers by pronouncing on a matter before the Court of Appeal. Was it human error or willful judicial rascality? If a genuine mistake was made, then, decency demanded that the judge should have publicly apologised. If the measure was deliberate, the obvious questions are: Was it induced? What induced it? As the late Chief MKO Abiola would say: “Nobody stands all day in the rain for nothing”. Insults have rained down on the judge ever since.

Since our return to civil rule in 1999, alleged forged certificates have been revealed in every election by contestants for various offices. And virtually all the known claims of forged or dodgy credentials have ended the same way. The candidate was dismissed by the courts – giving the impression that the Nigerian judiciary would not condone anybody benefiting from illegality. That was noble of the judges who handled those cases.

ALL CANDIDATES ARE EQUAL. ARE SOME MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS?
“Laws are like cobwebs where the small flies are caught; and the great breakthrough” – Francis Bacon( 1561-1626).

China recently jailed, for life, the founder of one of the biggest real estate businesses the world has ever known – the EVERGRANDE – on account of fraud. At the peak of its success, the company employed over 150,000 people directly or indirectly. The convict was a dollar billionaire. But, China is a nation with zero tolerance for corruption. That was how it climbed to become the second biggest economic and military power globally. The case lasted less than six months.

In Nigeria, a combination of ruling party politicians, EFCC, selfish and unpatriotic Senior Advocates of Nigeria, and, above all, dishonourable justices would have ensured that the case languished in court for years; or is inevitably concluded on terms favourable to the accused.

One Prince Ajudua is still being tried for crimes allegedly committed more than 20 years ago even as about six sitting senators have their case files gathering dust in the EFCC office right now. Obviously, Nigerians, including some of our chief law officers, regularly condone lawlessness – if those involved are friends and benefactors.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg on the streets and to steal bread” (Anatole France, 1844-1924).


Meanwhile, our judges waste no time sending poor offenders to jail for petty theft. In the time it had taken the cases against some senators to be bottled up, hundreds of thousands of poor Nigerians have been sentenced for stealing as little as a small goat.

Collectively, Nigerians have extended that ethical duplicity to politics. A member of the House of Representatives, representing a northern state, is kicked out and prosecuted for certificate forgery; and the people of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti endorse the decision.

Then a Lagos politician is accused of certificate forgery; suddenly, the same people are asking Nigerians to ignore the crime; for the judiciary to throw out the case and well-paid SANs have been lined up to ensure that their client gets away with unethical and illegal conduct. The judiciary is once again put on trial.

WILL NIGERIA AND THE JUDICIARY CONTINUE TO ENDORSE FORGERY?
“To be or not to be? That is the question.” (William Shakespeare, 1564-1616)

Nigeria is at crossroads regarding whether we want to create a nation like the Nordic nations which, though smaller in size and population as well as lacking natural resources, have far greater Gross Domestic Productivity, GDP, than us. Or the giants, China, India and Brazil, blessed with population, landmass and natural resources; which have been used to propel them to the top 20 economies; instead of remaining mired in poverty.

All the leading nations have enjoyed good leadership; defined as a combination of intelligence and integrity. Nobody can become the Prime Minister of India or President of China whose entire life history is unknown. Open any search engine and the true life history – birth, father’s and mother’s names, primary and secondary schools, university attended, work experience etc – of the German Chancellor is revealed.

Nothing is hidden. Consult the same search engine; ask for information about some leaders of Nigeria. The yawning gaps in the life history of some of the leaders of Africa’s most populated nation explain more eloquently than an entire book why Nigeria lags behind tiny Singapore in GDP as well as per capita income. The integrity gap between Nigerian leaders and those of other nations represents the missing variable.

Can anybody imagine a candidate for Mayor of New York City, NYC, leaving out of his application form the names of his primary and secondary schools; and a State High Court deciding in his favour if his candidacy is contested?

Why would someone deliberately omit information, which every other applicant for elective office has provided – for verification? Is concealment of fraud intended by the omission? Nigerian courts – State High, Federal High, Appeal Courts and the Supreme Courts of Nigeria -might soon be asked to answer that question.

DOES CHARACTER MATTER TO NIGERIANS ANYMORE?
“A Precedent Embalms a Principle”
– (Lord Stowell.(1745-1836)

Whether we like it or not, Nigeria has a truth problem confronting us in the coming 2027 elections. It might be the time we finally decide as a nation if certificate forgery is acceptable for all elections, some elections or no elections.

We are not only confronted with pre-meditated omissions of vital information; even the certificates presented are being challenged as fake. Then, there is the lingering matter of hundreds of thousands of dollars voluntarily forfeited to the US government during an alleged shady past; and, curiously, the US Federal Bureau of Investigations, FBI, has stubbornly refused to release information concerning the matter.
Silence sometimes tells a lot more than intended.

When a globally respected crime fighting organization refuses to disclose information about an alleged crime, it only deepens suspicion. Nobody can make me give up one dollar; because it would have been earned legitimately; throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars should be out of the question – for a man whose hands are clean.

Obviously, we are not only being asked to forgive a suspicious omission of facts. We are also being requested to overlook the possibility of certificate forgery. Worst of all, we are collectively supposed to endorse the likelihood of illicit drug dealership – despite its documented destructive impacts on nations; including Nigeria.

In that case, why not start by scrapping the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, NDLEA? When a clown becomes king or queen, the palace becomes a circus. What happens when a suspected drug Lord ascends the throne? We are being asked to determine whether to continue to condone alleged questionable deeds.

Nigerians, in general, and the judiciary in particular, will have a choice before or in 2027. Everyone of us must bear in mind, as we cast our votes, that we will be affirming one principle or another.

We could continue to promote corruption – in all its ramifications; or, we could decide, at last, to emulate those nations which have adopted zero tolerance as state policy.

“Wisdom in people consists of the anticipation of consequences” – Norman Cousins(1915-1990).

Africans are the slowest learners on Earth. It is not an accident that our continent is also the most backward. Corruption is believed to be more widely accepted here than anywhere else; even in the judiciary. We have experienced the consequences of having dubious leaders. Can we stop? That is the question.

I put everything aside to watch the ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, from start to finish, on September 6! With rapt attention, I absorbed the minutiae of the very detailed verdict. But after the 13-hour-long ruling, I was utterly despondent. For, instead of safeguarding Nigeria’s democracy, protecting the integrity of future presidential elections and establishing boundaries for integrity politics in Nigeria, the court did the contrary!

Let me start with two general observations. First, the judges worked to a predetermined answer. Because they couldn’t bring themselves to annul the election of a sitting president, unprecedented in Nigeria, they found every reason to affirm Bola tinubu’s election. Courts of first instance are fact-finding courts that seek to get to the bottom of a matter to do justice. But the PEPC used every conceivable procedural technicality to reject virtually all the facts and witnesses presented by Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar.

At one point, a cynical thought ran through my mind: Did INEC’s and tinubu’s lawyers write the verdict for the judges? I quickly dismissed the thought but was struck by how the judges treated Obi’s and Atiku’s lawyers, most of them Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, like morons, who were utterly incompetent and ignorant of the law, but treated INEC’s and tinubu’s lawyers with total deference, regurgitating their arguments.

The second observation is that the judges’ interventions and tone betrayed their biases. For instance, one judge read out the results of the presidential election in the five South-East states and said that “INEC must be an abysmally poor manipulator, if not even an imbecilic one”, to have allowed Obi, instead of tinubu, to win massively in those states. In other words, if INEC really manipulated the election, tinubu should have won in the South-East.

Really? The learned judge failed to realise that it’s almost impossible to rig an election where one party is extremely strong, and another is extremely weak; that elections are usually rigged where two parties are fairly equally strong such that it’s easier to manipulate votes and tip the balance in favour of one and against the other. Yet, the erudite judge made hay of the argument that Obi won massively in the South-East, his core base, to “prove” that the presidential election was free and fair, making INEC’s and tinubu’s case for them!

Leaving aside those general observations, what about the substantive issues? These were FCT’s status; tinubu’s drug-related forfeiture; pleadings and evidence; and the role of INEC. In my view, the PEPC’s decisions were skewed in favour of tinubu and INEC. There were perfectly legitimate and reasonable positions the court could have taken, if so inclined.

Let’s start with the FCT issue. The PEPC rejected a literal interpretation of section 134(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution on whether a winning candidate must score at least one-quarter of the votes cast in Abuja. It said that only a broader interpretation would align with the intention of the framers of the Constitution regarding “equality of citizens” and “equality of rights”, set out in the Preamble. Thus, the court said FCT’s votes couldn’t be decisive, stating: “Equality of rights in every citizen cannot exclude equality of the weight and value of their votes. No, it includes it.”

But if the principle of “equality of the weight and value of votes” is constitutional and sacrosanct, why did the votes of 8.8million (37 percent) who voted for tinubu carry more weight and value than those of 15.2million (63 percent) who rejected him? Why should 37 percent of voters have a veto over 63 percent? The court ruled that tinubu scored “the majority of lawful votes cast at the election”. The total lawful votes cast at the presidential election was 24 million. Is 8.8million the majority of 24 million? Certainly not!

Strangely, while the PEPC adopted a broader interpretation on FCT’s status to give tinubu an escape route, it adopted a narrower one on the issue of dishonesty to give him another lifeline


According to INEC, tinubu scored the “highest” votes among the presidential candidates, but not “the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election.” Surely, if votes were to have equal weight and value, a winning presidential candidate should have the majority of all the votes cast, not just the highest among the candidates. Since that’s not the constitutional position, it’s wrong to decide the FCT issue on the basis of “equality of the weight and value of votes"

Similarly flawed is the recourse to section 299 of the Constitution, which says FCT should be treated “as if it were” a state. The phrase “as if” is figurative. Abuja is not literally a state. There are many provisions of the Constitution that apply to states but not to Abuja. For instance, Abuja doesn’t have an elected governor or assembly; and the FCT Minister doesn’t attend meetings that state governors attend, such as the National Council of State and National Economic Council.

Indeed, section 299 says that provisions of the Constitution should be read with “necessary modifications and adaptations” with respect to Abuja. The presidential election is sui generis, different from day-to-day issues of governance to which section 299 arguably refers. So, it’s wrong to use section 299 to defeat the reasonable construction of section 134(2)(b) regarding the presidential election.

Strangely, while the PEPC adopted a broader interpretation on FCT’s status to give tinubu an escape route, it adopted a narrower one on the issue of dishonesty to give him another lifeline. Section 137(1)(d) of the Constitution disqualifies from running for president anyone who was subject to a “fine for any offence involving dishonesty or fraud by whatever name called.”

Although the phrase “by whatever name called” is very broad, the PEPC held that the “fine” and “offence” referred to in section 137(1)(d) only related to criminal conviction. Thus, being a “non-conviction-based forfeiture”, the $460,000 that tinubu forfeited to the US Government didn’t disqualify him from becoming president, even though it was linked to proceeds of “narcotic trafficking and money laundering”

That ruling would destroy the basis of integrity politics in Nigeria. If, as the PEPC held, the framers of the Constitution intended that a person who, though not convicted, forfeited assets on account of criminal conduct can become president, then it means that integrity and honesty are constitutionally and judicially excluded from Nigerian leadership!

Now, let’s turn to pleadings and evidence.Here’s the utter injustice. The petitioner carries a heavy evidential burden, yet the court and the law put insurmountable obstacles in his way. He must file his petition with detailed pleadings and relevant documents within 21 days of the declaration of election results.

Anything not filed or “frontloaded” within 21 days would be rejected. With 176,846 polling units across Nigeria, how can a candidate challenging a presidential election assemble all facts and witnesses within 21 days? Yet, the PEPC struck out most of Obi’s and Atiku’s pleadings and evidence, based on non-filing within 21 days and other procedural technicalities. Truth is, the cards are so stacked, both legally and judicially, against a petitioner in a presidential election that the taunt “Go to court” gains potency.

Finally, INEC’s role. The PEPC ruled that despite stating in its Regulations and Guidelines that it “shall” transmit election results “electronically” and “upload” them “to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV)”, INEC is not obligated to honour those commitments.

The ruling defies the preponderance of English case law discouraging public bodies from frustrating legitimate expectations resulting from their undertakings or representations. If INEC cannot keep its own words, how can Nigerians trust it to conduct credible presidential elections?

Truth is, the PEPC judgement is perverse. Unless reversed by the Supreme Court, it will entrench rigged presidential elections in Nigeria and make presidential election petitions unwinnable, as ever. That will endanger Nigeria's future!

Image123:
PitObi people seem to condone his forgery about not owing debts when all the other governors and his state government have consistently said he owed.
i do hope that Mr Obi will debunk the news of these debts with concrete facts.

Racoon:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanguardngr.com/2026/08/will-the-judiciary-condone-forgery-by-dele-sobowale/amp/

Mitsurugi:
So we've moved from on from third class, to forged certificate and now to debt. Una go mad enter road one day ontop Obi matter. Yet there is a sitting President no one seems to care about.

tishbite41:
I love this man and Aribisala
They don't hesitate to call out their own

tishbite41:
I love this man and Aribisala
They don't hesitate to call out their own