 Tonight we discuss as human rights lawyer Fermi Falunov-Bucks calls for televising of the presidential election tribunal proceedings. And the United States Embassy and the European Union Election Observation Mission in Nigeria condemns in its entirety the spate of violence, voter intimidation and suppression that marked the March 18 governorship and State House of Assembly elections. This is Plus Politics. My name is Nyam Gul Aghaji. You're welcome back. It's still Plus Politics and my name is Nyam Gul Aghaji. Fermi Falunov, a human rights lawyer has said Nigerian courts are capable of delivering justice in election-related matters. Recently, some politicians and legal practitioners have raised doubts about the integrity of the Nigerian judicial system to dispense justice in the presidential election petition filed by the Labour Party LP and the People's Democratic Party PDP against the victory of Bola Tinobu, the president-elect. There have also been calls for the proceedings of the tribunal to be televised. Falunov expressed his support for the calls to televised the tribunal proceedings, adding that it will enhance the credibility of the judiciary. Joining us live to discuss this is Ayur Ademi Luye, a legal practitioner, and also Tunji Abdul Hamid, a legal practitioner and member of the PDP. Thank you for joining us. First of all, Ayur. Tunji is good to have you on the show. Hello Tunji, good evening. Good evening. I'm QCC. Ayur, I'm BT. Thank you so much. Nice to see you again, sir. Tonight, I have Leonard Gentleman. I wonder what I will be in a little while. Okay, well, we're discussing the judiciary and the fact that people are calling for the proceedings to be televised so that, like Falunov said, it will give credibility to the proceedings. First of all, how did we get here that in cases where we feel they are sensitive, we need to be at the courts before we can trust that the courts will do what they need to do? I'd like to take your comments, Gentleman, beginning from you, Tunji. Yeah, I think it's not about being open before we can trust the court. We are trying to move ahead and move forward. This is not new in the world. All over the world, proceedings are televised publicly and there's nothing in our law which is that court proceedings should not be public or should not be televised. So I don't see anything bad in it. But you see, where we want to do things and want people to believe more in the system, allow people to see it more and make it more transparent so that people will see the credibility in it. When we get there, I don't ask, I have my suspicion regarding the publicity of that or what that advice in the WaterCorp, the proceedings will change much in terms of what is apparent. Okay, what is your comment? Thank you so much. First of all, I think your question is that why did we get to this point that we have to approach the courts to obtain justice in the natural matters? For me, I think the courts are meant to... The question was, why did we get to the point where we cannot trust the courts enough to do their job and then just tell us what it is? Because now everybody is now saying that we need to see what is happening so that we can believe them more. Thank you so much. I think that is exactly the direction of your question. Now, naturally the courts are meant to arbitrate in disputes between parties and then resolve those disputes in every way. Now, because it's main, the confidence of litigants in the courts is also very, very important. Over the years, possibly through a whole lot of challenges the confidence of the Nigerian litigating public has been eroded in our courts and that is just the truth. We want to face it and that's why you have made that kind of assertion even as it may. As it is now, the fact that people are eager to know the proceedings of the predatory election tribunal is a very well-called development because for me, the interest of the public in that process is even a push for the bench to also be transparent, to also be a fear in every way in determining the election petition in the coming period. Ok. Otunji, do you think the reason it has not been done in Nigeria because we can see in other countries, maybe even neighboring Ghana and so many other countries that are not calling themselves the giant of Africa, they're doing this, they're televising some of their proceedings, court proceedings, but it's not done in Nigeria. What do you think might have been the challenges that made us not to be televising until this time that we are trying to call for the television of these proceedings? I think it's not the first time in Nigeria it may not be the entire proceedings. I remember the presidential tribunal, our Supreme Court judgment, regarding I think the current president and the I can't remember, who has transmitted their life. We watched it on TV, it was there. So I think it's not new. Maybe probably they want us to continue in that line and do more of it. It's not new. It's a place we need to move to. We need to grow beyond where we are and we need to see it. I don't know the, like I said earlier, I am not aware of any law which prevents the court proceedings from being transmitted to the public of the television life. It's as a practice, as a lawyer, over 20 years at the bar, I know most times they don't allow media to cover court proceedings because they are not proceeding. They can only cover it before the court starts sitting. They want the court to start sitting, they will say they should stop recording. I don't know that they are not behind it because I am not aware of any law. We say that cannot happen. So if you are not going through that, look, let's transmit this proceeding for people to see it and then believe in it. I don't believe, I know that I have the reason. I am aware that look, there is this principle that says if a scene is believing or just seems not only to be done, there must also be scenes to have been done. There are doubts whether, even when it's done publicly, whether the layman, who are non-lawyers, who are in court, who are watching it, will even understand the proceedings. We change the mentality of people who are not going to do the writing. I don't believe so because the judgment will not believe in inside the court. So the judgment will not be in the midst of the public. They will still go inside and write the judgment. So they can do whatever they want to do, if they don't want to be write. So I think the transparency of the proceedings is as far as I am concerned. So I am not saying it's not good. I am not saying it's bad. But it may, as far as I am concerned, may not change anything differently. If the attitude of those who are the lawyers, the judges, however, they are not interested in doing the writing. It will change. They also have reservations. Thank you. My response is that the nation of the presidential election is different from the regular courts. Is a thank you for that. Now the tribunal is specifically set up to determine presidential election petitions. The regular courts, as we are aware, they have varying degrees of jurisdiction. As we will have to say, for instance, the mainstream courts can determine a specific level of cases. The high courts can determine those cases. So they are different from the regular courts. And that's why they won't label them as a tribunal. For me, I welcome the fathers. The proceedings should be televised. Because the nation of the tribunal itself has made it very... There's no... There's no bar that stops the televising of those proceedings. And the fact that, of course, the layman may not be able to understand the language of the court, but the fact is that people will see for themselves what is taking place right there at tribunal. I'll give you a very good example. I was co-cancel to the SS protesters at the tribunal on... They called it the legal state judicial panel on the restitution for victims of SS later abuses. Then that tribunal was also giving a second assignment of basically the leaky massacre. That tribunal's proceedings was televised. Because then the fact was it was so blurry that people wanted to know the truth about what happened on the 20th of October. It was a procedure of international interest and dimension. The same thing applies to this traditional tribunal. It's a tribunal. It's... We now call it sweet-generated proceedings. Although it's by itself. It cuts itself and says, I open my own doors. The tribunal can open its doors to the media. It's even important now, giving the weight of the emotional forces behind this presidential election petition. It's not just people handling for power, so to speak. In fact, the unity otherwise of the country is hanging on this election petition as it were. Okay. Let me just take you back to the NSAS thing that you just mentioned. Do you think opening these proceedings to the public, as it was done in that instance, helped in whatever was done, in the success or otherwise of the... Thank you so much for that question. It did. It did. And I will give you what is why it did. People were closely following the proceedings from day to day. So, by the time witnesses were being called, people were saying, really, victims. People were really shot at the left gate on that night. All the lies and falsehoods about nobody died and everything were erased. Nobody knows that really there was a shooting at that night. Now, I like to that was that the Tribunal itself was now under immense public prayer to speak the truth. And it did. The Tribunal delivered the reports where it was properly called or upon that night. In massacre. Of course, government came out with the white paper. That's another story entirely. But the publicity of the proceedings brought the weight of public prayer to bear. And then, of course, the Tribunal to determine justice accordingly. And it did. Okay, Atunji, the bone of contention here... Let me not call it bone of contention. The issue here is that people are interested. And whether you say the outcome will be influenced or not, but people are interested, if you say it may not influence the outcome of whatever is going to happen at the Tribunals, what do you think or how do you think the people can follow so that their emotional attachment to that thing or that case or those cases as the case may be could be quenched. Emotional attachment could be satisfied as it is. What do you suggest that can be done? Daddy, let me make myself clear. I am not opposed to public... I know that. He said so. Let me also state clearly here that it's different between that SS Tribunal and this particular Tribunal that I was talking about. That SS Tribunal is not made up of lawyers. The panellists are not even judges. Most of the judges of them. The chairman of the Tribunal is a judge. Others are not judges. Some are not even lawyers. And that SS Tribunal, what is being done there is part-finding. So people can relate and they can follow. And let people agree that that's from the city of that SS Tribunal made a lot of difference or what. Did they reflect in the outcome? No. After the display of the evidence or whatever before the call, we were... There were different reports that were being told that this is not our... So my point is that I am not against televising the presidential tribunal procedure. If we are going to televise, I will ask that it's been televised for televising sake for people to just watch and see just like we are watching African magic. Is it for us to understand the procedure? I bet you only a few people understand the procedure because this is a business for lawyers. There are languages that are things that will be done in that tribunal. There are some laymen who even interpret it differently. They won't understand it and they will start bringing out different stories that are not even related to the case itself. They are by putting the judges under pressure as to... In other words, media... There are some things that are being called will be different what will be reported outside or will be different for what people will be arguing outside. Meanwhile, when the cause now comes out and gives a judgment, they will say they've taken money or they are partial or something like that. So what I'm trying to say in that case is that look, the transparency of that... Make it... Telepising it may even make it more complex in a way because it may even create more difficulty for the judges to be able to inform their decision because there will be a lot of interpretation as to what happened in court and negative interpretation because this is where you argue the issue that has nothing to do with law. Most of the official media, you see people who are not lawyers, arguing with you as lawyers, using common sense to talk and law is not about common sense. People who are not proceeding and they are using common sense to watch it and they are thinking law is about common sense. Law is not common sense. Law is law. There are things that look absorbed. They are in law. That's the way it is. So they will not understand what is going on. So if you want to mislead the public some people can simply bring out a skit and all those... What do they might do? Subscribe, subscribe. I can't remember the whatever now. It's time to interpret what happened in court and thereby mislead the public and give us a wrong interpretation and impression of what happened in court. So I am saying for looking at it's sake whether it will change the outcome of it or it will change from what we have seen today I doubt if it will change anything. The judgment will see the reason inside, not in the public, not among the public, not within the public. When they are writing that judgment they probably will not be there. So they can write whatever they want to write and if it is at the court of appeal they can say go to Supreme Court. If at the Supreme Court they will say go to Baba God. So that scares me as an individual knowing that no matter how much I look no matter how hard I look the judges or the learned gentlemen can just still do whatever it doesn't matter what I feel because if you say it is useless as it were to the judges I didn't say so. I didn't say so. Let me. If you say that they are attending the proceedings. What you pay is not the issue. What you feel you may not understand the proceedings you may feel something else. People will want to do nothing in the courts. Taking your rights. You know, among the people that will be watching will be also judges that are not on that panel will be lawyers that are not on that panel will be the international community that is not on that panel. Don't you think it will have something to do with the outcome of this? Because some... Okay, let's take for instance Nigerians do not understand how for instance the senate president went back to the senate and was voted. How did that interpretation how was it given? We didn't know because we were not in the courts. We don't know how it was interpreted. You will not get the answer by watching the proceedings. You will not get it. No, I'm trying to talk about education. Let me... So when do we start to begin to understand the workings of the judiciary? So we should just leave them? Mr, with respect to my friend, I think what we need to... the balance we need to strike is the fact that while we are all on the same page about televising the proceedings, what he is trying to explain maybe is because he didn't get it. I want to break it down so that he is speaking in a high leg at times is that naturally the language of the courts is not the normal language we use in daily conversations and exchange. So, of course, language of the courts is... by the fact that it is different and it's totally unique in itself would be a communication barrier for the audience to understand. But that does not, at the same time, does not mean that we should deprive the public, the general public of the opportunity of people are as seen for themselves, hearing for themselves what is happening. Of course, they cannot consult lawyers close to them. Mr. He Esquire, I was the proceedings of today. I was hearing what is the meaning of that. Of course, as you have said, it's also not only non-lawyers that will be in the audience. There will be lawyers too. There will be third judges. It's a platform for education that people who want to aspire to become lawyers. For instance, the Oputa Pane was one of the major and it was also the televised proceedings. Of course, as my other friend has said, it was the Oputa Pane and the SS Pane were not in total judicial courts in themselves. At least they are not made up of judges appointed by the National Judicial Council, judicial officers. You are not like a jury, so to speak. But at the same time, the televised scene of those proceedings sparked interest of a lot of young people in reading law, including myself. You could see the adorabration of senior advocates. People like Ganefa Eme, we got their blessing. They had their adorabration, their submission in court, their advocacy. Those kind of erudition will inspire a lot of people. So it's like a learning fit for all of us. The televised proceedings will turn the tribunal, the Florida tribunal to a big classroom for the entire country. Ayo, why I agree with you? Ayo, we need to understand the purpose why they are calling for telephasing the presidential tribunal or whatever, proceedings. The reason for me is to ensure that people have confidence in the outcome of that proceeding. So that to me is the reason why they are calling for that. So that there will be enough transparency. People will see what is being done and they will say, okay, from what we have seen in this court, things are done the way it's been done and therefore we are. The only thing we will see when we are in court is to see how people are being asked questions, how answers are being given, not how judgment will be written, not how... You see, the issue of whether people are satisfied or not is an emotional thing. People who are less, in fact, that's why we are woman beings. People who cannot be satisfied. If you are satisfied, I will not be satisfied. If you are satisfied, you will not be satisfied. But the forum must be set up in which we are able to now see that if there is a basis for national discourse, because when we watch football, if football is also secretly played, nobody will say, Nigeria was beaten 1-0. Whether Nigeria will beat those people in possession, you don't know. Even if it is a simple and narrow mistake, you cannot see. But if you saw the old game and you saw that it was just a mistake of one defender that cost Nigeria a long goal at the end of 19 minutes, you know you know that. You know you know that. You know what I call for pre-election matter. Together in court, you know that. You see our time asking us questions about together in court. Outside the court, I don't understand what happened in that case. He tries to set this up. My worry, my worry, my worry is that it will create more pressure on judges and people that will carry longer news will create bad impression of the outcome of the judgment. What they think in their own opinion is what they will be expecting as judgments. Meanwhile, what they are thinking is not even the writing. And again, you see our people sometimes when you go to court. You see lawyer who speaks English is more beautiful than my own. You know me, I'm from the village. And my intonation is not I don't change it. I don't fake it. I speak the way I am. I'm from Indonesia. People in Indonesia. And that's why I speak. So you see the people who speak English. People who speak for one hour, two hours. All right. They will be at the place after being. Somebody who speaks just one second or that person will have made the point that they will see that one. They will say that man said a lot of things because he doesn't look at him. All right. All right. Tungi. Tungi, are you? Tungi and are you? Well, I'm not the learned man but I put it to you that we will understand at least 80% of it. Because for instance, the answers thing, they'll put a panel thing. We may not have understood every sentence and every word but we understand what has happened. And even the answers, the white paper was different from what the panel came up with. The people themselves are better for it. They understand where the government is lying or telling the truth because no matter how it is, you can't speak a hundred words and not speak the one I will understand at least in further meaning from anything. We may not have the nitty gritty. We may not have the details like I just said. We could ask the learned people to further tell us but it will form a basis for discussion, a national discourse this happened, that happened. Now crept by us in the mind of the judges. I don't think my problem is I don't think my problem is my problem is my problem is my only problem is my only problem is the pressure you are seeing. The only pressure you are seeing is the pressure on the judges maybe to still do what they are doing and you're not seeing pressure on them to even say the truth because sometimes they need these eyes to say the truth. You are aware you are aware you are aware you are aware that course is not about that course it's not about the truth it's about presentation of documents and parts and evidence it's not about the truth it's about who can who can lay what you call it but in some instances that I've given you if you have a bad presentation you lose Tunji I'm not the guest here but in some of the instances that I've given you was it about the law or the truth? No, get him right No, get him right The answer is no comparison with course No, no, no, no For instance the senate president going back to the to the senate was that law or truth? It was about law So the law gave him the chance to go back What the court the interpretation because I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm not Therefore, the spectrum is moving. Meanwhile, they are seeing different things. Different what are happening in courts. So if you want to watch proceedings, go to court and watch it. And let people just be at stress. And then they are not banned from entering court. Okay, thank you. I do hope that Nigerians will be able to decipher just like every other country that televises, we shouldn't be the only ones that will go to court and come out with something that is not right. I'm just hoping that. So just to satisfy the curiosity of Nigerians, like you said, everybody here has accepted the fact that it will be good to build confidence in the judiciary, even though, like you said, there may not be a favourable outcome as it were just by watching the proceedings. No, not favourable. The outcome may not change the mind of those who are banned. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. It's unfortunate that we'll have to wrap up now. And I'd just like to say thank you to you. Are you also coming on the programme? And Tunji for coming on the programme. I knew it was going to get to this point. Too late, gentlemen. With just me and Lema. Thank you so much for coming. And we do hope that Nigeria becomes better and better by every day. Thank you. Thank you so much. So we'll take a short break now. When we return, we'll be looking at other matters. Stay with us.