Eminent lawyer and human rights activist, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, has expressed concerns regarding certain aspects of the judgments issued by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal . Adegboruwa highlighted two specific judgments in Part 1 of his article titled “The Crucial Verdicts.”
Testimony of Witnesses: Adegboruwa noted that the Court disqualified some witnesses on subpoena because they failed to frontload their witness statements on oath before the Court. He argued that witnesses on subpoena should not be required to depose to any statement on oath because a subpoena is an order of the Court, commanding a witness to appear and testify. By issuing a subpoena, the Court essentially makes the witness a witness of the Court. Adegboruwa questioned how the Court could command a witness to appear and then disqualify them for failing to provide a statement on oath. He raised concerns about this practice and its implications for witnesses summoned to testify.
Electronic Transmission of Results: Another issue highlighted by Adegboruwa was the Court’s judgment on the electronic transmission of election results by INEC. He pointed out that the petitioners argued that had INEC followed its own guidelines for electronic transmission of election results in real-time, it could have prevented manipulation or suppression of results. However, the Court held that INEC was not obligated to electronically transmit results and relied on previous decisions from the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal. Adegboruwa criticized this decision, stating that it failed to consider the unique circumstances of the 2023 presidential election and the significant changes introduced by the 2022 Electoral Act, which emphasized electronic transmission of results. He argued that the Court should have examined INEC’s conduct in the specific election in question and the implications of not adhering to its own guidelines.
Adegboruwa concluded that these judgments raise important issues that require further interpretation and consideration. He also agreed with the Tribunal on the status of FCT Abuja and the nomination of candidates. Regarding the status of FCT Abuja, he supported the Court’s decision that it should not be treated differently from other states in terms of electoral requirements. He also emphasized that the nomination of candidates should be primarily an internal party matter, and lawyers should not seek to relitigate issues that have already been decided by higher courts, such as the Supreme Court.
In his article, Adegboruwa highlighted the need for a thorough examination of these judgments and their potential impact on future elections and the electoral process in Nigeria. He called for a careful review of the Court’s decisions to ensure that they align with the principles of justice, fairness, and electoral transparency.
Credit: The Nigeria Lawyer