 We're glad to know you're still there and we welcome you back. He's still the breakfast on Plus TV Africa and we're being joined by our guest for this morning to deal with the headlines on our national dailies. In the person of Mr. Chris Kende Wandoo, member of the Chattat Institute of Abitrators in the U.K. He's talking to us from Lagos, Nigeria. Good morning and welcome to the program, sir. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. We're here with a punch newspaper—the first story on that, of the leading headline there is military, police, vow tough actions for ballot box snatchers, audors. They are talking about off-season polls that is happening in Baelze, Emo, and where else does it happen in Kogi state? Yeah, these three states, of season elections are happening. and the military and the police are vowing tough action for ballot box snatchers and others. Let me hear your comments on that. Let's just take one after the other. Yes, once again, good morning. Yes, talk about do people still snag ballot boxes? I thought that's something of the past because like the new electorate and by how far we've grown in our electoral system, the issue of ballot boxes doesn't begin since it did. Yes, you dropped your Tom Pritzett ballot papers and the pass bet. Don't forget that this thing is on the electronic side of it, most of the time. So whether you like us, not all the ballot boxes, has already been captured with the electoral device. The voting has been captured by the electronics and them. So it's in the past that you see people snatching ballot boxes and going around and messing up tickets. With what I think you have done, if they stick to the rule and they stick by their rules, then definitely that is a necessary. So I hope that I think we'll be able to stick to the electoral act and be able to transmit results real time as they promise during the 2023 election which they fumbled with especially when they came to that potential election. But we'll see in some offices in a election in some states for the general election where I like what they perform. So the assurances has to come from I like that they're very good people. They're talking about also security, level of insecurity. Yes, all eyes will be on this three states will be by SR and in most states. But it is good because it is an off-season election. Unlike what we had earlier in the year where election took place in 36 states of preparation as well as the FCT. So the security agencies were stretched to their limits and that in itself poses a lot of effects. For off-season election just three states I think we have enough security to handle that. And good enough, I just came back from great mistakes. I was there for about four days to show my heterogeneous police. Police invited me as one of the editors to to witness the conference and retreat for senior police officers from the ranks of the commission of police to the IDP. And it was a robust retreat and conference. And the IDP got the opportunity to use the opportunity to reassure my ingredients that these three states will be well secured. And one of the troublemakers who want to form a troublemaker during this election, stay clear of the by SR and in most states. Yes, it's one thing to be able to give but whether the editors in the process will be able to handle that is what we don't know. But I hope that because if you look at the reports coming in from by SR and in this state it's not going to be super let it go. Some of these states are very well tied. When it comes to election issues and the security, but I hope this election will come to that in the level of threat to the security of the electorates because if the electorates know that their life is not secure, then they're going to have serious put up and that is going to affect the result of that election. So the secretaries are giving the necessary chances so that's what I'm saying. Yeah, that's the thing. We do hope that it's going to be like Inaq is saying because like you observed if Inaq sticks to the rule they are going to, all this ballot box snatching will not be even a thing, but will they stick to the rules because the experience we had in the past election, they won early this year did not show that Inaq was willing to stick to the rules in particular elections anyway. And then the police also seem to be compromised. It's not just because they were stressed, but they seem to be compromised. But again, maybe because the numbers were not much, they were also trying to guard against there coming to any harm and all that because a lot of things that happened in that election, they didn't show that the police were even prepared enough and Inaq was prepared enough for some of these things. But we do hope that they are going to stick to that. But that same headlines on the Guardian newspaper says less than 30% registered voters will decide by Elsa Imo Kogi Paul. That's the leading headline on the Guardian newspaper concerning election, the off-season election. Now what does this say about our electoral process? Because in the February 25 election, for instance, the percentage of people that came out to vote was so much, so massive that we felt that electoral system or the process is going to take a new look. But now, 30%, just 30%, is a very minimal number that gives me worry that we're going back to the days where nobody took election matters seriously. Yeah, there are so many facts. So the first thing has to be look at your nation. This has segmented your nation sort of. It's already happening at three states. And just their governorship, their governorship election, for governorship election, the one that happened earlier in the year that is presiding, we had the presidential and that in itself had so much to say. So a lot of people took out to vote during that election. Not only the presidential, we had state elections, national assembly as well as state as a percent. But that is not going to be the case. This one is strictly for governorship election. So this thing is not as high as it was earlier in the year. Two, is also that, because as I said, both are party, when people lose trust in the system, that in this, I bet people's enthusiasm to come out and vote. These people that voted earlier in the year, I feel that there are short chains and that they are both doing count, doesn't count. So does it that some people will not be able to come out again to vote? The third one would also mean that when you look at some of the, the fact that it is the court that not decides election, what's the electorate. And that in itself is a dangerous trend in our political system. Because it's difficult to go to the polling unit due to some, and vote for their candidates, only for them, for the courts to overturn that robot technicalities and the rest of them. That puts a lot of pressure on people and it reduces people's confidence within the system, political system. So if I assume I voted for somebody and then I believe that I won, only for the person to lose at the courts, then there's a problem. If you call me to come out and vote again, then definitely I may not be able to come out again. So those are the some of the things. So we're going to start at it. And this is why I'm talking about INAG doing the right thing. Because I, when you see some of the budgets and see what is going on, you come to realize that some of the, some, maybe not most of these issues will cause by INAG and also pre-election matters as it were. But we have to find a way of making people's confidence, we reduce people's confidence in the electoral system so that they have the confidence. It has to be happening across the globe. The United States, the United Kingdom and most advanced countries of the world. After INAG, yeah, there always be disputed at the, remember what happened during the Biden and Trump, the presidential election in the United States. We had Trump was saying that although he was rigged, it was not, but they had a system that is so confident that we look at it and it's so transparent that not anybody can go about it. Biden can go about it and don't talk. This is as glaring to anybody that can go to the system and check how people voted. So we want to bring that to bear in our electoral system. You continue to have this, they will not put us apart. And that is the truth. Okay, another thing that I feel is connected is back to the punch newspaper now. There is a headline saying INAG delays trial of 197 electoral offenders. The election in Kogi, Bayelsa and Imo state is in four days. And these people are not being prosecuted. Some of these people could have been sent to jail as a, to serve as a deterrent to others that might want to do the kind of things that these same people did, but it has been delayed. Now the prosecution will come possibly after, in fact it will come after the election. So which means nobody gets to see what is done to offenders, electoral offenders. I don't know whether you see it the way I'm seeing it. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? Yeah, I see. But you also have to put it to progress as they thought that the power of prosecution doesn't lie with INAG password. It's the security agents that are supposed to prosecute. And so, and INAG, to a large extent, doesn't have the capacity to prosecute all these people. So they have to work in hand, in hand with security agents, especially the police, to be able to make sure that. And let me give a quick example. I'm sure you have a really good report about the suspended wreck in Adamawa. That is being prosecuted. He was invited by the courts. He refused to appear. Did just a few days ago. He refused to appear before the court. And he wanted to make it worse. This man is a lawyer. He's a qualified lawyer, he's a member of the NBA. And he refused to appear in court. So something must be amiss somewhere. So I totally agree with you, yes, that except we start prosecuting some of the electoral offenders, then this issue will be best. Is it only with election? Ask yourself, what happened to all the Boko Haram members that were arrested for insecurity and for killings and bombings all over the country? How many of them have been brought before the court? How many of them have been prosecuted? Last government said that they were going to publish the Finances of Insecurity in Nigeria. How many names were published? How many were prosecuted? Is it all those that were arrested for terrorism? So those are the levels of impunity in the system. And if we don't have the political means to prosecute some of them, that is why those of them get so embodied and it cannot pass it. There have been one or two convulsions there. I know there was one in Apoi Bomb and I don't know what ever one of the purposes that was in the electoral practices that were prosecuted. But that is just a drop in duration. So we have to move on. I personally feel that we should have a special court for these electoral offenses. So I was disputing the, I was shown in prosecuting them. Just to give them to the number of courts, it slows down the system. You know the system within the courts. It takes time. We don't have enough budgets to be able to. And even then they have so many cases. It's not only electoral matters they are dealing with. They are dealing with criminal cases. They are dealing with theft. They are dealing with fraud. They are dealing with so many cases. So it becomes why we see the kind of level of progress we are making in the courts as well as the tribunals is because there are special tribunals for electoral matters. And that is why, and also the constitution has given a time frame for which these issues to be dealt with. 19 days, 16 days, three months, or unlike before. You know before, electoral matters could take about two, three, four years at times to be able to settle. But now with the new electoral act, it has been specified as to how and when the issues of electoral matters can be settled. At the lower tribunals, at the court of appeal, which is why you saw that the Supreme Court was able to give a judgment on the issue of the presidential election as quickly as possible. In the past, we had some of this judgment begin after three years, and that was not good enough. Okay, well, we continue with another headline here. We know that we've seen that soldiers are showing force in patrol, in Kogi, Bayosa, and Imo State. But that's not what really is concerning me right now. What concerns me is the court rejects Akere Dulu lawmaker suit against Ayed Tewa. It's still going on. The problem in Ando State is still going on. And I don't know. Speak to that, please. You are a lawyer yourself. I told that the, we were told that the APC have settled the matter, and the gladiators have been asked to shade their place. I want to know what's going on. Yes. We were the APC national chairman visiting the state, talking to the gladiators, but the state was under threat. It's obvious that that was a piece of the graveyard, and they did not agree to that. So what we are saying now is that each of them are digging in. But the fact remains that they are constitutional provisions on how to remove a governor, a deputy governor. Any other team around that is complete fallacy. You cannot do it. So I've tried it in the past, and back prior. It was done in, it was done in Anambra State. I guess in P2B it failed. It was done in a, in a, this is the state. I guess it was the former governor, Spai O'Shea, and he was moved and he failed. So for the, for the legislators to be able to do that, they have to go through the processes, and the processes is just well-established in our constitution. We have to be able to come up with allegations as it were. Then they have to raise a panel as the chief judge to raise a panel request to get up. So it's the processes that the fact remains that they served states, they served states, they served on those states. There was this issue between the same governor and his former deputy. I think his name was the, was Abola or something called like that. And he said to us, and we were not able to remove that deputy governor, who was a deputy to a governor, agreed to do all to the end of his first tenure. So we are seeing the same thing, we are seeing lightning striking on the same spot. But to me, irrespective of all the shenanigans I grew up, the question still remains, where is governor, who to me, agreed to do all to the state? Yeah, well, we had one of the three, one of our interventions, one of them. Yeah. Well, you know, I can't believe he has remained in Badu or your state, can a governor preside over his state from another state? I think that one, we should, that one should be worried the state has to have some sort of assembly. Why is it that the governor is not in Augusta? Why is it that he's in Badu? That should be, you know, in other climes, and the people who have started doing this issue, he's back in the country, he was away for about three months, then after that he came back, since he came back to Nigeria, has not stepped foot on those things. And that should be worried the members of the House of Asset, and not all the separatist allegations that have been made and levied against the deputy governor. I think that should be the good. Governance to me is totalism. Governance is, this is governance in diaspora, and which is not allowed in our constitution. Well, the presidency said, the president can rule from any place that he wants to, any part of the world. And also the people in understate, the lawmakers have said that their governor can rule from any part of the world, that it is not condemned by the constitution. That's what they said. Maybe it should be spread out and criminalized. No, that is wrong. Because of all this case, that is why, you know, the problem started with during the Yara-Dua administration. When Yara-Dua had issued his house, and he was at a country, and he refused to transmit power to his deputy, his vice president, who was rubber janitor. So, and that came down for a long time, and that the governance was particularly left in the hands of Turai and the wife, and the HGF and Loka, yes, that was the same HGF and Loka, and governance was particularly crippled in Nigeria. And because of that, the national assembly came up with the amended constitution, and given the way that if a government is a president, a government is going, traveling out of the country for a certain period, then he has to transmit power to his deputy or vice. And that is for a period. I think that period is not supposed to be, I don't know more of this now, but I think it's about 60 years or there about. So, if the government had been out of the state for that period, yes, we can go from anywhere, but it's for a specific period. And he said that there was a transmission of power in most transition. So, if it's out of the state for a certain period, no one above what was rightly stated in the constitution, then it is an aberration. There is no distance. So, he said that you can go from, of course, that is not true. You cannot just go from anywhere. You can say that as well, say that the president of Nigeria can go and be living in London, and you know, that is completely wrong. That has been taken over by the constitution. And whoever is by this thing that is just making a mockery of our constitution as it is. Perhaps that's why all this is happening. So that it will be like the deputy governor is incapable of taking the reins of power. That's, so the governor can still rule from anywhere. But I don't know. Maybe the constitutional only talked about getting out of the country. But here, although it's a neighbor, I understand there was a time when very recently, when the Southwest governors went to visit him in his house in Ibadon. It seemed like a normal thing. And then the deputy governor who is resident in those state is being, like some people will put it, being witch-hunted by the political class, maybe a cabal that is taking care of the government and governance in the absence of the governor. But my concern- In terms of absence from the state, it's not, I don't think that was any specific answer. Whether you are traveling to Japan or Mexico or something. Yes, that is not the issue. We say that if you are not within it, you know that everything in law has, we talk about jurisdiction, okay? Everything about law is about jurisdiction. If you are going to court, and you are taking a case to a court that doesn't have the jurisdiction for that case, then it's as good as not having that case. Because if you do, if you raise the need of, there's an abortion race on jurisdiction. The first thing is, George, we stop and maybe to consider the issue of jurisdiction for that case. So if it doesn't have the power to be able to educate on that, because there are certain, let me, I'm just telling you, there are certain cases that mean for the high courts, not for the magistrate courts, not for the customary courts, okay? So if you take that case to a customary court or to a magistrate court, of course, the George in charge, we have to tell you that he does not have jurisdiction. I'm sure he must have read that several times in the papers or in this statement, because he does not have jurisdiction. So he has to now send that case to a court of competent juridian who talk about competent jurisdiction. So in terms of jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the government is, within his state, is the state in government. So he can still live in Lagos and say, yeah, I'm government, you remain in it. And you say, you are the government of my state of him. How possible? For how long? No, no, no, I don't think so. But the fact is that the legislative firm is, just like local government chairman, they are in the pocket of the government. So the governor particularly determines who becomes a member of the status of assembly or chairman. So anything that governor says, that's what happens. So there are no... Is there no group that can go into the matter? And because if he's not supposed to be out of the state for a period of time, and he has been out of his state and more than this time that was given by the constitution. And like you said, the people in the house of assembly are in his pocket. Can't another higher body be responsible of addressing this issue? Maybe the national assembly or something. Can any governor just do what he likes because the people in the state assembly are in his pocket? That's why we say we have to think about this constitution. But actually to think about it, there's no constitution that is so solid that is not going to amend it. Even the constitution of United States that people have posted in 100 years, continuously they amend it. Now, constitutionally, the only body that can remove the governor that will come out of the status of assembly, no other. Except on election matters that you see that the tribunal has caught in that best. Apart from that, there is no other way. And it's stressed out to be this thing. You can pass it, blah, blah, blah, blah. Any other person, nobody can go to pass it. This government, nobody can do it. It is only the status of assembly that has been powered by the law. And they are the only ones that can do it. So if they don't need that, there is nobody that can do that. So it's not a question of you going to call and say, yes, we can look at the provisions of it now as affect this issue. You can go to court to mandate the status of assembly to do its job as it were. But if they are not willing to do it, what do you do? So you can't go to court and say, oh, the Supreme Court, that's why you see they have immunity. They have immunity. The governor, they don't think of not have immunity just like the president and vice president. So it is within the powers of the, on those status of assembly to do it. Even the thing that is necessary, which I think is necessary as it were now. But are they doing it? I don't think they have what it takes to do that. That's serious. So the states are so independent that governors can do what they like. And if you are able to buy the local government chairman, buy the state house of assembly members, then you are a load in your state. Like you said, maybe something needs to be done about the constitution to bring about some of the things that we think are going wrong in our country. Well, this one, I don't know how this will sound like news, but the state government, legal state government in August, precisely on the 2nd of August made an announcement that the bus fares in BRT as a way of palliative will be sliced by 50%. And it went on and people were flocking to the BRT terminals to take these buses because at least it helped them to save some more money. Now it was announced again that they are going to remove the 50% rebate that was given. So you will pay the actual price. And we had that experience. We went there, found out that these things have already begun. So where you were paying 250, you're now paying 500. Where you were paying 150, you're now paying 300. It's happening already. Today, the governor has said that from tomorrow, or yesterday, the governor said from tomorrow, because of public outcry, they first are going to be reduced again by 25%, no longer 50%. So they are meeting the public halfway, 25%, it will be reduced. I don't know if you have a comment about that. Palliatives are until something good has come. But I don't know if something good has come that we are not seeing, but this thing that was supposed to help us until we stabilize, fuel problem, the transportation problem and all that is going to be removed, even if they are adding 25%, but has anything been done that you have seen that should make someone say, okay, this help I was giving you because you lost that other one, I'm taking it back? Well, all my life, I've never gotten any Palliative on public, all my life. And so, the little one that I was getting, or we were getting, which is the price of the petroleum substance, which you and I have been enjoying over the years, that is only subsidized only Palliative that I know the government are giving Nigerians that I know across and across, but that has been removed. And I've said that it's so called Palliative being given and being managed by the government, but the federal and state government to me is what you call the local parliament audio. I hope you understand what I mean, but we say audio, you know, we talk audio, say, ah, this is not human. That's what it is. Let's come back to that of legacy. Yes, the government say that they are going to reduce the cost of transportation as such and when it comes to priority and even the blue rate, about 50 cents, just to be able to protect, you said that coming back now to say, no, that has restored, okay, it's going to be the type of service of public health. And the government and the NURT or whatever they call them, at the point that acts of transportation in Lagos and the UNOS agreed that we could do that. But nothing was done. Absolutely nothing was done about that. So that the government coming down to, they're just using it as a way of just asserting people and just making them to see reason. But the government in his wisdom feel that we have done enough, which I believe is not enough. And then we drop the subsidy. I am not, because you asked yourself, what is the government and talking about government generally in Nigeria subsidizing? I'm not just talking about Lagos. Because across the world, that the citizens enjoy some elements of subsidy. It could be in agriculture. It could be in transportation. It could be a power electricity. It could be gas. It could be so many other things. None. Just points, one single thing, which Nigerians are enjoying as a subsidy. Even the petroleum, we could avoid that. We're supposed to be enjoying some level of subsidy because we are one of the highest producers of food oil in the world. But what we have is, we're having the short end of the stick. And that is what it is. And that is why I would say that all these politicians that the government has been spending trillions and trillions of naira is just for me. It's not worth it. It is the same country that somebody told us that they are feeding our children during COVID. And trillions and trillions of naira were spent feeding our children. Our children that were at home with us that were feeding, they said they were feeding them. And that is highly, that is level of corruption within the system. So that the Lagos state government, that they even give it 25% to me, they are trying some other states don't even do that at all. Other states don't have any provision for transportation for their people. So they should be commended, but I think that they can still do more. I still believe that the Lagos state government have the capacity to relieve it at 50% on the reasonable time where people can be able to adjust. Don't forget that not salary have not been increased. Their salary have not been increased. Even the so-called palliatives that say they are going to increase people, it's not getting to the people. So, but it's not something that is surprising to me. I knew that this day would come and only that it came just too early, as it were. Okay, let's move to the Guardian newspaper now. The Guardian newspaper says that US government travel advisory hurtful to Nigerian economy says IG. You remember that the US has said that there are some places, especially in hotels in very big cities that may see some problems in the coming days. So there are people to be careful about it. So the federal government is saying that it's very hurtful to the economy because people cannot come to do investment in the country. But what do you think about the US travel advisory and how it affects us? Well, this is not the first time they're saying that practically city, almost it has not become a monthly issue and the state mandate. The advisory is for their people, it's for US citizens coming to Nigeria. They should be careful of places to go to invest in them. But Nigeria is not at war. I think that statement should be sent to US citizens going to Ukraine, US citizen going to Israel and US citizen going to Sudan and Somalia and places that are practically at war and where the high level of insecurity is at the high. But it is also good to give that assistance because even we, let us not shy away from the fact that we have some high level of insecurity. I for one, and for me, must ask me when last was I, you know, but when I went past because of the high level of insecurity as a lot of people from the cities don't go again because of the so-called unknown government, because of the killings, many people in the North East, senators, those in government don't go. There are some people that I know that are from Bono state and part of the North East, they have not traveled past 80 years to their villages. And that is a fact. So those advisories are, yes, it's good, but we also have to look inward and make sure that we're able to handle our own situation properly and be able to tackle the issue of insecurity as well. We just have a supplementary budget that was just released. The highest vote on that budget is going for security, is for security. And you continue to ask yourself, for how long will it be? Other sectors like health, education, infrastructure, roads, and so many other areas are suffering because of insecurity. So if you are projecting much of a budget to service a security issue, then that is a problem which we by now should be able to have dealt with issue of insecurity. And they dealt with this really, so that we can be able to challenge this money to other critical areas. As I said, education helps. A lot of Nigerians are having serious health challenges now. The prices of drugs have gone so high that many people cannot afford to take care of themselves. Just yesterday, you heard that about the Nominwood actor, Mr. Ibu, that his leg was abjuted because he was looking for money to be able to take care of himself. So he had some challenges which deteriorated to that. But even at that point, he was asking for assistance and now he has lost one leg. But that is just, there are so many other Nigerians. Ordinary malaria, some people cannot be able to, do you know that some people cannot make 580 Nigeria. So if you fall in, no malaria tab, no research of malaria tab that goes for less than 1,000 million, so how will we deal with it? So those are the areas that we should be looking at and they will deal with it. Say now our minds as our government should be looking at and not just what USA is saying that. Are we doing enough to even attract foreign investment into Nigeria? What is our, what of our power sector? We are holding between 4,000 megawatt and 5,000 of in a country of over 200 million people. The SMC is particularly dying. Is that the, is it the US adversary that is causing that? I think the, yes, yes, as we can say, US and other countries will raise such a landslide. Let us in whether, then put it in for the also. You can ask, there's no way in the world where we don't have a security. Just three days ago, a woman just woke up and shot 18 Americans dead on the day once with it. Niger government didn't ask Nigerians to go together because of that. I think the issue that we need more cooperation as small assistance for our partners as it were. But let us look in what I mentioned, what we need. If we put our houses right, we see people coming here to the US as it were. Okay, well, is it, is it a deliberate effort to sabotage the gains that we may be trying to make and all that, some questions have been raised. But there, a funny headline for me, it's a very funny headline here, is that court confirms authenticity of Enugu governor's NYSC certificate. There was this back and forth between NYSC and the governor of Enugu state. And the NYSC was saying, it's not authentic. The Enugu state governor said, it is authentic. Now, the court has said, the Enugu state governor's certificate is authentic. And even awarded five million Naira against the NYSC in favor of the governor. And I find it funny. I don't know how you find it. That an institution that is supposed to issue a certificate cannot recognize its own certificate anymore. And they're saying, whether it is good or it is bad or it's authentic or it's not authentic. I don't know how you feel about that. Yes, the Enugu case is a very funny one. The issue of authority, how to be able to issue authority is then wise. And that is where I don't really got the investment. So the only issue authority on my certificate is because they invest. And so if they say that the certificate they gave me, the one that I am practicing is fake, it is fake. But you have to prove that. So if the DSSA they investigated like yesterday, at the end of it all, whether we like it or not, the court is what it is. The law is what it is. The law is the law. If at the end of it all, by its own, that is what we have in the court. The essence of having a court is to be able to guide against anarchy, break down law and order. And they need to put things right. If in the course of the investigation, because in the court in Switzerland, I'd be able to look at the evidence because the critical thing in law is what we call evidence. That is what we have. We have what is called the evidence. Everything concerning the law or whatever you bring to court has to be based on evidence. If you don't have enough evidence to be able to prove case, then that is a problem. So if in the eyes of the law, the judge will be able to look at all the argument both from NYC or the DSS from the camp of the governor and say that this young man has an authenticity. That is what it is. If you think that the lower court does not do it, then you have a right of appeal. That was at the court of, that's a high court. They have a right of appeal to put to the court of appeal and subsequently to the Supreme Court. But for what it is now, what the law states is that as far as the court of law has said that that certificate is genuine, that is what it is. Except, you know, that court, the higher court, for case that is the judge. But it's really, like I said, it's funny. It is. Let me tell you. Let me tell you this. Yeah. And that is always the problem most people have. In law, there's a difference between morality and court. Yeah. What most times people feel is morality. The law is different from morality. What you think is right. If it's different from what the court says. So, yeah, morally right. Oh, how can he say that the certificate, he hasn't done it. But you have to come to the court to prove it. And if the court says that is it, then that is what it is. You can say any of that thing. Any of that. Look at what happened with the case of Ms. Yoma or whatever. That young girl that was came up with a jambri sort of. She was saying everything practically, oh no, it's authentic. In fact, that public opinion was almost 80% in her favor. But at the end of it all, Jem was able to prove that she falsified that at the end of it all, she owned up and said yes. But before then, public opinion has always been, oh, they want to victimize a young girl. It's because she's a young girl. She's because of this part of the country she was at. So many people, even the educated people, we did the society believe they were the same. And this small girl, they do that. Oh, she got it. At the end of it all, after the investigation, Jem was able to prove and show that what she had was a fake one that what she was, at the end of it all, everybody kept quiet. Yeah, that's my problem. That is the problem that I'm having right now because Jem had everything that will show that the girl falsified the results. Why couldn't Wayek, if they had this doubt, provide this thing? There are two things that give me concern. It's either that Wayek was right and the courts have done some abracadabra, or Wayek was wrong and why would they be wrong? So it just gives me concern. That's what I'm saying. Not even public opinion this time. The owners of proof is on Wayek, or not on the government. Yeah. The owners of proof, that's what I'm saying. You agree with that, totally agree with you. And in criminal cases, we say that it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, on the line of that word. That is what the court says. It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Anything that leads to doubt that is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, then it cannot be, it cannot vote or so. It is for Wayek, if, sorry, let's not live for Wayek, it's not Wayek, it's NYC, let's miss it up, it's not Wayek. It is NYC. If the NYC was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt before the judge and before the court, and that is what it is. So once the court has satisfied that, these NYCs that we get, or whatever, that this guy is right, that is what I'm saying. If NYC or another person feels otherwise, you still have the right to vote of appeal. At the end of the court of appeal, you still have the right to vote Supreme Court. And once the Supreme Court's able to give back it on that, that is what it is. If you have any doubt that, you can just appeal to God. Okay, well, it's interesting, really interesting. The law is very dynamic, dynamic thing. Very confusing as well, if you ask me. Very confusing. I don't know if it's the language. That's what it is. It's the voice that asks, that is what he, I'm sure he had that several times. Yeah, yeah. Okay, well, now there is this address that the Labour Party candidate made, a press statement that he made, and said that the Supreme Court breached Nigerian's trust in the judiciary, that's Peter Obie, that's on daily independent. And then he has been replied by the presidency and says that the court does not rule on public opinion, just like you said now. But I don't know. Some of them, okay, the presidency is saying he didn't even have right to do any address because it was a clear court case that has been decided and he shouldn't have even mentioned anything anymore. But Peter Obie did say something concerning the judgment. So what do you say about the back and forth between the federal government and the candidate of the Labour Party in the last presidential election? Just in that is the court where discussing this morning and the court cases as it were. But it is good, you know that in this part of the world we said the court is the last who got the common man, not only the common man, but also the pitch man as it were. The case of the presidential election had been decided. The Supreme Court has given these verdicts and that is where it rests. Just my last statement in my last intervention saying that I'm not satisfied with the Supreme Court. The only other thing you can do is to appeal to court. The only court you can appeal to, that is where it ends. And there must always be an end to litigation in order to that is what we have the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has given verdicts on that. Whether I would like it or not, whether you agree with them on what it is, what it is. You can now, yes, you are talking about, there's a difference between the law and public opinion. And I also talk about plurality. Yes, the fact is that public opinion does this where the verdicts of the court, where to allow it to some extent, yes, it could. Because the judges are justices, I've spoken to the Supreme Court now, the justice of the Supreme Court are human beings. They live in our society, they see what happens and they really hear they're watching, some of them are watching on TV. As it were, as we're talking, they watch television, they read newspapers, they listen to radio, they also, on social media, so they see public opinion, they see what people expect. The first thing remains that before them, what they're going to deal with is the fact before them. And it's only based on that fact that they can make it to arrive at the judgements. And it also has to be based on the evidence and not on what evidence, evidence, evidence. It is only based on the evidence. Even if the judge knows that what you are saying is wrong or what they are saying, in as part as that did not bring that before that case, the judge is not going to give what you get asked for. Even if it is so, that's what we call the setting into the arena. We don't set into the arena when it comes to law. Our social law, we call it not covering the field. So the judges or justices as it were, will it sound wrong to you? Let me put it this way. If the verdict has been in favor of Mr. Pito B or Artico Abubakar, will they come out to say what they are saying? That is what we ask yourself. If the verdict has been, has given, and Pito B or Artico Abubakar were declared as winners of that election, I'm not just justifying what the justices did or what Supreme Court, I'm just saying as human beings, if the justices of the Supreme Court have said, oh, Artico Abubakar was the winner of the night, and not collaborate. Of course, the Artico Abubakar will come out and hear the Supreme Court, oh, they've done well. That is what we say, they are the last hope of the commandment, so most of them. So the fact is that the Supreme Court have, given their body, whether we like it, what I would rather see, Mr. Pito B, Mr. Artico Abubakar, whoever other contested the election, is to be able to rally around the president as is where, and be able to make sure that we're able to move Nigerian forward. It is the Nigeria that every one of them want to go. It is Nigeria that they want to recite over, and I don't think any one of them want Nigeria to disintegrate. They don't want Nigeria to go into Abdiapower and the rest of it. So whatever it is, we just have been for three years, three and a half years now to go into another election. They can go and prepare for another election. Look at where the sun is on their floors, or where they think that it is, and try to make sure that the government to put their hands together also. Let me state this as running up on this. If Pito B and Artico Abubakar have been together, as you know that Pito B will move away from PDP, if you look at the views that Artico Abubakar and Pito B got, it was more than that of the president. The two, if you put the two together, they would have gotten, probably one of them would have gotten the presidency as it were. But it was PDP that dismantled this popularity, was playing a lot of politics, and was able to give room for the APC, which was very, very unpopular before going to the election because of what president wanted the priority. Most Nigerians were thinking of probably to vote that APC and move on an alternative. But they didn't have that, but the Supreme God has given his right, and that is what it is, irrespective of what they've been, what it says, that is the basis that is where it is. So, Mr. Pito always tried to say what he has said, it is his right, it is constitutional right, he has the right to say what he said, I think we have the right to say what he said, but that wouldn't change anything. So it's not a public opinion issue that has been explained now, and not just about the law, again. Okay, that will be all for this morning. It's kind of what I want to do. Thank you so much for your time this morning. Thank you very much for sending me back to the school this morning. Thanks for reminding me so much since I read the school. It's been a really long time. Yeah, thank you so much. Okay, we've been talking with Mr. Chris Cahinde Wando, member of the Chartered Institute of Obitrators in the UK. He spoke to us from Lagos State here on Off the Price. We're going to take a break, and when we return, we'll be looking at another issue with Mr. Shagun Shapatan. Stay with us.