 Govnersheet Disports Suplimweekor Delivers gegnau Validates the Electoral Vitues of all Eight Governors & Govna Court Costs by 60% Not Travils Alone Dplayj Boina Obag Hafis is plus Politics Amd what attack security The Supreme Court has delivered mekoma judgments in eight separate governorship election legal battles. The states where the governors knew the effects Akano, Plato, Bauchi, Cross River and Nassarawa among authors. Notable among the political parties are the all-progressive congresses, PCP, Democratic Party, PDP, Neu Najia Pupus Party and MPP, Labour Party, LP and Social Democratic Party, SDP. The governors who instated a Babaji Desongou Lu, Lagos State, Alex Oti, Abia State, Francis Uifru, Ebon State and Basi, who two of Cross River states had their elections validated. Authors are Caleb Mutfwang, Plato State, Bala Mohamed Bauchi State, Daudalawa, Zemfara State and Abai Yusuf, Kano State. The senior advocate of Nigeria and human rights and public interest lawyer Jibrin Okutepa and public affairs analyst Barista Justice Webo. Gentlemen, welcome to Plus Politics. Hello gentlemen, I can see... Good evening Barista. Okay, Barista Justice. Yes. How would you interpret the judgments of the Supreme Court for the eight governors whose electoral victories were validated today? What would be your summary interpretation to start with? Well, the truth of the matter is that I see it as a judgment in good direction. But if you look at the ratio, the ratio in the judgments so far, I think it is in harmony with the norm of the election and the enemies and aspirations of the people. That's the most important thing. And again, I would also say that I think the Supreme Court has somehow begun to... The kingdom is quote by the people. Because earlier before now, Nigeria has always been the territory as a problem of the country. But in fact, it created a lot of issues, a lot of tension. But I tell God that the Supreme Court in his wisdom has done the rightful, and I believe that Nigerians will be happy with the judgments so far. Because at the time it was more like a electoral victory and not like in the hands of the Supreme Court. Which is not supposed to be so. But I think so far I am comfortable with the judgments of the Supreme Court. A very cynical friend of mine today said that this is a validation of phogocracy. And I asked him what he meant by phogocracy. He said that what could the Supreme Court have done regarding Karno and perhaps Plato knowing what a contrary judgment could elicit in those two states. And so was it a case of jurisprudential timidity given the fact that especially in the case of Karno state the court of first instance, the tribunal, the court of appeal have given judgments with good reasons to the effect that the incumbent ought to be defenestrated and yet the Supreme Court just found some almost like reviewing the evidence that have been spoken to at the two previous courts. Like reviewing the evidence at the Supreme Court to find a way of justifying the validation of the election of the Karno state governor. What's your take on that maybe cynical reasoning but is worth looking into? No, for me it's not a matter of jurisprudential. You see, I keep on telling people that as lawyers and as military people of God there are certain things to look at. And they do let us also understand it first. Especially at the Supreme Court. Any judge will look at this based on public safety public security and public stability. Because there may be a partial quality law it will complicit as it supposed to be. So I am looking at it as that direction because if you remember before now there was so much question especially in Karno state because people were so kind that everybody believed that anything can happen. But I can't go that the Supreme Court has come to believe that. So for me, it's not a matter of jurisprudential. It's a matter of talking about the law. It's a matter of doing the right thing. It's a matter of doing the right thing. It's a matter of doing what the law should do and what it should be. And again, the Yanis and that question of the people. If you remember we have been playing party politics for so long. This issue will not take off. And that is what we are having and that is the problem we are getting. So I am not interested in the Karno democracy by law. And I can't go this way because I am giving that back to me the way it should be. If not maybe by now we still have the situation. So it's not a matter of doing the right thing. Because if you talk about doing the right thing and getting to the Karno party there is nothing which we are just talking about. So we want you to look on this judgment. You can take to read the judgment. You can make sure this is end by. And also you can read this too. That is the two things any good liar would look in every judgment before you draw your conclusion. So for me, it is okay. But beyond the judgments of the Supreme Court on this governorship cases there is a major dysfunctionality in our electoral system that is yearning for attention and reform. Because if the electoral process were to be tidy enough would not be in a position where it is now taking the Supreme Court to be the final place of settlement of electoral contestations between our politicians. We know and people listening or watching should know that litigation in cases of disputations is also part of our electoral process. I am not one of those journalists or broadcasters who tend to want to give the impression that it is better to litigate than to cause anarchy and chaos in society. And you know one cannot but we would really like to see our electoral contestations end on the day the ballot were cast and the politicians shake themselves and governance commences. How would you respond to that? I would like to agree with you on this issue. The problem we are having is this. Let's all be realistic to ourselves. And the first is this. The electoral system is not tidy enough as I am confined. And again, the independent electoral commission I like. Yes. We say they are independent but actually in the actual part are they actually independent. Because the truth is this. The people from the system and the system is apolitical. If the system is free and safe anything you may want to go to electoral tribunal or go to court because when you are in a system that is free and safe that is not within community people need to go to court for anything. But the problem we have here is because the people do not even trust the system. The people do not even trust the politicians. And the ending as I said to you is not even independent. So that is the problem we have. It's not like one way or two. As I am confined I keep on recommending but if you want to get it right there are so many things we need to do. Our electoral laws there are too many laws in our electoral laws. Secondly, if you remember we talked about the as of this way our electoral reform committee if that can be put in place all these things can be checkmated. But unfortunately I think the people we have here is the politicians. That is our problem. And unfortunately like I keep on saying the issue of winner takes all he who plays the pipe he plays the tune. For me I have always you could say that of the fact that depending to law appoint the election man. Personally yes because if that is just to do who begins to begins to scream little issue changes I know you may not go to church but if you look at people let's say like till this I don't think we are dramatically progressing we are not progressing like that what you are saying is not according to the law of the initial reform and it is so unfortunate and that is why the court has to step in here ordinarily to the state or the country it is so unfortunate you know it is quite ironic that the immediate past president and indeed the incumbent president when they were in opposition as opposition leaders were vociferously in support of the vociferously in support of the recommendations of the West Committee being transplanted into reforms in electoral law and yet president Muhammad Wari had eight years and barely did you know pretty little to bring about the enactment of so many of the reforms that he literally went on the street with the incumbent president to assert that they put they made laws so why is there politicians this seemingly hypocritical opportunistic they speak with one voice when they are in opposition when they are where the ought to effect the changes that they had earlier agitated for they suddenly become they suddenly become either potency or particularly you know deceitful am I being a bit too emotional you are not my brother but that is the truth you see I keep on telling you that the major problem we have is what I call lack of necessity of proposal and that has been our problem lack of necessity of proposal because if you look at it like you said Wari has been there for eight years now for the people who have potential my brother doesn't take any kill for them to do the need for but the problem here is this no complains know that these politicians may work against them because one day he doesn't matter who is there he doesn't matter who is in the name of herself but if you are very wise you have to put it enough to always say the truth and to always do the need for because when I would like it or not we are putting a precedent and no precedent are we setting a good one or a bad one and any of these complains like you are like this like you are like that and you see I have to say this also that we are having today we are being forced to change yes I was going to say this we are being forced to change I say this earlier in one for life most of the time we are having today like 90% of people we are having today and for people from from age of 18 years about from age of 50 to 80 like you know from a generation and I don't know why I don't know people that have been forced from this country people who have that age in the year and the money of this country they could do they don't want us to enjoy what they enjoy because I know we can learn we have a great place to give good governance but Mr Justice let's come back to the primary issue we are looking at this evening and that is for me do you think that these cases especially these electoral litigations governorships and the presidential litigations as far as the supreme court do you think in a way they may be bringing the supreme court into a bit of a bit of optical optical dispute of a sort and when I say optical dispute I mean in pure terms you know people one cases of this nature now get to the supreme court sometimes I don't know maybe it's me you just wonder it's not going to be about the law it's just going to be about some some you know I want to be very careful and circumspect the kind of words I use on TV but it's all I would want to respond to that is it only made a few uncomfortable sometimes for even the justices the law laws of the supreme court that you know they sometimes brought into into some negative milieu with all these seeming cases my opinion you know like I said before most times the supreme court is the first court and of course you know that any reason of the supreme court you cannot appeal against it you cannot appeal to God but remember that any reason of the supreme court becomes law that nothing is about it and that is why the supreme court at any point in time in any decision they are taking you combine law you look at first and you look at the issue that and you match it with public stability and public safety and you know so you now look at it very well and bring it up together and also look at the feelings and the feelings of the people like what I said I think the supreme court for me so far and I will say it again and again and again but the reason I am concerned is the supreme court try to remedy it is so great in here now because already like I said before Nigerians are changing the digital as well as the supreme court if I am not using one the major problem in the country is having this problem but I think that the supreme court as in is wisdom why I say this is being justice justice before we look beyond that don't you think there is a dint of hypocrisy sometimes when people like you when the supreme court gave its judgment on the presidential elections many like you lambasted the justices of the supreme court ridiculed the court I am just trying to reason we have to look at these things from all angles many lambasted the supreme court ridiculed the justices but now today because no apocat was toppled and all the 8 governors they are electoral the two is validated by the supreme court oh you seem to be happy I am sitting here I am thinking what is this if you have followed me I have followed my interviews and my opinion I remember for one day the main integrity of this wake up in the presidential elections I keep telling people that the law court is more like a completer is telling you that the doubt is not to put in there the fact to put in there that will determine whether you weigh your case or not if you do not expect that if you do not have credible facts and also to prove your facts that the court will give you a judgment because you are not a penitent man I am one of the people that believe that the supreme court in the judgment of the presidential elections is justice to that matter because there are so many issues there are so many political matters that we are close to to the supreme court who is helping Agilito even before the matter was in court was in justice if this was what you expressed then did some people cast as passion on your opinion and some called you names because I want to believe I did not quite do any scientific polling but I want to believe that people in your position who were courageous enough and who had the courage of character to state that they believed that the supreme court did the right thing many of you especially lawyers were lambasted were lampooned were called names what was the kind of response from you got when you expressed this kind of opinion there yes the truth is that most of my colleagues actually took issues and quarreled with me but they would not understand I have no sentiment that it is not a matter of sentiment as far as I am concerned it is a matter of issues it is a matter of credibility it is a matter of putting the facts on the ground of course it is only before that people say I am only interested in doing the right thing that if you have a good case and you do not know how to present your case and you lose your matter in the court there is no reason the court does not prefer a treatment to give you what you do not ask for and the court cannot go and jump the girl or place the girl to begin to guide you and whatever so it was more of the sentiment and all the rest it is not a matter of what they say about me or what they think about me but what matters I learned is this it is about the law it is about the past and that is what I keep on telling Indians whether they believe it or not so at next time when you are going to court you prepare because I keep on telling people that it is more like whenever you are going to court to do is what you have prepared and what you have told yourself in truth what are the cases on the basis of this department on social media or whatever you must prepare for it and do the issue we cannot but also there are still a couple of states to have their governorship cases determined I think in the minority now but thus far beyond today And the previous rulings on this kind of disputations, your general review beyond today, at least you were somewhat, from your opinion, generally satisfied with the kind of rulings given today. But the previous governorship contestations at the level of the Supreme Court, your take. I guess we are having some technical glitches indeed. The segment was supposed to have been a two guest segment. We had the consent of senior advocate of Nigeria, Gibrin Okutepa, to have taken part in that segment. But unfortunately due to, okay, by state justice. Yes, we can hear you now. We had a glitch, you know, and the gremins are out today. But your concluding opinion on the issue of these governorship litigations and the rulings of the Supreme Court thus far, not only on today's case, but the previous ones that they have determined. Well, I hope I'm confined. Gibrin Okutepa has done his job, the Supreme Court, but like I said I will go beyond that. I also want to use the opportunity to state that our politicians will begin to do the needful, that it is this pope man should be in a lecture. It will not be your day at first, because when you begin to live this thing in the hands of the judiciary, definitely people will get this thought. People will not be happy. People will think because your governor, your government in power, the judiciary is going to focus on your behalf, or going to the government of your behalf or not. So for me, so far, so good, we will not get it right in total or entirely, but I see believe that we can see that it's where Nigeria is improving. And I'm so happy with the recent Supreme Court judgments. At least I believe that it has helped giving hope to a lot of people who thought they have locked up in the judiciary. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Barista Justice. Quite a good place to live it. We wrap up this first segment now and we go on a short break and when we are back, the sophomore segment of the show will unfold. Thank you. Thank you very much.