 You're welcome back. It's still the run-up. And today we're discussing two issues. First of all, we'll be talking about what happened in the courts, where the Senate president has been made the senatorial candidate for his senatorial district instead of the person that we knew, Maschina that we knew. And we're also going to be talking about the biting conditions Nigerians are facing in the case of Naira's scarcity. But for the first issue that we're discussing, we're joined by Barrister Evans O'Felley, who is a constitutional lawyer. Good morning and welcome to the program, Barrister O'Felley. Good morning and thank you. Okay. Well, like I said, some people will be rejoicing. Some people will be sad. But for most of us, we're just confused what really happened. What would you say about the judgment? Right now it's out of the court, so you can speak freely about it, I'm sure. What do you make of the judgment that has brought in Ahmed Lawan instead of Maschina? Well, I don't agree with the demand of the Supreme Court, except that you cannot go higher than the Supreme Court. It is very clear in our laws that every pre-election matter must be commenced by or in 18 months. And that is captured by the parties' direction of the federal High Court 2022. I am doing a purple of election petition too, so I should know. And I know that even when we file matters for pre-election matters in the courts, there were instances where the court asked those who came by originating summons to run, who came by a rate of summons to run from back to originating summons. Now, the Supreme Court, the major reason it gave is that because Maschina alleged crime fraud, that it ought not to have commenced the proceedings by originating summons. Now, it's supposed to have commenced the proceedings by a rate of summons, in which case you will call witnesses to validate the claim that there was a criminal infraction in the process of the election and all that. And it was on that reason because if you come by originating summons, what the court will do is to look at documentary evidence, you attack all documents. And that is the way the federal High Court have already established by its practice direction. And that is how you commence proceedings. Now, the lawyers to machina commence their proceedings by originating summons. Well, here is the Supreme Court saying that because they alleged criminality and fraud, they ought to have come by a rate of summons to enable them called witnesses so that they can be processed. I mean, I know all that. If you look at the whole thing, I mean, the election that was, the primaries that was conducted on the 28th of May, 2022, the current day President Ahmed Lawan did not contest that election. He withdrew from it and went for that to contest the June 6 presidential election. So, and that election of the 28th of May is the one that was validated by the trial court, okay, that Ahmed did not contest that election. So, he ought not to have clinched and then become the candidate just because the process of commencement was related to someone and not a rate of summons. I mean, our laws are very clear. If you look at even the electoral act, okay, it clearly defines who a candidate is and who an aspirant is, okay, but why do you not participate in primaries? You should not emerge as a candidate because the conditional precedent, okay, for emerging as a candidate of a party should not be by judicial pronouncement and judicial validation. It should be by participating in the primaries of the party first, okay. In this case, here is a man who did not participate in the primaries and now the judiciary is not overriding the electoral act to validate his candidacy and then make him the candidate of a senatorial district. It's quite unfortunate. It's an unfortunate scenario. I mean, for me, it didn't come to me like any confusion. It came to me like gross manifestation of injustice and we should desist from it because when judgments like this are pronounced, it becomes precedent for subsequent judgments, especially when the judgment is coming from the Supreme Court. Subsequently, lawyers are going to go to court and subsequent elections can vast this position and hold the Supreme Court hostage to this decision. And then the Supreme Court will have to keep validating this decision on the right itself. I mean, that is why if you look at the minority judgments, two justices who did or took a different side to the issue, they clearly stated that Ahmed Lauer didn't contest the election. So if you do not contest the election, how do you not become, the judgment came to me like taking a poisonous leap to a purification feast. I mean, we must learn to keep the mosquito devised slave because we have no guarantee that if he sees the bottom of the cake, it will not do the same. Justice must be premised on merit. Justice must be that which is seen as manifestly done. The era of technicality and the era of using commencement proceedings, legal technicalities is gone. The era of judicial rascality is gone. So and the Supreme Court in its judgment to have said so, that technicality should not become the basis upon which judgments should be delivered. But this particular judgment appears to me like this record is taking itself away from that era. A man that did not contest, who even accepted his fate after the Court of First Instance record have said he cannot emerge as a candidate of the party by virtue of the fact that he did not contest the primary selection. So what is the extent of section 29 of the lecture? Instead of for you to become a candidate of a party, you must submit, you must first contest the primaries of that. It is not even enough to contest the primaries. The primaries must be monitored by INEC. It must be validated by the relevant authority and the requisite bodies before it can become a valid primaries upon which you can have a candidacy. But here it appears for me, we have taken a different course to what the law is talking about. Left for you, what should have been the judgment in this case? For me, the judgment should have been that since a man did not contest the primaries, he should not become a candidate or the flag bearer of the party in that constituency. The person who contested the primaries and emerged the winner should because Ahmed Lawan, his eye was in the presidency and then he went to contest that primaries. All of a sudden he lost it and turned around. That primaries was on the 6th of June and on the 7th of June, 2022, he turned around and they conducted another primaries where he did not emerge. Whereas the one of the 28th of May, 2022, was not cancelled by the party. That one imagina emerged and still subsists. Ahmed Lawan went to contest the primaries for the presidential seat on the 6th of June, lost. Came back on the 7th, they organized the primaries where he did not emerge. Whereas you have a subsystem candidate who had already emerged for the one before now. For me, this is injustice. The Supreme Court ought to have made the pronouncement that Machina become the candidate or are to worst, are to worst, the Supreme Court ought to have ordered for a rerun if there must do justice. Would a rerun have been, have still been legal according to electoral laws and every other law guiding this kind of process? Would a rerun at this time still have been legal? There was a rerun last week in Abia State. The candidates for the PDP died. Yes, and there was a rerun. There's a replacement now. Okay. So I'm just saying that if the Supreme Court wants to really do that, the worst they could have done is to order for a rerun and not to turn it around for a party who did not contest the primaries at all to now become the candidate in that constitution. I mean, the people voted for Machina in that constitution. These persons were representing the larger society. They are delegates representing the larger state. And they have given their mandate to that effect. All of a sudden, someone who did not contest the election, would not have to take the mandate from the person who contested the election. Okay, Barista, it's just, it's just confusing. Now that they say, the Supreme Court has said that it is law and that is the candidate for that senatorial district. So Machina has lost out. The people who, like you said, voted for him have lost out. Is there something else that they can do to hold the party and hold the instrument that brought Lawan to that position? You know, can they still do something else to hold them? They cannot do anything. They cannot do anything because the Supreme Court is a fan of each house. So if a Supreme Court makes a mistake, for instance, it just stands and sets a president for the rest of the, for rest of us to come and maybe suffer it? Well, if the Supreme Court makes a mistake, the only point where you can call for a review is when there's a clerical error, typographical error, or there's issues within that they can force within typo and all that. Okay, that's when the Supreme Court, you can go back to the Supreme Court and ask for a review. But you cannot go back to the Supreme Court to ask the Supreme Court to opt on itself. The Supreme Court have used judgments to opt on itself on its own violation, not at the instance of any party or persons or group of persons telling the Supreme Court to opt on its own judgment. You see that you see that you see it was a 3-2. Okay, 3-2 in the sense that 3 of the justices gave judgment in favor of Ahmed or two dissented. And if you read the provisions of the law that were cited by the two dissenting judges, and you marry to the letter acts, and the fact of this case, you will find the logic therein. Okay, for here we are faced with a condition where you cannot take the Supreme Court to any other court. The only place you can go from this is heaven. Okay, and that is the process. And we're saying that this kind of judgment indicts the judiciary. And for me, I don't think it's in good light in my own estimation from what, because I mean the reason given is just so that the Supreme Court didn't even look at the practice direction that was issued by the Federal High Court. I had similar case in Asaba in pre-election matter where I was in court, in a particular day, where they called acts, all the councils who have commenced their proceedings by rate of someone to work on that, to reigniting someone. Okay, well here the Supreme Court is even, they are the fact that because of their alleged criminality and fraud, and that is just the reason. Okay, how about the merit of the case itself? Okay, let's put aside the issue of fraud that was alleged. Okay, if a man had not contested the primaries, and the other party had raised fraud in the process, is the issue of fraud more important than the conditional precedent, which is that session 20, now the electoral act says you must contest. You see, this is the fear, this is the fear barista, because electoral acts that was amended in 2022 is what gives the people so much confidence that the elections of 2023 will be better, the political climate will be better and all that. But this one setting a precedent, does it mean it has just rubbish the electoral act? Because if this is not respected, what is the likelihood that any other thing in the electoral act will be respected? I mean we've seen cases in Aqaba, where Aqaba became, suddenly became the candidate for his senatorial district, which people feel shouldn't have been. We saw the one before the electoral act, it can be excused, where a governor in emo state came forth or so and then after all that happened in the courts, he became the governor and he's still the governor till today. We don't seem to understand what is going on. So does it mean in the electoral act, it's just something that we cannot even look to because the provisions of that act may be flouted by anybody anytime because of any reason? Well the truth is that the electoral acts still remain the extant law on election, election matter. The constitution remains the ground norm, okay? The reason we advocate that the courts upholds the provisions of the electoral act and the constitution. It is only in doing that that we can find the reflection of the people's hope and aspiration in the candidacy of politicians, okay? Now but where there's destruction or the tractors or where you have judgment like this, it makes rubbish of the said law. People have argued about who is a candidate and who is a candidate, okay? When you become a candidate and when are you an aspirant? You are an aspirant before primaries. When you emerge the winner, you become a candidate, okay? Those are established issues of law in the electoral act, okay? Which is very, very clear, okay? Interpretations should come in that light, okay? Well here we're saying that the fact that a man alleged fraud is not a reason you should get to see the merit of his case and then focus on the technicality of the mode of commencement, okay? If you think that the mode of commencement was wrong, you should have ordered that the case be re-litigated or start de novo. I know that time is of essence now but the Supreme Court could have done that because a man did not convince in a particular way, is that enough reason why he should lose his mandate given to him by his people? I mean, the thing is if let's say the electoral acts were like the 10 commandments and the fact that you cannot become a candidate in an election that you never contested has been struck out as it were. That means we have just nine commandments as it is now because any time this thing comes up, this judgment that has been given will be set as a president, will be set as an example. This is what has happened, which means the electoral act and its effect is reducing. So can we still have hope in this electoral act, granted that even before the election we have seen instances where it has been set aside and something which is opposite what is the provision in the electoral act is being done? What hope do the Nigerian people have in both the electoral act and the electoral process itself? Hope is not all lost, hope is not all lost in the case at hand. For me I feel it is a patent error which the Supreme Court must in subsequent judgment correct. Why we live with the pains of what has already been established? We should not go back there. You know what Lord Denin would say that we must try as much as possible to keep the stream of justice clean at all times. If we pollute the stream of justice, we are going to have the outcast effects and its consequences in society. I mean people will begin to lose hope in institutions of government and the worst thing that can happen to a country is where people now lose hope completely in every area. Judiciary is a hope of the common man. If everything has gone wrong, the judicial system must not go wrong because that is a system that is meant to correct every other processes. And let me say this that if not for the judiciary, even as much as we talk about its inefficiency right now in the press of this judgment and if not for the judiciary, this Nigeria would have long been destroyed by politicians. I can tell you that it is politicians that are dragging the judiciary ruthlessly this way. Politicians will come up with all kinds of gimmicks. You want to contest the presidential primaries and at the same time you want to retain your seats in the Senate. And then you pulled out from the state primaries to conduct contests at the center, then lost them, came back. Primaries has already been concluded yet the next day you now have to conduct your own primaries. And the other one has not been validated. What are we doing? Does this confirm what people have been thinking that the judiciary has been compromised? The judiciary has been bought over. At least a chunk of the people involved have been bought over. And it may be a problem for Nigerians. Is this not an evidence to that effect? Except that we don't have material evidence to that effect. I know you would say that. But it is deductive. Whoever implies that concept, I will not blame the person because it is this kind of thought is stemming out from what is seen. In as much as I will not yield totally to that fact because of the want of material evidence. Over those who have chosen to think and act that way, I will not blame them. I would not blame them in the sense that if the judiciary had avoided what has just happened, nobody would think of you that way. Okay, there should be quality before the law. The fact that somebody is a president does not mean that at every point it should be made to get away with illegalities. We should come to that point where the judiciary will sit down and pronounce okay, an incumbent president wrong and take him down out of office. We should go to that level. That is the only point where we begin to build confidence in our democracy and in our development. I choose to speak the truth, irrespective of who is who delivered the judgments. Irrespective of I don't care about that. What I care about is the laws that I have read, its provision, except the courts want to strike a session 29 of the Electoral Act. If that is struck, it will therefore mean that anybody who does not contest permits can come from anywhere at any time and emerge as a candidate. And that will not be what a civilized country should put up with. And the international communities are watching all over the world. People are looking at how we are conducting ourselves. How we talk about developing Nigeria and we conquer a political system that does not give truth to reason and that does not do what is appropriate. It is quite unfortunate, I must say. Okay. Well, when the politicians do wrong, we run to the courts, we run to other places, we do so many things. But when the courts go wrong, we hardly ever say anything. And sometimes, like they say, power corrupts and absolute power absolutely. So if the courts are allowed to do the things that are wrong as well, or are very shady, confusing to the people who may not be learned gentlemen, what do we ask people do to make sure that the courts themselves sit up? Because, for instance, they had, we had answers because the security people were doing what was not right. We had Occupy Nigeria when the politicians were perceived to be doing the wrong thing. We've had so many things like that for every sector of our society. But I can hardly remember any time we've done anything because the courts have gone wrong. Now, I don't, I'm not talking about a revolution or some kind of thing, but what do we need to do to show the courts that we are also watching and we need them to do the right thing? Because they're the last hope of the common man, as we always say. What can we do to have these checks and balances with the courts? Well, it is also the people to stomach or jettison or protest against illegality. Illegality to one is illegality to all. Okay. Hardly will you find people demonstrating peacefully in the streets of Nigeria as a result of a pronouncement that is perceived illegal or that is preoccupied with what is not right? Okay, hardly will you see that. But it is up to the people to decide whether or not it is proper to leave and stay by this kind of pronouncement. The ultimate issue about the legal system and the provisions of our laws is to enhance society, re-engineer the process, so that at the end of the day justice is seen, to be manifestly done. But where, when and how injustice are perceived wrong? Okay, Barista Evans, I think we've lost the audio there, but I would like to thank you, even though maybe you can still hear us. We'd like to thank you for coming on the bus. Okay, you're still there. Well, we've run out of time anyway, but we're glad that we had this perspective from you and so many people in the camp of the person who won will be glad by now. We'll be happy, but a lot of Nigerians like us are very confused and now that you have told us some of the things that we needed to hear, we know what happened there and what we'll be looking forward to in the future. Well, but like you said, all hope is not lost. Thank you so much for being a part of this show today. You're welcome. Okay, we've been talking with Barista Evans Ufeli Esquire, a constitutional lawyer, and when we return from the break that we're about to take, we'll be looking at the Naira redesign and still taking some views from the people of Nigeria. We'll be talking with Mr. Athiophilus Akkatuba on the twists and turns of the Naira redesign and how he feels about it. Stay with us.