 Hello and welcome back to the run-up we are discussing the court order on INEK to allow use of temporary voter cards in March 18 election. The court made the order following a suit that was brought before it by two aggrieved registered voters, Kofora La, Ulu Shegun and Wilson Allwell, who lamented that despite their efforts and repeated visits to INEK office, they were unable to obtain their permanent voter cards as a pvc's before the February 6 deadline. Well joining us to discuss this is Barrister Imana Umoring, a legal practitioner. Hello Barrister Umoring, we also have Barrister Johnson-Aggle with us, not for getting my virtual co-host Adebayo Olooke. Gentlemen you're welcome to the program. Thank you Barrister Imana Umoring, good morning. Barrister Umoring, what political or what constitutional quagmire has this new order thrown up? Well it's not a constitutional quagmire, it is a fact that unfortunately what the court did not hear from INEK before coming up with these judgments. My own take on which I have argued strenuously and which some of the courts have upheld is this. We have the presidential system of government, the executive branch, the powers of the executive branch and the presidential system of government, we got it from America, why don't we look at how it is done in America, there are powers that exclusively that of the executive. INEK had the reason for issue temporary footers card and feminine footers card. INEK said along with for the election that it was cleaning up because some people had double registration, so people had 40 registrations, after that looked at the, looked at the lease of those multiple registrations, some registrations were cancelled because the people did double registrations. So when you have this and now the court has on its own decided to allow persons who don't have the temporary footers card, who I know did not show whether they had double registration or not, because as I said you go ahead and vote, that is usurping the powers of the executive, unfortunately, that's to my mind, that's usurping the powers of the executive has taken his action and you have not, and the process by which INEK is not a process that is calling the powers of the executive to challenge the powers of the executive, that the process of doing that is a process of judicial review, where the courts will have to determine if the actions taken by the executive were done in accordance with the law. Now I want to explain it and show that that's why they may want to appeal because they may want to say we have not, our position was not taken into consideration. Yeah, but the court did say that there was no, that the constitution, that the 1999 constitution and electoral act 2022 laid emphasis only, well did not specifically lay emphasis that it's only the PVC that should be used, it just laid emphasis on voter cards, that's a voter's card, but emphasis was not laid specifically on the PVC. You want to answer that before I go to Johnson? Yes, I can hear you now, yeah, did you get my question? Yes, I did. Yeah, because the court did reveal yesterday that neither the 1999 constitution nor the electoral act 2022 laid emphasis that only the PVC could be used, that it only stated voter's cards. Yes, we agree. However, you see the process of arriving at something at the point when you are giving powers to do things, the process of arriving at that point was taken into consideration. I said here, before they got to the point of giving you permanent voter's card, how to review if you were previously registered somewhere else, which is an issue of voter registration, if your age is not up to 18, but all that is on his list is the person who has been doing that. So these are issues that I need to consider before arriving at the decision. Okay, I'm going to go to Johnson Agu right now. However, Johnson, hello Johnson, can you hear me? I can hear you clearly. All right, please, can you come in here? The court did say that these people, that is, the two gentlemen, Kofo Wala, Olusiago and Wilson Allwell, were duly registered and so he gave this judgment that they should be allowed to vote using their temporary voter cards. However, the suit was not, did not allow for other Nigerians who have their temporary voter cards, but could not get their permanent voter cards to go ahead and register because, according to the court, the suit was not in a representative capacity. Okay, so haven't heard what Barista Umaren just answered, gave right now. Please answer this and also respond to the point he has raised. I think I'll start by responding slightly to what he has said. I do not accept that persons whose names are on the register as of today are not eligible to vote because INEC has said that it has cleaned up the voter register. He says INEC has said that all those who have done double registrations, it has removed their second registration. Therefore, there is a presumption that any person whose name is on the register now is eligible to vote. The question of permanent, issuance of permanent voter card is a question of logistics. So it shouldn't be the fault of those who have fulfilled all the conditions for voting and INEC failing to rent and issue to them, even if it is at their homes, a permanent voter card. It shouldn't be there for, they shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to decide their civic duties. That's how I see it. Now, as for the court, we're still respecting the application of this judgment, which is quite commonsensical, if not just the law. The reality is that the person who approached the court is the person who has received the reliefs. It should have been a representative capacity or a class action. It would have applied to everyone. However, that is not the end of it. What is the law? This is the law. So if the law applies to Johnson, since we are all before the law, we should apply to Morin. We are Morin has the same circumstances as Johnson. I think it's quite clear. So it will be up to INEC to apply the law. If the court has now said that what it held is the position of the law, INEC should apply it equally to everybody. It shouldn't wait for a pillage of mitigation before it complies with the law. In fact, nobody actually needs a court order to comply with the law. That's the way I see it. Right now by Barista Justice Uhwebu, a human rights lawyer. Hello, Barista Uhwebu. Barista Uhwebu, can you hear me? Okay, it does appear that we're having a bit of communication problems with him. Okay, let me go back to Barista Um Morin. Barista Um Morin. Yeah. All right. Well, you've listened to Johnson. I did. And he's saying that it should apply to all. Yes, you see, what I do not know and which I think my learning friend also may not know is that it was the court's list exhibited in their originating process. You get what's it? If your name is on the voter's list, the permanent voter's list, then you should vote. But the issue is do they have the permanent, you see, they, they, we are, there's a bit of confusion that's been created here. The list of permanent voters, the list of permanent voters was done before the court. How did the court arrive at the point that their, that their names were on the permanent voter's list? That's one. You see, the court should not give judgments that are difficult of interpretation, that have more than one interpretation. It has a rule of, of interpretation of, of, of statutes. The order that make this, the, the, the law that they're interpreting look foolish of it. Barrister Moran. Yes, please. Barrister Moran. The ruling specifically made it clear that because these two gentlemen were duly registered and their data captured in INEX database and so they were duly registered and because they couldn't get their voter cards, the permanent voter cards, was the only reason why they couldn't vote. So not allowing them to vote according to the judge will be disenfranchising them and, you know, and they were the only two that made this application. That's the only reason why it's limited to them. But they were duly registered. Yes, but you see, when a judgment is passed, even though they were two and they were asking, INEX immediately would have to obey the, the orders of the courts because that's their educational provision. Now, the one who has benefit of that order will approach INEX. Definitely. And if INEX, then you have, you have a problem because, and then that may be an issue that they cause the elections to be set aside because if you, if you have breached somebody's fundamental rights, anything you do in breach of that fundamental right is null and void. So now that INEX has expressed intention to appeal this case, what implications would that have on the next coming election? Well, I, I would, you see, I agree with my letter from Mr. Johnson, that INEX put up a lot of things here. However, the law, the way it oppresses, will not take a confession. You get? Now, INEX should have, once that you are registered, either by way of email, you get? People send you a card or your, your, your, your, your, your V number, what identification number, with which you can go, make, know that, oh, this is where I'm supposed to vote. And then it says you are by model system of accreditation. When you get there, if you put your thumbprint and you are not the person, you are rejected. Get? If you, if you, if you, if, or if you don't put your thumbprint on your face, your face will identify you. So these are the problems INEX, you see, when INEX was going on, a couple of us asked, spoke out that INEX should review its models of branding. Because at the end of the day, if you disenfranchise somebody wrongfully, you are addressing an opportunity of determining who will seem. And like Chief Abela said, you cannot share the man said in his absence. So it's important that going forward, we should bring people who understand what democracy is about to head these institutions. Let us stop this thing of picking people because you know them or something. Let's look for people who are, who have shown competence in other areas or who are, who understand what their duties are. We put a lot of wrong pegs in square holes in this country because of man-to-man, because somebody's from an area, because of balancing and all those. We need to start getting the right people to do the job. All right, all right. Okay. In view of what you're saying, Johnson, you could also come in here. Last year, Barisakome S.A.N. went to court over a similar case. And that case was presided over by Justice Inyang Epo, who actually declined in that case to issue a mandatory order to compel INEC, one to extend the CVR exercise to, you know, 90 days before the elections. And it also refused to order INEC to allow citizens with temporary voter cards to vote. However, that is changed now with this new judgment at the Federal High Court, given by Justice Obiora Egwatu. It is a judiciary discussing this confusion at this point, isn't it? I'm sorry. You see, these are some of the issues that we need to trash out in law, amongst us, between the page and the back. Now, the judgment of by Lord Justice Obiora Egwatu did not, even though it's their concurrent course, did not take into consideration the decision of IAECOJ, where he declined, they understand, declined, even though the judgment is not binding on him, it should have, taken, by Lord, should have taken time to review that judgment and give reason why he's departing from that judgment that is of similar, similar status, because the judgment of by Lord Egwatu is not binding, but was first in time. So, my Lord Justice Obiora Egwatu, should have given reason why he's departing from the portion of his learned brother. Okay, Johnson, please come in here. I'm not able to condemn the most recent judgment because, first, it is not binding on the, the, the earlier judgment is not strictly binding on the letter judge. It is persuasive. Second, I do not know if that judgment was cited to him, I haven't read the test of this judgment. So, I'm actually unable to, I'm in the test of the two judgments. So, I'm quite unable to comment extensively on both of them. But common sense says to me that only a judgment cited to a judge will persuade that judge, especially if that is a judgment of first instance. When I mean first instance, I mean judgment met by the first court. The Federal High Court is one court, whether it is located in Abuja or in Lagos, is a court of the same level. So, judgment met by a judge in Abuja is the same category as judgment met by judge in Lagos in the Federal High Court. Now, when I say persuasive, I mean that the judge in Lagos should be guided if he chooses by the judgment met by the judge in Abuja. We are the same issues at the same. I mean when the issues first, circumstances are the same. But in the case we have at hand, as far as it's available in the public domain, the judge writes properly what the issues are, what the rights involved are. So, I'm unable to support it. If anything, the judgment refusing al-Zekume, assuming the report given to us here is correct. Very correct. If it is correct, that judgment will be the erunous one in that it did not take into consideration some of what this particular judge has taken into consideration. And judges, I try to depart from the decisions previously made. Yeah, that case involving Chief al-Zekume actually took place on Friday 25th November 2022. But let me take you back to a question which I asked earlier, which is now that INEC has expressed interest to appeal this case. What happens or how should other Nigerians who find themselves in this situation duly registered but couldn't get their permanent voter cards because like these two gentlemen had gone to INEC offices repeatedly to get their PVCs but couldn't get it. Or as the case was with some people that I interviewed some time ago, they went to some of these INEC offices and they were told their systems were not working. Go and come back. They went, came back, systems were not working. So these Nigerians who were duly registered were disenfranchised. Should they jump on this ruling? And this appeal, I mean this appeal that INEC has indicated interest to make, how long do you think it would take for all of that to be cleared up before this coming election on the 18th? The fact that INEC wants to make an appeal does not prevent them from complying with the order. The first duty is for them to comply with the order unless the contract is due of execution of the order that has been met. I am not aware that INEC has applied for a civil execution or that any court has granted a state of execution of the order. So in the circumstances, my first opinion is that the people who fall into the same category with those plaintiffs are entitled to show up on the polling units and present their means of identification for INEC to confirm that their names are on the voter's register being used for the election of 18th March. If their names are there and they are verified to be the people bearing those names, they should be allowed to cast their votes according to the terms of this judgment. And my view is that INEC, like I said, INEC is entitled to appeal. But until it has appealed and that judgment is set aside, it is bound by the decision of the court that gave the directive. Or if another court has given an order stating the execution of the judgment, it is also taking the privilege of that and refuse to comply. But currently, we are not aware of any state orders at the moment. Well, thank you, Barista Johnson, Argo and Barista Omoring. We'll take a short break. We're still on the run-up. We'll be right back. Stay with us. Welcome back to the run-up on Plus TV Africa. Before we went on that break, we were discussing the Federal High Court order that told INEC to allow two Nigerians to vote with their temporary voter cards. Now I need to invite Adebayo Lowakit to ask the next question. Hello, Adebayo. Hello, Maureen. As always, very exciting times. And this judgment only has serve to make the whole electoral process much more interesting. I would like either of our two guests to respond to these thoughts that I have. We normally have a time frame for all electoral disputes to be resolved and that this must be done before the swearing in of elected officials on the 29th of May. How come we do not have such a provision to say that any dispute arising, you know, or resulting from the election, see that as we have now registration of voters, ought also to be resolved before voting actually begins? Because I think, and you are lawyers, you can tell, say what the situation is exactly. But I think that these two Nigerians may institute proceedings against INEC for denying them the opportunity to vote in the presidential elections, for instance. Or maybe that's not possible. It would be good to get your perspective. Should there be a time frame to resolve all issues, even from the standpoint of voters before elections begin? Adebayo, I think what your question is for the growth of our democracy. Yes, but you see, the law that did not make that provision, the electoral act did not make such a provision for that. And you see, let us be very honest. Unfortunately, laws in Nigeria, actually the election laws in Nigeria are really made for the benefit of those, the players, not for the benefit of me. Most of the laws, the electoral acts that were passed, it most times is to protect members of national assembly. And sometimes they go, that's all. Because you see, and you know, there is a big problem here. Most litigations, most appeals are not being heard because of the number of election, pre-election matters that are flooding the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. I'm sorry, I'm going a little bit off your question. How do you want to come to three where business transactions cannot be decided in 25 years? How come an investment in that economy? You have disputes that within 25 years the Supreme Court has not decided on them. But electoral issues are determined within 90 days, or 120 days. So that is a major problem. The people in power have come at everything in this country. So let's get to what you said, sir. For judicial activism, yes, these people can definitely, what you see, another thing is, why did they wait till after the presidential election? They said it is the principle of law that equity is the vigilant, not the indolent. If they file this suit before the presidential election, you get, so these are the things that may come up. If they, it will be good for our judicial growth, you get? So these things that we are talking about, the system is filled against the people. A lot of laws that are made in this, by this recent, by the, from 1999 dates, actually electoral laws are made for the benefit of the politicians. So we have, this is what we are stuck with. The first time, imagine the debates as to qualification to vote during the primaries, when the national assembly had knocked themselves off. The delegation, remember? These people do not have the kind, the competence to look at laws that are beneficial to Nigerians. Both of the people that have been elected now, the next thing they want to look for is how much are they going to be paid? How are they going to increase their entitlement and all those? Outside here, it is those who have done well in business or in their professions that seek these offices. Not people who are still hungry. It's unfortunate. Okay, Johnson Aguil, do you want to add to what Barrister Marin has said, in response to Adebayo's questions? Actually, first, I will accept that we see the electoral laws were politician-centric. The people who made it, who haven't exactly taken up or telling the legitimate consent of the government, they were most probably considering elections as a normality. So that I accept. Well, I think it is up to us and other members of the society to make these politicians to become accountable to us by testing some of the rules that they themselves have made in the courts, and it is up to the courts, the judiciary, to balance the interests of the politicians and the electorates by the way they interpret the laws that have been made. That is why I so much cherish the interpretation that has been given by this latest federal high court decision, allowing two persons to vote with their temporary voters' cards. I must accept that the judge didn't go outside the test of the law, so far as I have seen it, to the extent I have read. It is the same law that he has interpreted in the correct way. So it is up to us to continue to test this now. And if this gentleman hasn't gone to the court, as a court, whether INEC is entitled to expel them from participating in this electoral process. And this judgment wouldn't have come up. And as to the question of whether there should be timeline, well, it may be desirable to have timelines. But my thinking is that the timeline should be towards enhancing participation in the electoral process and not restriction of participation, because my conception is that democracy is a people-oriented government. It's the more people are able to show their consent, the better. In other words, there should be evidence that the majority of the people within a particular locality has indeed given their consent to be governed by the set of politicians that are angling for power. This consent is given or expressed by the electoral process, by the number of people that actually turned out to vote, out of the total illegitimate to vote, and out of the total population. If I must use the presidential elections for illustration, we understand that the total of 8,025,000 voted for our president-elect. And that is about 3.4% of the total population of Nigeria of about 215 million people. How is that an expression of consent by the majority of Nigerians? And if you look at it properly, that 3.7 million people that voted for our president is just 36.4% of the total people that voted on that day. So we show that about 6.7% of Nigerian electorates rejected our president-elect. So we should be making rules and interpreting the rules that we have met in such a way as to accommodate more voters rather than restriction or restricting voters. At the end of the day, if a government will benefit more from legitimacy and support, if more people actually vote in an election and it emerges victorious after a lot of all the possible people who could vote have voted. I don't know if I've met myself clearly, but I think that in summary, it is easier and better to obtain legitimacy and support if all the people who could have voted have voted. However, the margin of victory might be different or difficult to actually determine. Probably you might go into rerun and all of those things, but it is not democracy if just a few people are by technical rules allowed to select government for a population. All right. Well, thank you so much for all of these analyses on this. And of course, one of the things that have been thrown up from all of these somersaults is the fact that voter apathy may be on the increase as we work towards the next elections on the 18th.