By Segun Showunmi
I am an interested party, an active member of the Peoples Democratic Party and Spokesperson of His Excellency, Atiku Abubakar before, during and after the 2019 presidential election. I state these facts that it may not deplete from the soundness or otherwise of the issues I raise. I must also clearly state, that the views represented herein are solely mine, and as such, I wish to immune my principal, Waziri Atiku Abubakar, from any unintended consequences! Having said this, may I now go on to express my thoughts at this time.
The Nigerian Judiciary needs to reconsider its position and independence, to avert the imminent collapse of our beloved country, as a result of some of the pronouncements emanating from the hallowed temple of justice. I am concerned as to what ought to be the role of the Judiciary, especially in election related matters. Can it be correct to constantly give judgements that seem to depart completely from the fact, truth and intention of the electorate when disputes arise, as they often would, post election?
We need to be extremely careful that the doctrine of estoppel and promissory estoppel, which seeks to speak to substantive issues, are not lost to technicalities. It gets more disturbing as in the case of the Supreme Court judgement on the Osun Governorship Election between Gboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress and Ademola Adeleke of the PDP. This is most discomforting because, with profound respect to their Lordships of the Supreme Court, they failed to deepen jurisprudence in this matter, as indeed, nothing can be relied upon by all parties, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). In fact, Distinguished Senator Adeleke of the PDP has been made the victim of procedural issues surrounding the appointment of tribunal members.
The diligence expected of the Judiciary in showing up at their duty post, a matter that neither Adeleke nor any of the parties could reasonably be expected to have been responsible for, has now become the headache of the innocent. This, any rational mind would agree, is purely outside the issues in contention, which, simply put, are: Did the people of Osun get their rightfully elected governor or not? Did INEC go outside its known procedure in canceling and ordering a rerun in the disputed polling booths? If these are not satisfactorily answered, I’m afraid we may be running the risk that the Judiciary, which is considered the last hope of all parties, will open the flood gate to desperate activities and self help, including potential increases in violence during our elections.
I am of the opinion that whatever technicalities may exist could and ought not to have prevented their Lordships from weighing in heavily on the issues in contention.
One begins to wonder if this is not the Supreme Court of Justice Kayode Eso, of Justice Chukudife Oputa. Is this not the same hallowed temple of justice that Lord Denning sat and set strong precedents? Lord Denning did, in an Obiter in ‘Central London Property Trust Limited vs. High Trees Limited’, where although the case was dismissed; the judge, nevertheless, used its facts to re-establish the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in modern English Contract Law.
Just dismissing cases on technicalities while failing to address alleged substantial illegalities simply perpetuates impunity and weakens the rule of law. Granted, there is nowhere else to go on this matter as a finality has been painfully reached. However, I say again, we cannot continue like this. The people’s verdict cannot always be annulled via judicial technicalities that leave a very soar taste in the mouths of lovers of our country, especially those who look for its improvement daily.
I fear the importance of precedence. In a common law system, judges are obliged to make their rulings as consistent as reasonably possible with previous judicial decisions on the same subject. I am well aware that the same Supreme Court has taken a position on the issue of quorum with election tribunals, which are in themselves sui generis (a special one confined to its own facts), and therefore may not be of broader application; the more reason our Judiciary must serve to deepen jurisprudence. Courts must not turn the truth on its head because of an absentee who was not questioned. I am truly concerned.
