….Says 25% FCT issue should not have received any serious attention
Constitutional lawyer, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, said the Presidential Election Petition PEPC verdict was explicit and detailed enough making it difficult to fault any aspect of it.
Yadudu, a former legal adviser to late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, told Daily Trust in a phone interview that he, however, did not think this would stop the petitioners from appealing against the decision though he did not see their appeal yielding a different result.
Speaking specifically on the tribunal’s decision as regards the issue of FCT, Yadudu said it was never an issue that should have received any serious attention by the petitioners’ legal team.
On the tribunal’s decision as regards the issue of FCT, Yadudu said it was never an issue that should have received any serious attention by the petitioners’ legal team.
“You know the whole thing started with the comment of the VP candidate of Labour Party, who is not a legal practitioner and it was amplified by social media warriors and I felt they (legal team) just wanted to test the waters with it”, he said, adding that it was never in the minds of the framers of the Constitution for the FCT to be treated as a super entity with a superior status compared with other states and in view of that, the interpretation by the tribunal was apt in the sense that the FCT should only be read along with the 36 states, which then means the winner must satisfy the 2/3rd requirement in 37 entities if FCT is considered as a state.
He said the tribunal was very sound with their explanations and reasons to support this position and thus he expect that this should put the matter of FCT to rest in the context of determining the winner of the presidential election, adding that he does not expect that even this ground would get a different attention at the apex court if it is a subject of appeal.
On the alleged double nomination of VP Shettima, Yadudu said the tribunal was correct in holding that the matter was a pre-election matter and as such only a candidate that participated in the party’s primary could have challenged this, thereby rendering the LP as a stranger.
Yadudu said he agrees with the tribunal that forfeiture is not the same as conviction, saying in the US where the said forfeiture happened as it is in Nigeria, a conviction can only be arrived at after a defendant is arraigned, tried and found guilty.
He said Section 137 (e) of the 1999 Constitution also provides that a candidate shall not be qualified to the office of President … “if within a period of 10 years before the election he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty. ”
Yadudu said looking at this provision, even if the forfeiture was being argued as a conviction, it wouldn’t have been sufficient to disqualify Tinubu as the time frame had exceeded what the Constitution provides as a disqualification for a candidate.
On what the judgment means for the constitution, the judiciary and Nigerian polity, the senior lawyer cum law lecturer said to be fair to the judiciary, the tribunal has laid out their arguments in a lucid way on how and why the petitioners have not proven their case based on the evidence before it and as such those quick to accuse the judiciary “are unfair on them”.
Referring to the trending “All Eyes on Judiciary” catchphrase before the decision, Yadudu said “The tribunal could not be said to have been found wanting. They did their best based on the evidence presented before them even if social media warriors see it differently.”
He said it would have been best if the petitioners had taken the path of former President Goodluck Jonathan in conceding defeat looking at how they were defeated, but while this and the decision of the tribunal would not preclude appeal and future losers challenging the election results, it behoves on all to respect the decision of the judiciary and allow the rule of law to take its course.
