There is no doubt that the PEPT judgment infuriated both Abubakar Atiku and Peter Obi.
It is intended by both parties to seek redress in the Supreme Court, the highest court in such matters.
Despite their right to do so, it is doubtful if it will alter the outcome.
In Nigeria, overturning a presidential election has been a daunting challenge, that has not yet been achieved. At this point, the chances of success seem extremely slim.
The key facts are relatively straightforward.
$460K Forfeiture - Regardless of whether a crime was committed or not, it occurred more than 30 years ago, surpassing the 10-year limit stipulated by our laws. Even if one proved a crime, the statute of limitations expired. This is not a matter of emotion; it aligns with our constitution, which prevents individuals from contesting elections following a criminal conviction within a 10-year window. This provision recognizes the potential for rehabilitation and avoids imposing a lifelong ban on holding office after serving a sentence or paying a fine for an old crime. Preventing a candidate from running due to a fine from 30 years ago seems unreasonable.
25% FCT Votes - This contradicts the Constitution's spirit and letter. Anyone arguing otherwise may be acting out of emotion or malice. We cannot advocate for equality as a fundamental right and demand special treatment for some.
Double Nomination - The Vice President did not need a nomination form, as he was appointed. Moreover, the Supreme Court dismissed this claim three months prior. So, what could a lower court achieve by opposing the Supreme Court?
IREV - While incredibly vital, the Form EC8 is the primary document detailing polling booth results. Party agents and law enforcement receive signed results. To prove discrepancies in announced results, parties should have presented copies of Form EC8 given to their polling agents at the booths. If INEC's results differed from what the parties' agents reported, there would be a case. However, neither the PDP nor LP provided these copies to demonstrate any disparities in the announced results. All the LP presented were IREV printouts. The decision not to submit copies of Form EC8, which they possess, is perplexing. The absence of polling agents also raises questions. The only interpretation of this decision is that the numbers the party agents signed for matched what INEC tallied.
To be clear, it is not suggested that the elections were flawless. Quite the opposite, as there were numerous issues across the country, including voter suppression, violence, intimidation, late voting starts, and issues with IREV. Interestingly, all parties experienced these problems in some capacity.
Ultimately, the outcome hinged on what the petitioners presented in court and what the laws dictated. It is worth noting that all five judges were in unanimous agreement in their judgment. A split decision could have offered some hope at the Supreme Court but such hope is absent in all three cases and multiple claims.
There have been various allegations against the judges, ranging from accusations of bribery to someone else crafting their judgments It is understandable that when deeply involved in a movement, anything or anyone opposing it can become a target of hostility. Nevertheless, we should strive to be better. This distinguishes thoughtful discourse from shallow-mindedness. Disagreement should be civil, and the ability to view a matter objectively, setting emotions aside, is even more commendable
Comments
Post a Comment