By Obi Nwakanma
I watched with extreme difficulty, and not insubstantial pain, the interview in Stellenbosch, South Africa, in which the poet, playwright and Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka, very painfully, tried to subvert the truth about the Nigerian election, by claiming that the Labour Party “came third” and knew that they “did not win the election.” That the Labour Party had become a regional movement. That Peter Obi and the party leaders were trying to push young people into the streets to protest.
Here, let us reproduce Soyinka in full: “One party took over the Labour Movement and then it became a regional party…my own organization has a monitoring unit, and so I could say categorically that Peter Obi’s Party came third, not even second! And that the leadership knew it. But they wanted to do what we call in Yoruba, ‘Gba Jue!’
That is, you have force of arms, you also have force of lies. And it was gearing up to send young people into the streets to demonstrate. I’m always ready to be among such demonstrators, but only on the banner of truth, but not on lies; not on deceit!” This is retrograde Soyinka. In that interview, Soyinka tried with distinct and unconvincing elan to put eagle feathers on lies.The voice I heard was Soyinka’s, but what lay behind
the face? I have watched, with increasing alarm, the evolution, or should we
now say the devolution of Wole Soyinka, or is it an unraveling shaping up,
right before our very eyes? I am tempted – but I will not take issues with
Professor Soyinka, just yet. I have too much respect for him. But for many of
us who grew up on the “Soyinka broth,” the unfolding is a smack on the gobs.
What happened to the Four Compass Points?
Against the Moribund Conventions
of “Emi L’okan?” Against the “Tiwa ni Tiwa” tribalism that seems to be fueling
Soyinka’s inscrutable volte face? What about the humane ideals of protecting
the noblest interest of the higher commons? And what happened to chivalry, and
comradeship, which sought to build generations of pan national idealists, whose
task was to rescue the nation from the clutches of the forces of corruption and
retrogression? I guess it all dies, with the man in us, in this very distinct
season of anomie.
It is indeed a season of very
cruel ironies, when Peter Obi, a billionaire merchant, became the lightning rod
of truth and idealism against the battle-hardened, rampart-hugging public
intellectual and sociocrat, who taught an entire generation that the “man dies
in him who stays silent in the face of tyranny.” This is the real moment of
horror, like that moment which Horace captures in his Odes, of Pyrrha gasping
at the strange sight of “Old Proteus herding his whole sea-zoo uphill.”
But let’s leave Soyinka, for the
moment, because he only drives me to tears. There will be time yet for a full
treatise, someday. Let us go, you and I, dear reader, to that real moment of
infamy, last week when the Election Petition Tribunal declared its verdict from
hell. They dismissed the petitioners’ writs on the grounds, most strangely,
that their lawyers did not file their petitions, or argue their cases properly.
In other words, the judges of
the Presidential Election Tribunal did not look at the facts of the case, but
at the methods of the procedures adopted by the lawyers who prepared and argued
the cases before them. They, therefore, issued judgment against the lawyers in
lieu of the petition and the petitioners. Here are the facts of the case: That
the man who has been declared President of Nigeria by the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC), Bola Ahmed Tinubu, did not qualify to contest
because, at the time of the elections, his vice-presidential nominee, Kashim
Shettima, against the dictates of the electoral laws, was doubly nominated and
his candidacy was, therefore, rendered invalid.
The petitioners relied on
established case law, but the tribunal threw out their argument on the grounds
that, well, it was an internal party matter, and it should have been argued in
court before the election and the petition, as it stood, was status barred. But
the real question is, what did the law say? The Supreme Court – the
constitutional court of the land – had established, in previous judgments, the
grounds which this tribunal very brazenly dismissed.
The second question, this raised
by the lawyers for Atiku Abubakar, was on the issue of Tinubu’s eligibility on
the grounds that he was a Guinean citizen, and that more so, he failed to
disclose his dual citizenship in his declaration of interest to run for the
presidency. The tribunal dismissed this question not on whether or Bola Tinubu
held Guinean citizenship, but on the verify premise that Abubakar did not prove
his case. How else was he to prove this case? Lawyers for Abubakar on this
question presented what was incontrovertible evidence of Tinubu’s Guinean
citizenship.
The petitioners also raised the
question of the case of forfeiture of the sum of $460,000 to the US court in
Chicago on a drug related case, but the tribunal ruled that the petitioners
erred, and did not prove their case. In fact, the case was a civil matter, they
declared, and did not qualify as a criminal case that could disqualify Tinubu.
The tribunal also dismissed the question raised about the conduct of the
election, specifically INEC’s failure to transmit the election results, as they
had proposed, in real time through BVAS and IREV – innovations which the
commission talked up, spent billions in tax-payers money, and ultimately
subverted.
A “glitch,” they claimed, prevented them from
transmitting the presidential election results. But the Obi team brought
evidence to bear questioning that claim, and noting that such a glitch
happening in one specific instance, the presidential election, while no glitch
was reported in the national legislative elections was too convenient to be
true. They brought IT witnesses to show that it was not a technical failure,
but a deliberate human intervention.
Indeed, Peter Obi’s case
alleging that no proper result was declared based on the failures of the
commission to verify millions of obscure ballots declared for Tinubu, as well
as the claims, particularly in the case of Rivers State where what was on the
commission’s platform, which declared Tinubu winner, very clearly showed Obi as
winning Rivers State in wide margins. The tribunal dismissed this petition, and
its process, as “incompetent.” What threshold of further proof, or process, did
the tribunal judges demand? They did not make that very clear. They simply declared
every point of the election petition as “incompetent.”
It was as if, notes Eze Onyekpere, human rights lawyer and Director of the Center for Social Justice, in a discussion on Channels TV following the judgment, that the tribunal justices only just wanted to hand down a rebuke to the lawyers, many of them distinguished in their own rights, for procedural and technical errors. They simply ignored the substantive parts of the cases. Indeed, shocking was the declaration that winning 25% of the votes in Abuja was not a requirement as Abuja has no special status, and, in the matter of elections, could be considered another state of the federation.
This declaration incompetently
upturned the judgment of the Supreme Court, as well as the Act establishing Abuja
as a Federal Territory. The capital city of the Federation Nigeria is not a
state. It is a city governed by the President through his Minister of the
FCT.
Like Washington DC, Abuja
operates its own city laws. Of course, the argument has been made for the
establishment of the mayoralty of Abuja, with an elected Mayor of the city, and
an elected city council, which should end the position of the FCT Minister, and
the President’s oversight of the capital territory. Even with that, Abuja
enjoys a special status, and the law establishing it is clear, as does its
status under the Federation Act. Now, millions of Nigerians are outraged and
shocked by this judgment which many allege is bought and paid for. We have no
evidence of this, but we also have nothing to disprove it. Should we be
surprised by this judgment? I confess I was personally not.
The Nigerian judiciary is
nowhere these days to expect justice. There is no doubt that there may be good
men and women on the bench. But the Nigerian judiciary, once the shining armour
of this nation, is now largely corrupt and incompetent; and, above all, it is
brazen in both its cowardice and its impunity. The growing general disdain, and
increasing distrust and skepticism over the judiciary, is very dangerous. Law
and order go hand-in-hand in establishing the foundational basis of every safe
and prosperous society.
If Nigerians no longer expect to get justice from
the courts, what we have is the enthronement of anomie, and the dismantling of
the legal and moral basis of the nation. The nation will quickly atrophy and
disappear. Nigerians might begin to seek other forms of dispute settlement.
Increasingly, this will render the courts, and the laws of Nigeria, irrelevant
and merely adjectival. Nothing will be more catastrophic than for the courts
and the judges to grow in the public mind as corrupt and disreputable. Nothing
drives that possibility more than this judgment from hell delivered last week
to a numb and skeptical nation.
*Nwakanma is a poet, scholar and public intellectual
No comments:
Post a Comment