Trading on Emotions: Lessons from the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal
By Ohayi Ukwueze
The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal had on 6th September delivered judgement on the suit brought before it by candidates of three political parties: the Peoples Democratic Party, Labour Party and the Allied Peoples Movement against the victory of the candidate of All Progressive Congress(APC) and president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, President Ahmed Tinubu. The five-man jury of the tribunal dismissed the petitions of the three parties for want of merit, and upheld Tinubu’s victory. It was a 12 -hour-thirty-minutes judgment delivery.
The judgement was expectedly greeted with mixed feelings. While some Nigerians applauded the tribunal for excellent delivery of judgment, some received it with misgivings, claiming the judges erred, as the judgement came short of their own expectations. All manner of emotions spontaneously overflowed the banks inexorably. At any rate, everyone is entitled to their emotions. They could cry, fume, flounce, yell and bray as would an ass, yet law is impervious to such overflow of emotions. The fact is that had the judgment gone the other way, emotions would still have poured out in commendation and condemnation respectively. So, the law does not look at the face of emotions. As a matter of fact, the law is blind, as shown by the blindfolded maniquine symbol of the judiciary.
Judges have the requisite knowledge, trainings and experiences to guard justice against the tempestuous wave of emotions such as flow these days on the social media, where persons who know nothing about law arrogate to themselves the power to give verdicts, and then put pressure with all manner of media sensationalism on the judiciary to pander to their neophytic whims elicited from primitive animalism, unfiltered and unweighed in the scale of reasonable evidence.
A matter before the court is deemed sub judice and should under no circumstance be discussed outside the court. While the proceedings at the tribunal went on, the issue became the subject of discussions on social media. Some supporters of the Labour Party even came up with a fad, All Eyes on the Judiciary, and not only hoisted billboards to that effect, but also went on to march on the streets. All that was aimed at browbeating the judiciary to give judgment in line with their own expectations. Where is that ever done in all the world? The judges are concerned with the evidence before them. He who alleges, proves. If you are unable to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt, who is to blame? Is the court Father Christmas that they would gift you unmerited judgment?
Take for instance the question of 25% of votes cast in Abuja on which we have seen some ridiculous pontifications all over the place. Since Tinubu did not score up to 25% of the votes cast in Abuja, and Peter Obi did, does that give Obi victory over Tinubu whose total number of votes scored was far more than Obi’ s and Atiku’s? Could Abuja votes alone have given any of them victory? What is so special about the votes cast in Abuja to merit superiority over votes cast elsewhere in Nigeria? What was the intention of the makers of the law? Could anyone have interpreted the law better than those for whom law is their expertise- the judges? When did we lose common sense to emotions?
Nonetheless, the law provides for exploration of exhaustive means to the redemption of justice in case it was miscarried. The appellate court is there for redress, and it is an option the parties could explore further should they think justice was not served. While they do so, let them learn the lesson the judgment offers. Justice is begotten of evidence. You would not bring a weak case to the court lacking in merit and expect it to deliver you justice. If you allege, then prove. Simple.
The lesson also goes to Ndi Labour Party of Enugu State extraction whose stock in trade is lies, fictions, make-believe, propaganda, and all manner of emotional narratives bandied about the social media. Their cases before the Enugu Election Petition Tribunal are too fragile and barren to bear justice. Already, the tribunal has sacked two labour party members of the House of Representatives. Enugu East/ Isi-Uzo Federal Constituency and Aninri/Awgu/ Oji River Federal Constituency have gone to the PDP. The Labour Party candidates have been flawed at the tribunal, and more are yet to come. The fact is that the Enugu Labour Party is an abracadabra of sort, an anything- goes kind of a contraption. Overambitious PDP members who failed at the primaries rushed to Labour Party without due diligence. Even what they pursue at the governorship are mere shadows. Chijioke Edeoga, the governorship candidate of Labour Party, himself clutches at the straws, as he has no good case at all. He could not prove his allegations of NYSC certificate forgery against Peter Mbah and his claim of over-voting at Nkanu East. He messed up his case at the tribunal as he had no evidence to back up his claims. All he did was recruit some social media hallelujah boys and debarred lawyers to hawk fictions and falsehoods on the social media. Edeoga went trading in emotions, and left his petition unproven. When judgment comes against him as would inevitably, the emotional hags would go ranting, and yelling at the judges. That really does not help them. Evidence would have done it for them, if they had any. A slave that sees another slave being cast into an abyss should know that when his own time comes, he too shall be cast the same way.
Trading on emotions over a matter before the court is a most foolish way to pursue justice. Justice would elude their emotions as would their shadows. Cry what you may on the social media, the judges are impregnable to such shenanigans. This is the basic lesson to learn. But would they learn? Desperate overambition has closed all access and passage to learning in the Labour desperadoes. They would take nothing away from the historic moments untill Labour is completely extinguished as it would inevitably.
