YAR’ ADUA , THE SUPR EM E COURT VERDIC T & THE MEN ACE CALL ED LAW

Jerome.okoye@gmail.com

Let justice be done, though the world perish

– Ferdinand I (1503 – 1564)

In June 1993, the then military president, General Ibrahim Babangida annulled the presidential
election many have acclaimed as the freest and fairest ever held in the nations history and then
in August of same year, he stepped down after handing power over to a non-elected interim
government. Three months later, in December 1993, Abacha seized power and immediately
banned the two existing parties (SDP and NRC). In early 1996, the militatry government under
General Sanni Abacha lifted embargo on political parties. About 70 political groups was set-up,
23 applied for official approval and 5 were approved. Those who know will still recall with
nostagia how all 5 of the approved parties nominated Abacha to represent them in the elections
planned for 1998 – a situation that guarantees he would have won the election! To many, the
circumstances described is no longer possible in Nigeria. However, a closer look will tell us of
the contrary. Any situation that guarantees that a certain candidiate must even against the will
of the majority, win a certain election is flawed. That exactly is what happened in 1999, it is
what happened in 2003, and also what happened in 2007. The nightmare is that electoral
fraud in the country seem to be increasing exponentially and with the prevailing factor, 2011
may just be a disaster waiting to happen.

Will a supposedly “unlearned” person like me ever comprehend what those set of people who
dub themselve “learned” are thinking? The piles of rules and precedence that govern their
decisions? I have always tried to convince myself that peradventure, legal minds see better than
i do, that they have this esoteric perception of issues that alienates the larger populace. From
near novel arguements to those based on judicial precedence, the thought pattern of law have
always left me in a maze. A conundrum that presupposes that what common sense deems right
might actually be ‘wrong’.

Flash back, Adams Oshiomole the flagbearer of the Action Congress (AC) in the Governorship
election that took ploace on April 14, 2007 was only sworn in on Novermber 12, 2008 as
Governor! Justice? I leave that to the reader. But i have had to ask myself, what if Comrade
Adam’s have passed on to the world beyond during the course of waiting for over a year to take
what the people had freely given him? Am aware of the vacuous phrase about how the wheel
justice grinds slowly, but if the man had passed on, wouldn’t that that have amounted to the
wheel having ground too slowly? How about justice delayed been justice denied? What if
against all opposition, the judges of the tribunal as we all as the apeal court have in their
infinite wisdom, simply nullified the election and called for a fresh election? Worse still, they
could easily have upheld the election of the now considered usurper Oserheimen Osunbor!
Because its in their power to do so, and like it have been asserted numerously of the supreme
court, they are infallible because they are final!

Scenario two, Peter Obi contested for the 2003 Governorship election in Anambra State under
the umbrella of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) but was presumed to have lost
against the People Democratic candidiate, Dr Chris Ngige. He however had to wait for another
two years and after spending what i believe will run into millions of naira - considering the
asemblage of SANs - to reclaim his mandate. Call this justice?

Then, their is the mind befuddling case of Celestine Omehia who without running for an
election was declared by the Supreme Court in a unanimous judgement read by Justice
Kastina-Alu on November 2007 as Governor of Rivers State. Is this the laws interpretation of
justice?

Everytime i ask friends with a legal turn of mind why so much delay in getting justice, all i get
as answer is that “...that is how the law of the land was written”. Law, a body of official rules
and regulations, generally found in constitutions, legislation, judicial opinions and the like, that
is used to govern a society and to control the behaviour of its members. This is clearly
distinguished from other means of social control such as mores, morailty, public opinion and
custom or tradition. If it truly was made for man and not the converse, why do we sometimes
get the feeling that it totally negates the yearnings of the populace? When writing about issues
that baffle the common sense, i often end up posing more questions than answers with the
hope that somewhere in between the numerous questions some sanity might arise. Some
illumination shedding lights on dark areas of the conflict between law and morality or better
still, that between law and public opinion.

While writing this just a few hours before the supreme court gave her verdict, i was having a
discussion with colleagues of mine on the probability of the Supreme court not upholding the
election. The sad thing is that not a single one disputed the idea that the sitting presdient came
in through a highly flawed process. What however baffled me was their insistence that the
president cannot be removed by the court for largely two reasons: the first been that the judges
in question were employed by the Government. The second a ridiculously inadequate joke was
that removing the president could lead to anarchy! While the first point though distasteful
might seem logical, the second is clearly a sell for the gullible. In October 1992, multi-party
presidential and legislative election was held in Central African Republic. This was however
annulled by the Republic’s Supreme Court, which cited widespread irregularities. If the
supreme court of Nigeria knows it would be an issue removing a sitting president, why not
invalidate the election before the pressident gets sworn in?

The sad reality is that the Presdient before Yar’adua was too crooked that all means would have
been used to quell any such occurence. If however by some stroke of luck, Yar’adua had lost
the election, the former president could eailsy have annuled the elections like Calderon
Guardia. Calderon Guardia elected Costa Rican president in 1940, lost the election when he
ran for president again in 1948, but he was defeated in the elections. Charging fraud in the
conduct of the elections, he asked congress to declare the election invalid and bar the
president-elect from office. The election was annulled!

The degree of unabashed manipulation that was manifest in the 2003 election was so
nauseating i wonder why students of psychology have not done indepth research to discern
how dark the mind of power seekers in Nigeria typically is. However, in 2007, something
worse happened. It was no election, not selection as many would want us to believe. It was
imposition! And one that was done so recklessly and mindless of people’s mood. It truly was the
end of a particular way of thinking and like Dean Koontz aptly wrote, some were despondent
and called it the end of hope. It is this same election that produced the incumbent president –
Umar Yar’Adua. I am not particularly a fan of the current president not because of the way he
was brought in, neither is it because of health issues. Everyone have their own little cross to
bear. However, after over a year and many changes and counter changes in his cabinet, it is
easy to see and his choices, the ever preesent problem of Nigeria – recycling leadership! This is
aside his repeated vacillation in highly sensitive policies including something as straight
forward as the countries budget.

Why can we not like better organzied democracies, define a time limit for dispensing with
petitions before swearing in any elected officials and by so doing, save the populace the
headache of never knowing who would be their state Governor or President in another six
months? It used to be that even primary school students could name all Governors of the states
in the country. Today, I fear that very few individuals would be able to name half the number
of incubent Governors of states in the country. It is not because of lack of interest, but for the
shameful reason that we are uncertain as to what should be as against what is. For example, i
have always known like many others that Oshiomole should have ended up as the Governor of
Edo State considering his popularity, but for about 18 months, we have had to accept Osunbor
as such. Even after the tribunals verdict, Adams still had to wait for a couple of months more.
The consequence of this is numerous. However, one thing that bothers this writer most is the
extent of insecurity this causes. As an instance, while working on a project in Freetown, Sierra
Leone sometime early this year, i had the privelege of meeting the managing director of an
energy firm that have been approached by the then government of Osunbor for an
independent power plant in Edo State. His excuse for “dodging” the transaction was that he was
not prepared to deal with a government he was not sure will last! Another case refers to
something i read recently in the Vanguard Newspaper of Tuesday 19, 2008 of a petition by a
certain F. O. Osadolor and Co (apparently a legal firm) to the president as regards the removal
of personnel of the Edo State Oil and Gas Producing Areas Development Commision by the
newly installed Governemnt of Comrade Adams Oshiomole. Now, my dilemma is that based on
simple legal reasoning, what the new Governor did seem illegal. However, am compelled to ask,
must the new Governor live with persons imposed on him by a government that a competent
court have declared illegal? A Governor has only four years for a term to deliver and in doing
so, should be allowed to work with people he freely appoints as allowed by the constitution. At
least, that is what common sense should dictate since ultimately, the blame or praise for the
administration will fall on him. While admitting that not every act done or enacted by the now
declared illegal Government can be undone, i dare to ask, have we not seen instances where a
new Government rescinds a contract originally signed by a predecessor on grounds of faulty
engagement or some simple technical grounds?

Someone recently commented that Nigerian politicians rarely do accept defeat. That maybe
true, but what was left unsaid is that they rarely are defeated in a honest way or at least,
something with a semblance of fairness. Admitted, even the ones going to court for most part,
come with unclean hands. This does not however deprive them the right to seek “justice”. The
time is coming and now is when we would have elections that would give us those we chose,
when percieved losers would acknowledge defeat and when winners would be accountable to
the people and the people alone. Not some cabal, some clique of a group of king makers with
illusion of grandeur who would stop at nothing to deplete the nation of its steadily dwindling
resources. Those crooks in high places who are forever perpetuating themselves in power for
fear of irrelevance. Men and women who only can be identified by virtue of the power they
snatch from gullible citizens and who would be nothing without political power or stolen
wealth.

The law is beautiful by itself and a tool fit for ensuring order in a soceity. But like all else man
makes, sometimes exhibits a lacuna. If a law is faulty or found not to answer to the yearnings of
a people, is it not time we do something about it? Not just the setting up of an electoral reform
committe as this current government has done, but actual implementation of the positive
policies that have been recommended. Is it not time we have an election that the poeple would
feel reflects their aspirations? Is it not time all electoral issues be resolved before swearing in
anyone into an elected position? I dare say the time is coming and now is when justice should
not only be done, but be seen to be done even to the uninitiated.

Jerome.okoye@gmail.com