Continued from yesterday
The majority of the court in the case of Machina, mainly because of the fact that there is no reason to leave the established precedent, in a negative way. Learned jurists should have been able to interpret the term “fraudulently” as in Machina’s petition because the crux of the case lies in the genuineness or candidacy of the Opposing senator.
It can be argued that even if “fraudulent” has been omitted in the whole process of origin, or ‘illegitimate’ and or ‘false’ have been used instead; the color of the case will still remain materially the same. The crux of the issue is whether an Opposing Senator can legally participate in two primaries in the same election.
The Supreme Court failed to provide a clear answer to this question in this case, instead choosing to waste its energy on an innocuous issue. The existing 2022 Elections Act not only interferes with the double or multiple nomination of a candidate, but also makes it illegal to do so. According to its decision, the Supreme Court appeared to clothe the illegality of APC with legality by declaring Lawan as the genuine candidate at the expense of Machina’s constitutionally guaranteed rights. Why the court studied the technical path instead of substantial justice remains in the exclusive knowledge. However, an important concern is what value can be applied to the technicality of the administration of justice?
The public outrage at the court was expected to be gratuitous and even humiliating. As Nigerians try to forget the illogicality that was perpetrated in the Imo State Governorship Election Petition, where the fourth person in the contest was declared the eventual winner, the Apex Court has only succeeded in opening a fresh can of worms in Machina. case. Reacting to this troubling development, the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) said the following: “Nigeria is full of legal absurdities. We must be ready to speak the truth at all times. Justice must not be based on legal magic that can only be understood by those with a supernatural spirit. Let justice be seen to be done.
Any justice that has a question mark in the minds of reasonable members of the public, even if it is done with the best legal intentions, is not justice.
In the important case of Akeredolu V. Abraham, the Supreme Court stated: “Technicalities in the administration of justice close Justice. People deny justice for any reason, especially technicalities, grudge against the administration of justice, therefore, it is better that the case be heard and determined on merit rather than leaving the Court with the shield of ‘victory’ obtained only. technically.” Strangely, the same court ignored its own advice in the case of (Machina) in the passage.
Similarly, it is shameful and disrespectful for the ruling APC party to arbitrarily replace the nominated candidate with the candidate of their choice. While the conduct of the APC in this regard may not be unusual for the party, it needs to be emphasized that any party system that allows such malpractices does not have the morals to lead the nation. Political parties must embrace internal democracy, and allow it to flourish, as the first step in seeking to serve the larger community; after all, you can’t give what you don’t have. The Supreme Court should have come down heavily on the APC but chose to descend into the arena.
Judges, by their oath of office, are charged with deciding matters brought before them with discretion and judgment. They are required to demonstrate neutrality and fairness when deciding cases. Due to the sensitive nature of electoral and political matters, judges should not leave the fate of elected representatives to power play by political gladiators. Such a matter, like any other, must be determined on the Constitutional threshold of just fear. The court must always strive to balance the competing rights of the parties because if the principle of fair hearing on which justice is founded becomes an illusion, what is the point of the court?
With all due respect, the majority decision in APC V. Machina is not good case law because it is clearly one-sided and lacks merit in many respects. The judgment was not helpful in countering insinuations in many quarters that the superior court was compromised. In 2020, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Offenses Commission (ICPC) in a report titled: “Nigerian Corruption Index: A pilot survey report” ranked the Nigerian judiciary as a corrupt institution. The report says that: “judicial bribery is one of the most egregious forms of grand corruption because it can undermine the essence of judicial dispute resolution. Follow-up discussions show that cases of direct requests and bribe offers are usually related to electoral issues. In 2023, the agency anticorruption specifically classifies the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals as “High Corruption Risk Institutions.”
Now that the country is flooded with new election petitions arising from the 2023 presidential election, with more complaints expected from last Saturday’s gubernatorial election, the court is given a golden opportunity to redeem its tarnished image, and reassert itself as an impartial arbiter ready to take responsibility. the last hope for the common man. The judiciary must rise to the occasion and give the public confidence that the Permanent Voter Card (PVC) is indeed their power to decide who governs. Courts must bear in mind the fact that adherence to technicalities rather than merits is unfair. Moreover, it represents a danger to the entire country that the courts will lose appeals as the last hope of the common man.
If the average Nigerian has lost faith in the ability of the judiciary to deliver substantial justice, the only thing that can appeal to him is to help himself. Nigeria must not be allowed to get into such confusion, as it could lead to anarchy. That’s why, although the task is sometimes hercules, litigations must be determined in a way that justice will actually appear to have been done, in the minds of enough members of the community.