The National leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has reacted to the controversial ‘Operation Amotekun’, the regional security initiative established by governors of South-West states.
Tinubu, in a personally signed statement, suggested that the integrity of the country has not been put at risk with the formation of the South-West regional security outfit, ascribing the best of intentions to those who both reasonably support and oppose Operation Amotekun.
The political leader, however, disavowed heated political rhetoric, ignorance and extreme paranoia from both sides of the argument in a statement that was measured, conciliatory and aimed for the middle ground.
This comes on the heels of a spate of protests across South-West states since Monday in support of Operation Amotekun, and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, declaring the initiative illegal and unconstitutional.
The statement reads:
“Those claiming that this limited, inoffensive addition to security threatens the Republic have taken themselves upon a madcap excursion.
“Those claiming that the Federal Government seeks to terribly suppress the Southwest have also lost their compass. Those who occupy these two extremes have sunken into the dark recesses of fear and political paranoia that can undo a nation if such sentiments are allowed to gestate.
“Amotekun. This issue has dominated recent discourse and media headlines. Distilled to its basics, it concerns how best state governments can assist with the safety and security of their residents. This is a matter of serious concern entitled to sober thought. However, it has been turned into a political tug-of-war. Fierce, often unthinking rhetoric, for and against, has crossed the lips of too many Nigerians. More subjective talking than objective thinking has been the fuel of this outburst.
“Question those in favour of Amotekun. Most have but the vaguest notion about it. They know few details yet vigorously attribute to its opponents the most negative intentions. Ask those who oppose Amotekun. They are equally ignorant of its provisions. They oppose the initiative not on its merits but merely because it was proposed by their political opponents or because they don’t see an avenue for personal gain from it.
“While colourful, the rhetoric has been disconcerting. How people have mishandled this matter demonstrates that we still have far to go in perfecting this democracy. Too much energy has been spent distorting this issue instead of seeking a resolution that supports local enhancement of security while keeping the constitution intact. If this becomes the standard for how we handle disagreements then we will obscure Nigeria’s path forward with our own rubbish.
“In this matter, I do not see malign intent in the differences of opinion between the SW Governors as authors of Amotekun and the Attorney-General as the primary law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. Shorn of the overly dramatic language, what lies before us is but a step in the evolution of our federalism. This is an opportunity to more clearly define that federalism; but one cannot attain this better, more functional definition through overblown, emotional language. Objectivity and calmness are required. To a significant degree, the enduring quality of our republic will be established by the sagacity with which we handle disagreements regarding the division of power between federal and state governments. Such disagreements are inevitable. This is not the first. Nor will it be the last. We must devote our energies more toward solving problems rather than amplifying them.
“Seeking to fulfil their mandates by helping protect their people, the governors of the Southwest collectively established a program to buttress existing security mechanisms. Seeking to protect the constitution as best he could, the Attorney-General offered his opinion on what he believed the governors have sought to do. No one can blame either party for seeking to fulfil what they genuinely see as their public duty.
“Until now, I have deliberately maintained a studied silence regarding Amotekun. Many have tried to goad my swift public reaction. Those who have taken this road did so not because they care about Amotekun or even the people it intends to help protect. They did so knowing this had become a delicate and emotional issue for many. These cynics did so with the adversarial hope that, in haste, I might misspeak or misstep in a manner they could twist to their political advantage.
“Such people are possessed of a mercenary aspect that permits them to sacrifice almost anything, even jeopardize the very foundations of our political unity, if they might exact personal gain from the upheaval. In that they know no nobler purpose than their own appetites, we should feel sorry for them. However, we must not allow our sympathies for their barren condition to persuade us that there is worth in their destructive misconduct. They must be left to the consequences of their own devices.
“If truly I am a political leader as I am often described, then I have not the luxury of hasty, ill-conceived utterances. There are those who will use inflamed words to spark the passions of others. This may bring transient applause. But when the cheers fade, we shall only have further descended because their words were never inclined toward resolution and long-term improvement but toward short-term popularity and perpetual confrontation.
“I believe in this nation and its benign prospects. I dearly love its people, all of them. Over the years of our existence, they have suffered much. Yet they still hold forth with heroic patience and an extraordinary optimism born of strong faith. To these people, I owe my best. I shall not treat them cheaply or bandy their emotions like some errant football. The welfare of these good and decent people is my overriding concern.
“Equally, I do not cow to the demands of those who press for me to make a premature statement on an important issue. Again, that is a game devised by those who care more about political cleverness than the quality of governance. I chose to talk when my position has been made ripe by a collection of the facts and a reasonable assessment of those facts.”
The world’s billionaires have doubled in the past decade and are richer than 60 per cent of the global population, the charity Oxfam said on Monday.
It said poor women and girls were at the bottom of the scale, putting in “12.5 billion hours of unpaid care work each and every day,” estimated to be worth at least $10.8 trillion a year.
“Our broken economies are lining the pockets of billionaires and big business at the expense of ordinary men and women. No wonder people are starting to question whether billionaires should even exist,” Oxfam’s India head Amitabh Behar said.
“The gap between rich and poor can’t be resolved without deliberate inequality-busting policies,” Behar said ahead of the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, where he will represent Oxfam.
Oxfam’s annual report on global inequality is traditionally released just before the forum opens on Tuesday in the Swiss Alpine resort.
“The 22 richest men in the world have more wealth than all the women in Africa,” it said.
If the world’s richest one per cent paid just 0.5 per cent extra tax on their wealth for 10 years, it would equal the investment needed to create 117 million new jobs in elderly and child care, education and health, Oxfam said.
Oxfam’s figures are based on data from Forbes magazine and Swiss bank Credit Suisse but they are disputed by some economists.
The numbers show that 2,153 billionaires now have more wealth than the 4.6 billion poorest people on the planet.
Women and girls are burdened in particular because they are most often caregivers that keep “the wheels of our economies, businesses and societies moving,” Behar said.
They “often have little time to get an education, earn a decent living or have a say in how our societies are run,” and “are therefore trapped at the bottom of the economy,” he added.
“Across the globe, 42 per cent of women cannot get jobs because they are responsible for all the caregiving, compared to just six per cent of men,” Oxfam figures showed.
TheSouth East, yesterday, erupted in protests as supporters of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) kicked against removal of Mr. Emeka Ihedioha as Imo governor by the Supreme Court.
In Anambra, protesters gave a seven-day ultimatum to the apex court to reverse itself alleging that Ihedioha was wrongfully removed.
The protesters dressed in black, gathered at the party secretariat at Udoka Housing Estate in Awka, and marched through the Enugu-Onitsha Expressway, Aroma Junction, Alex Ekwueme Square up to Federal High Court, Awka, chanting pro-Ihedioha songs and expressing anger with the Supreme Court judges.
The party faithful, led by the state chairman, Ndubisi Nwobu, and former governorship candidate, Oseloka Obaze, carried placards with inscriptions such as: “Reverse S/Court judgment on Imo State Governorship Election,” “Supreme Court wants to set Nigeria on fire,” “Supreme Court judgement, a travesty of justice,” “Supreme Court, stop daylight robbery” and “Imo State was won by PDP.”
Addressing the protesters at the Alex Ekwueme Square, Nwobu, said what the apex court did amounted to daylight robbery.
“Once more, we have seen our nascent democracy under threat and it is our responsibility as true democrats to save the situation. We are not protesting the injustice meted on PDP, Imo and Ihedioha alone, but also protesting the threat posed to our democracy by the judiciary and the present administration. We urge lovers of democracy all over the world to join us in condemning the development. We urge the Supreme Court to reverse itself, because, tension is already building up as a result of the robbery called judgement.”
“What happened in Imo is a threat to our democracy, and it is our collective responsibility to speak against it before it becomes a norm. Our democracy was recently threatened in Kogi and Bayelsa. This time around, they also robbed us of Imo and snatched a mandate freely given by Imo voters to the PDP.”
In the same vein, Owerri, was shut down by hundreds of protesters angered by the sack of Ihedioha by the apex court.
Supporters of the party from 27 local government areas stormed the streets black clothes to protest what they described as a miscarriage of justice and demanded that the court reverses itself.
The protesters carried placards with inscriptions as: “Reverse the injustice now!” “On our mandate we stand” Ihedioha won landslide,” “Imo want Ihedioha.”
They marched from the party’s secretariat along Okigwe road to Government House roundabout which was barricaded by the police.
Chief Okewuluonu Chris, chief of staff to Ihedioha, who addressed the protesters said it was legitimate to express anger and sadness over the strange judgment of the apex court which truncated the mandate given to Emeka Ihedioha by the people.
He pointed out that it was not too late for the apex court to reverse itself and restore the lack of confidence by the people in the judiciary.
“We are holding this peaceful protest to let the Supreme Court know that what they had done to the people of the state is unprecedented miscarriage of justice and that they can reverse the mistake. It is not in doubt that Ihedioha had won the election fair and square. The petitioners had lost at the tribunal and Appeal Court where their petitions were thoroughly subjected to legal scrutiny and the courts had upheld that Ihedioha had truely won, but this strange judgement is a mistake, a gross injustice and should be reversed,” he said.
Also, Mr. Nze Ray Emeana, state secretary of the PDP, said judges of the apex court owe Nigerians an explanation as to how they arrived at the votes to declare Uzodinma winner.
“Imo people are not happy with the fraudulent judgment which scuttled the mandate given to Emeka Ihedioha by the people. The supreme Court judges have curiously raised the valid votes from 714,355 to 927,030, which is even above the total accredited votes of 823,743 stated by the INEC. They apex court is yet to explain how they arrived at the difference of 103,887 which simply means that something is wrong.
“We are asking them to reverse what they have done because it is nothing but robbing Peter to pay Paul and Imo people will not accept that,” he said.
Similarly, the member representing Ikeduru/ Mbaitoli federal constituency,Henry Nwawuba, said it was a gross injustice to sack Ihedioha.
In Abia, protesters also trooped out in their hundreds.
State chairman of the party, Chief Johnson Onuigbo, said they gathered to express their anger over the judgment against the former governor.
“Judges of Supreme Court can make mistakes because they are human beings. They made a mistake by denying the people of Imo their votes. They are not supposed to appoint the governor. The people elected their governor. The decision is injurious to democracy; it is an attempt to disrupt our nascent democracy,” he said.
Open letter to the Sultan of Sokoto, Abubakar Said and the Fulani leaders
August 08, 2019
The Sultan of Sokoto and Fulani Leader
His Eminence
Alhaji Abubakar Sa’ad
THE STATE OF THE NATION
We write this letter to you considering your importance as the head of the Fulani people in Nigeria. You are also the head of Fulani Muslims in Nigeria.It is our hope that you will be able to share the thoughts expressed here with the 7 million Fulani people in Nigeria through your traditional means of communication.
We write to honour you with this letter, given the floundering opportunities for a dialogue on the future of Nigeria, which has eluded the various ethnic groups in Nigeria and which may not enhance itself too soon.
Given the drumbeats of armed violence and extremism perpetrated largely by your people, and the fleeting prospects of a national dialogue, we hope this letter will not be the last opportunity to constructively engage you and the Fulani nation.
We, on behalf of Apapo Oodua Koya, (AOKOYA), a coalition of several Itsekiri, Edo and Yoruba groups write with our deepest feelings about the Nigerian state and what appears to be the pitfalls that lay ahead, most of which are oiled and orchestrated by your own people, the Fulani, albeit consciously.
THE PAST
There was no history of Fulani in today’s territory until 1804. This was 800 years after the Yoruba Kingdoms had been established, about 600 years after the Hausa, Ijaw, Tiv, Igala, Junkun Kingdoms had flourished. The Igbo Nation had existed for centuries before your people wandered into this hemisphere.
We recall that your forebears came to power through brutal and bloody conquest of indigenous peoples in many parts of Northern Nigeria under the guise of Islam eventhough Islam had taken firm roots in Yorubaland, Kano and Bornu Empires as early as the 11th century.
Since your sojourn in Nigeria, you have been very lucky.
A whole country of over 300 ethnic groups, was handed over to you a foreigner, first through conquest of some of its part, you, who never owned an inch of land centuries earlier in this hemisphere.
You have reaped the fruits which trees you did not plant and you knew not when they were planted.
Moreso, you were from a family of wonders and your emergence as Emir and traditional ruler was unusual, having no royal blood in your veins ab initio.
No doubt, You succeeded in taking over the land, the main means of production of these innocent peoples whose main offence was that they were too caring, too gentle, too subservient and accommodating of foreigners in their ancestral homeland, Today, you seat on a throne soaked with the blood of millions of innocent souls anguished with deafening ears to the agony of the spirit of millions of victims of the horrendous killings by your men, who came from Fouta Jallon in Senegal, only some 210 years ago.
The British left in 1960 and you emerged as the main benefactor eventhough your people were not known to have fought for independence. You were wise enough to plant your people in the security institutions, a reflection of your preference for force and brigandage instead of a knowledge-driven society.
Through direct military intervention or subterfuge, sly plots, you have been ruling Nigeria, or determining who rule Nigeria since 1960. This is a rare luck that only courageous people can manage for some time, but needs wise, intelligent, decent and conscientious people to manage for a millennium.
Under the false, artificial creation called Nigeria, your people produce no oil, yet you appropriate and decide how the resources should be expended.
You have no access to the Ocean, yet you decide which goods should be imported and which vessel should ply routes that indigenous owners of this God given oceans had been using for centuries. All the military weapons were bought not by your money, but you decide who should use them and who should be killed by the same weapons. You have no richest scholarly tradition, yet your people sit on the Nigerian Universities Commission, (NUC) and decide the faith of other Nigerians. You located all the military institutions in your land, more out of fear than out of love for justice and fairplay.
90 percent of Nigerian resources are sourced from the South and Middle Belt, yet you decide how the funds should be spent. Did you think this irresponsible way of life will continue for ever? Did your people think we are foolish and even if we are, did you think coming generations will accept this brazen exploitation? We have called for dialogue on these issues, but you call it treason.
The truth is that you have grossly mismanaged this opportunity. Your ruinous and destructive tradition has robbed on all Nigerians. Your intuition for aggression has become a national culture. Your disdain for debate and logical criticisms has been imbibed by Nigerians who continue to gravitate towards the custodians of political power, whose way of life must be imbibed for recognition.
You have ruined and destroyed this whole nation at your beckon due to your exclusive, narrow, primordial and savage instincts driven only by your self interest and your brutal and non-negotiable desire to conquer and subdue every nationality in Nigeria. This is a tall task which you are hell bent in executing.
THE INVASION OF YORUBALAND BY FULANI HERDSMEN
We like to caution you on your latest antics to renew your grand 1804 design to conquer the entire country, not through ideas but through the most savage tradition of killings and maiming.
This to us is at the bottom of the current Fulani kidnapping in Yorubaland. We wish to inform you that we are aware of your grand plan to renew a project done half way and put on mute mode since the defeat of your forces in 1840 by the Yoruba Army.
We are worried that you and your Fulani people have been suspiciously silent on the kidnapping of Yoruba people, the killing of our young professionals including the killing of the daughter of a prominent Yoruba leader.
We were not surprised that you and the other Fulani leaders did not consider it necessary to send condolence messages or even visit the family of the slain woman. This can only mean your tacit approval or at least, a philosophy of cold compromise.
Please be aware that in the past two years, records show that 689 Yoruba people have been kidnapped by your people, Fulani, about 400 reported cases of rape, including rape of toddlers. Out of this number of the kidnapped, 356 were women, and out of that number, 250 were married women.
In all, 112 people were killed by your Fulani people either for resisting kidnap or for failing to pay ransom. This may mean nothing to you, but to us, it means a lot.
We urge you to imagine a group of armed Yoruba cocoa farmers storming forests in Kano, Katsina and Sokoto, kidnapping Fulani people, raping their young girls and even killing the daughter of an Emir or a prominent Fulani leader? Can you also imagine the same heavily armed Yoruba cocoa farmers occupying your forests, stopping your people from farming and preventing your people from plying the highways in their ancestral homes?
To make the matter worse, imagine the armed Yoruba cocoa farmers carry out these terrible crimes under the banner of a Yoruba man as the Nigerian President. How will you feel?
As it is, your people, the Fulani are digging their hands down our throats. They are entering our bedrooms and sleeping with our mothers and wives. These actions are not only against Islam, they are against humanity.
These latest actions plus our experiences in the past have combined to renew the energy of millions of Yoruba people who want a country of their own. Either you like it or not, this will happen. God, before whom you and your big crown are like but a filthy rag, will make it happen. We urge you to prepare your self to dialogue or if you chose the path of violence, there will be proportional response.
Having Yoruba or Igbo Republics is something you do not wish to hear, but which is imminent and inevitable. Please be aware that the Yoruba do not begrudge your values and the ways of your living, all we are saying is that we want to live our lives, design our political and cultural architecture, live and die on our own terms. The forthcoming Yoruba Republic will be glad to accommodate righteous Fulani people who respect our civilisations and the laws of our fatherland.
We wish to use this opportunity to advice you and your people to be aware that you have no power to conquer Yoruba Nation. Your forebears tried and failed. Your military and political surrogates tried, marked with killings, maiming and destruction of our economy, yet they failed.
We ask you to instruct your people, the armed Fulani herdsmen to withdraw from Yoruba territories and on their own, mop up the cache of arms and ammunition stored in Yoruba territories.
Sir, the Yoruba people stand for peace and not war. We would prefer these issues to be resolved amicably without firing any gun shot. But, we wish to say that if your heart remains rebellious and your soul defiant, the Yoruba people are not afraid to confront you once again the way we did some 175 years ago, this time in the most ferocious manner you can ever imagine. It is necessary to let you know this even though we are aware that you will not change the conquest desires of your heart. We wish you a happy Salah and Allah’s wisdom to know and do what is right
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN SC. 1462/2019: SENATOR HOPE UZODINMA & APC v. EMEKA IHEDIOHA & 2 OTHERS: PUTTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
INTRODUCTION
1.01 On 14.1.2020, the Supreme Court heard the appeal filed by Senator Hope Uzodinma and APC (numbered as shown above) against the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the victory of Emeka Ihedioha and the PDP in the Imo State Governorship election on 9.3.2019.
1.02 The Court of Appeal had, on 19.11.2019, affirmed the judgment of the Governorship election tribunal which dismissed the petition of Senator Uzodinma and APC against the return of Emeka Ihedioha and PDP at the Imo State governorship election held on 9.3.2019.
1.03 Soon after hearing oral arguments of senior counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment and allowed it, and ordered, amongst others, that Senator Uzodinma be sworn-in as the Governor of Imo State.
1.04 Since the delivery of the judgment, commentators have rendered all kinds of opinions on the facts of the case and the judgment of the Supreme Court. Some of the commentators are legal practitioners who were not involved in any professional manner with the case from its inception at the election tribunal up to its conclusion at the Supreme Court. Their comments or opinions now in the public domain, expectedly, are shallow and uninformed and are capable of misinforming the public.
1.05 It has, therefore, become imperative to put the record straight for the benefit of the reading public, even if it would not reverse the unfortunate decision of the Supreme Court and the obvious injustice it has occasioned.
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2.01 In the result of the Imo State Governorship election held on 9.3.2019, INEC declared that Emeka Ihedioha scored the highest number of votes – 273,404 amongst all the candidates and met the constitutional requirements, and was returned. The other three candidates coming behind him were credited with the following votes:
Uche Nwosu (AA): 190,364
Ifeanyi Araraume (APGA): 114,676
Hope Uzodinma (APC): 96,458
2.02 Each of these candidates filed an election petition at the tribunal premised on different grounds. Senator Uzodinma’s petition was premised largely on the false ground that elections were conducted in certain 388 polling units, but the results of the elections which he had copies of (and which were favourable to him) were wrongly excluded by INEC in their collation of results of the election; that if those results were taken into account, he would have won the election.
2.03 The respondents in the petition, including INEC, denied the above allegations and characterised the purported results as false in their respective replies to the petition. Two short examples may be provided here. In paragraph 8i of Ihedioha’s reply to the petition, it is averred inter alia:” . . . Petitioners have embarked on a scheme to introduce false result sheets into the result of the election. They are thus put to the strictest proof of the origin of the result, the existence of the polling units as well as the distribution of election materials to those purported Polling Units.”
2.04 In paragraph 7c of INEC’s reply, it is averred inter alia: “The 3rd Respondent did not omit to record and reckon with votes due to the Petitioners as alleged. . . and any such showing results are fictitious and suborned.”
2.05 It is thus clear from the foregoing, and having regard to decided cases, particularly of the Supreme Court, that the petitioners had the burden of proving the conduct of elections in those polling units, the results emanating from them and the impact those results would have on the result of the election as declared.
2.06 At the hearing of the petition, Senator Uzodinma and APC called 54 witnesses out of which only 28 were polling unit agents. No ward collation agent was called as a witness. Senator Uzodinma himself testified as PW11. His State Collation agent testified as PW51 and a certain police officer testified as PW54. The other 23 witnesses were local government collation agents and sundry witnesses.
2.07 It is noteworthy that purported results of the election, relied on by the petitioners, were tendered from the Bar in bags and sacks! They remained there throughout the trial, except for the few which were specifically mentioned by the 28 polling unit agents. PW54, a Deputy Commissioner of Police, whose presence and testimony were challenged by the respondents, tendered documents in a pack which he described as result sheets from 366 polling units. He did not open any of them or refer specifically to them. He admitted, in cross-examination, that he did not know the figures they contained or the polling units they were concerned with.
2.08 It is, again, noteworthy that the 28 polling unit agents and PW11 admitted, in cross-examination, that the result sheets which they identified were not legible or did not contain the scores of all the political parties which contested the election. The 28 polling agents also admitted that those purported result sheets did not contain any entry to show the number of ballot papers issued to the respective polling units; the number of ballot papers used and unused in those polling units. Many of the sheets did not show the names and signatures of the presiding officers, and the date of issuance. In some of them, the dates written on them were before or after 9.3.2019.
2.09 PW11 admitted in cross-examination, when confronted with his chart in the petition, that some of the results he listed showed over voting.
3. JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS
3.01 It was because of the foregoing facts and evidence that the election tribunal, in its judgment, agreed with the respondents that the petitioners did not prove the existence of other results from the so-called 388 polling units. In respect of the evidence of PW54, the police officer, the tribunal, again, agreed with the respondents that he had no locus to be a witness and that his evidence was worthless as he could not tie his testimony to any of the documents he presented. The tribunal held that the petitioners merely dumped documents on the tribunal without relevant oral evidence.
3.02 In making these pronouncements, the tribunal relied on the many decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal which have determined the manner such evidence as given by the petitioners should be evaluated. The tribunal, therefore, dismissed the petition.
3.03 At the Court of Appeal, the petitioners complained that the tribunal was in error in dismissing the petition and, in particular, in denouncing the presence of PW54 as a witness and rejecting his evidence. The respondents offered opposing arguments.
3.04 The Court of Appeal, in its majority decision of 4-1, agreed with the petitioners that PW54 was a competent witness, but affirmed the decision of the tribunal that his evidence had no probative value. It dismissed the appeal. The minority judgment upheld the complaints of the petitioners and held that they had proved their case, but it did not say, significantly, the number of additional votes which the petitioners proved in order to show that they had scored majority of lawful votes cast in the election.
3.05 The petitioners, aggrieved with the decision of the Court of Appeal, appealed to the Supreme Court. Ihedioha, aggrieved with the portion of the decision that PW54 was a competent witness, also appealed to the Supreme Court, and his appeal was numbered as SC.1470/2019.
3.06 As stated above, on 14.1.2020, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the appeals and delivered a judgment soon after. The petitioners’ appeal was allowed, but Ihedioha’s appeal was struck out.
4. REMARKS
4.01 In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court did not state the new scores which the petitioners proved from the 388 polling units, especially having regard to the following facts: (a) that only 28 polling unit agents out of the 388 polling units testified and they admitted that the result sheets had all the vices itemised earlier; (b) that PW11 also admitted over voting apparent in some of the results in the chart in the petition; (c) that more than 90% of result sheets were neither identified nor referred to by any witness; (d) that the respondent, particularly, INEC denied the existence of those result sheets and tendered documentary evidence to show that election did not hold in 388 polling units; (e) that PW54 tendered purported result sheets that were less than the number of polling units mentioned in the petition; (f) that PW54 did not open or read any of the purported result sheets and stated clearly that he did not know the figures or scores they contained or whether there were “mutations or tampering” in them, and that the documents were not submitted to him.
4.02 The Supreme Court did not state that it has computed the new scores, local government by local government, and determined that the petitioners had satisfied the requirements of section 179(2) of the Constitution before it arrived at the decision that Senator Uzodinma should be sworn-in as the new Governor of Imo State.
4.03 In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court ignored well established principles of law which had guided its previous decision in similar cases. Perhaps, it is better to state that the Court turned those decisions upside down thereby creating the impression of double standard.
4.04 Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court easily come to mind. The first decision, SC. 409.2019: PDP v. INEC & Others was delivered on 24.5.2019. It was in respect of Ekiti State governorship election.
4.05 The second decision, SC. 1211/2019: Atiku Abubakar v. INEC (unreported) was delivered on 15.11.2019. At pages 62-63 of the judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated, thus:
Before I conclude on this issue, let me state that whenever documents are tendered from the Bar in election matters, the purport is to speed up the trial in view of time limitation in election matters. Such tendering is not the end itself but a means to an end. The makers of such tendered documents must be called to speak to those documents and be cross-examined on the authenticity of the documents. The law is trite that a party who did not make a document is not competent to give evidence on it. It is also the tested position of the law that where the maker of the document is not called to testify, the document would not be accorded probative value by the Court. That indeed is the fate of Exhibit P80 and P24.
4.06 If the decisions in the above cases were applied to the appeal of Senator Uzodinma and APC, the outcome would have been a dismissal of the appeal. It is a matter of concern and conjecture that the Supreme Court, inexplicably, chose to chart a new, strange course in their decision. Unfortunately, the Court did not indicate that it would give reasons for the decision. That would have offered the Court the opportunity to explain the basis of the decision and state the fate of the long established principles of law it had led the legal profession and the public to believe were trite.
4.07 In the absence of the explanation, it would be difficult for practitioners and the litigating public to respect decisions of the Supreme Court thereby encouraging disregard of the rule of law.
4.08 Before concluding this piece, it is needful to draw attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in SC. 1384/2019: Ugwumba Uche Nwosu v. Action Peoples Party (unreported) delivered on 20.12.2019, during the pendency of the appeals being discussed.
4.09 The first two paragraphs of the judgment are remarkable. They read:
This Appeal deals purely with the issue of double nomination. The Appellant contested and won the primaries conducted by All Progressives Congress [APC] on 16/10/2018; and his name was forwarded to INEC (fourth Respondent) as gubernatorial candidate of APC at the general election slated for 9/3/2019.
But the Appellant also contested and won the Primaries conducted by another Party, Action Alliance, and on 2/11/2018, he was issued with “a Certificate of Return & Confirmation as the duly elected Governorship Candidate” of the said Party.
4.10 The Supreme Court, therefore, held that by “allowing himself to be nominated by two political parties, the Appellant, not only did an act that is not authorised by law, which is illegal, the Electoral Act clearly says in its Section 37, that such a nomination “shall be void”.
4.11 The implication of the above judgment is that Uche Nwosu was the nominated candidate of APC in the election, but that his nomination became void because he had secured “double nomination”. It followed that if Uche Nwosu was factually the candidate of APC in the election, Senator Uzodinma could not have, validly, also be the APC candidate in the same election.
4.12 It was for this reason that Emeka Ihedioha filed an application at the Supreme Court, which was argued on 14.1.2020, contending that Senator Uzodinma and APC’s appeal should be struck out because of the implication in the above-named Supreme Court judgment.
4.13 In the judgment, the Court summarily dismissed Ihedioha’s application on the false basis that the matter of double nomination was a pre-election decision and it could not be applied to the appeal which was a post-election litigation.
4.14 The Supreme Court, in this instance, chose technicality at the expense of substantial justice and denied Ihedioha the benefit of an established legal outcome.
4.15 The effect of the foregoing is that the judgment of the Supreme Court does not reflect the justice of the case. The electorate in Imo State have been short changed.
Residents of Owerri, the Imo state capital, swarmed around Rev. Fr. Ejike Mbaka’s car, as he arrived for Senator Hope Uzodinma’s swearing-in ceremony on Wednesday.
Mbaka was one of the guests at the event held at the Imo State Government House.
The crowd continued to hail Mbaka over his ‘prophecy’ which had come to pass.
The controversial cleric predicted that Uzodinma, the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), will take over from Emeka Ihedioha as Imo Governor in 2020.
His prophecy came to pass on Tuesday, as the Supreme Court sacked Ihedioha and declared Uzodinma as the Governor of Imo State.
Other guests included the National Chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomhole, former Governor of the State, Senator Rochas Okorocha and governorship candidate of APGA in the 2019 governorship election, Ifeanyi Ararume.
Several APC chieftains, including APC National Vice Chairman, Emma Eneukwu, APC National Organising Secretary, Emma Ibediro, the Speaker of the Imo House of Assembly Chiji, as well as Ahmed Gulak and Andy Uba, were also in attendance.
When Kettle Call Pot Black…
That is when you look & realize that both are black.
Make Sure Every Nigerian See this video
Nigerians who are victims of Nigerian are the ones fighting and killing themselves in defense of their very oppressors.
Pan–Yoruba organisation, Afenifere, has admonished the six South West governors not to bow to pressure to abolish the security project otherwise known as Amotekun.
Leader of the group, Reuben Fasoranti, in a statement declared that it has come to stay. Fasoranti said the silence of the Presidency on the matter showed that Abubakar Malami, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice. spoke the mind of the president.
“I think he is talking for somebody. Silence means consent, he is talking the mind of the Presidency, that is what they want. It confirms the suspicion that they are trying to protect some interests here in the South West. I agree with that too, so that they can go on and do what they like with impunity. It is unfortunate” Fasoranti said
However, elder statesman and former national interim chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Bisi Akande, said he had already begun discussions with Yoruba elders on the way forward in the wake of the controversies surrounding the initiative.
He declined giving details of the nature of the discussion to the media.
He said the ruling party would not allow the opposition to take advantage of the crisis against it (the APC) in subsequent elections.
In the same vein, 18 Yoruba groups, under the aegis of Egbe Ifokanbale Ile Yoruba, which is a branch of Yoruba World Congress under the leadership of a foremost historian, Banji Akintoye, have also backed the South West governors on the launch of Western Nigeria Security Network (WNSN), codenamed, Operation Amotekun.
The groups made the stand known during a 20th year posthumous celebration of a chieftain of National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), Ola Oni, at Western House, Secretariat, Agodi, Ibadan.
A social activist, Laoye Sanda, who spoke on behalf of Egbe Ifokanbale Ile Yoruba, said the group is “in support of Amotekun. The fact has been made that Amotekun is not an authentic police as such. But it is to help in security issues and intelligence gathering.
“If Operation Amotekun is illegal, the president would have called the whole hierarchy of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to call the South West APC governors to order because APC is controlling five of the six states in the region, while the Peoples Democratic Party is controlling only one.”
Besides, the Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON), under the leadership of Ayodeji Abass-Aleshinloye, also declared support for the security outfit.
In a speech delivered by Abass-Aleshinloye during a get-together and review of 2019 activities of the association at ALGON House Ibadan, yesterday, it said:. “ALGON supports Amotekun as we have been doing to create and support any move to address meaningfully, security of life and property as this is the fundamental objective and duty of governments, at all levels, because without security there cannot be governance or development,” the association said.
Special Assistant to Governor Rotimi Akeredolu of Ondo State on Special Duties and Strategies, Doyin Adebowale, said: “It is not our own place to engage in any controversy with anybody. Malami is the AGF and Minister of Justice. But his office cannot make law for Nigeria, and his office cannot legislate on what we do.
“He is an appointee of President Buhari. Governor Akeredolu and his colleagues in the South West were elected and they are the chief security officers of their respective states. So, it is laughable that somebody who claims to be a lawyer, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria at that, will be talking as if he enjoys certain powers to pronounce illegality or otherwise of any action. His office is not the court of law. With what he said, he has overstepped his boundaries obviously.
Regardless, former Lagos State commissioner of Police, Abubakar Tsav, said the creation of more security outfit across the country will amount to proliferation of arms and may one day lead to war.
“It is a dangerous thing to do. The establishment of Amotekun is mainly to fight Fulani herdsmen. This is wrong. Some of these herdsmen are Nigerians and also require state protection.
Tsav said it was wrong for anyone to compare Amotekun with Hisbah and JTF explaining that Hisbah is to enforce Sharia law while JTF is to help the military in the fight against insurgency.
