wike: Judgment foretold
PERHAPS
the greatest surprise that would have occurred in recent judicial
decisions would have been for the Rivers State Governorship Election
Petition Tribunal, to have returned a verdict different from what it
delivered on Saturday, October 24, 2015. I have often heard it said, by
veterans, that election litigation, whether as a petitioner or a
respondent, is the toughest hurdle for anyone seeking elective office.
This is because, after all the preceding investment in time and resources in electioneering, success or failure at the point of litigation determines, ultimately, whether you are in or out. Thus, no petitioner or respondent goes to sleep until the matter is finally disposed of.
We’re we not so forgetful as a people and a nation, we would immediately recall and then contextualise several related incidents that took place only a few weeks ago. There were instances of witness tampering and intimidation in the Rivers Governorship Election Petition hearing. In July, INEC officials, including the Resident Electoral Commissioner, were summoned to Abuja, where they were arrested and detained, without the Tribunal issuing any warrant of arrest.
The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) quickly jumped to the defence of the Department of State Services (DSS), saying the latter were acting within their legal authority. But where was the police? Will DSS now play the role of court bailiffs?
There were also uncontroverted reports of security officers being compelled to alter their security reports on the Rivers governorship election, because the petitioner would rely on such reports to prove his case.
But, perhaps, the most bizarre incident was when armed DSS operatives invaded the premises where the Tribunal sat, in search of a recently retired security witness, who gave damning evidence contrary to the script of the powers that be. Have we forgotten so soon? Well, if we remember that incident, along with others, such as the abrupt removal of the first chairman of the Tribunal, who was obviously not prepared to trade his conscience, we would not be surprised by the outcome of the election petition. It was judgment foretold.
The Rivers Tribunal completely ignored a recent and subsisting Court of Appeal decision on the card reader in the Lagos governorship tussle between Agbaje and Ambode. On that score, the Tribunal annulled the Rivers election. On the allegations of insecurity and irregularities on voting day on April 11, the Tribunal also declared that while it believed the witnesses called by the petitioner, it disbelieved the respondents’ witnesses.
So, was there a thorough evaluation of hearsay evidence against direct evidence? Usually, I’m told, the burden of proof is one beyond reasonable doubt in the kind of allegations contained in the petition. Legal scholars should be interested in examining the judgment to see how this burden was discharged.
Why was Justice Mu’azu Pindiga removed as Chairman of the Rivers Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, and replaced by Justice Suleiman Ambursa?
Yet, since he was removed as Tribunal Chairman two months or so ago, there has not been a report, or even a whisper, that Justice Pindiga is facing disciplinary action. Instead, the most plausible position has been widely circulated online, that Justice Pindiga was axed because he declined on several occasions to hold secret meetings with the security agencies and others who invited him to Kaduna, obviously for purposes intended to thwart justice.
Not a few eyebrows were raised over the break-neck speed with which the Rivers Tribunal delivered its judgment on October 24, barely 48 hours after counsel to litigants adopted their final addresses. The concern was — and still is — whether the Tribunal members had enough time to pore over and deeply reflect on the tons of materials and testimonies, before giving their considered judgment.
•Ebong lives in Uyo, Akwa Ibom.
This is because, after all the preceding investment in time and resources in electioneering, success or failure at the point of litigation determines, ultimately, whether you are in or out. Thus, no petitioner or respondent goes to sleep until the matter is finally disposed of.
We’re we not so forgetful as a people and a nation, we would immediately recall and then contextualise several related incidents that took place only a few weeks ago. There were instances of witness tampering and intimidation in the Rivers Governorship Election Petition hearing. In July, INEC officials, including the Resident Electoral Commissioner, were summoned to Abuja, where they were arrested and detained, without the Tribunal issuing any warrant of arrest.
The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) quickly jumped to the defence of the Department of State Services (DSS), saying the latter were acting within their legal authority. But where was the police? Will DSS now play the role of court bailiffs?
There were also uncontroverted reports of security officers being compelled to alter their security reports on the Rivers governorship election, because the petitioner would rely on such reports to prove his case.
But, perhaps, the most bizarre incident was when armed DSS operatives invaded the premises where the Tribunal sat, in search of a recently retired security witness, who gave damning evidence contrary to the script of the powers that be. Have we forgotten so soon? Well, if we remember that incident, along with others, such as the abrupt removal of the first chairman of the Tribunal, who was obviously not prepared to trade his conscience, we would not be surprised by the outcome of the election petition. It was judgment foretold.
The Rivers Tribunal completely ignored a recent and subsisting Court of Appeal decision on the card reader in the Lagos governorship tussle between Agbaje and Ambode. On that score, the Tribunal annulled the Rivers election. On the allegations of insecurity and irregularities on voting day on April 11, the Tribunal also declared that while it believed the witnesses called by the petitioner, it disbelieved the respondents’ witnesses.
So, was there a thorough evaluation of hearsay evidence against direct evidence? Usually, I’m told, the burden of proof is one beyond reasonable doubt in the kind of allegations contained in the petition. Legal scholars should be interested in examining the judgment to see how this burden was discharged.
Why was Justice Mu’azu Pindiga removed as Chairman of the Rivers Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, and replaced by Justice Suleiman Ambursa?
Yet, since he was removed as Tribunal Chairman two months or so ago, there has not been a report, or even a whisper, that Justice Pindiga is facing disciplinary action. Instead, the most plausible position has been widely circulated online, that Justice Pindiga was axed because he declined on several occasions to hold secret meetings with the security agencies and others who invited him to Kaduna, obviously for purposes intended to thwart justice.
Not a few eyebrows were raised over the break-neck speed with which the Rivers Tribunal delivered its judgment on October 24, barely 48 hours after counsel to litigants adopted their final addresses. The concern was — and still is — whether the Tribunal members had enough time to pore over and deeply reflect on the tons of materials and testimonies, before giving their considered judgment.
•Ebong lives in Uyo, Akwa Ibom.
Comments
Post a Comment