 Tonight, APC already preparing for reruns says Labour Party and said holders are calling for a change in NIS policy on passport issuance for minors. This is PlusPolitics, I am Mary Annabelle. The National Chairman of the Labour Party, Mr Julio Sabure, has urged members of the party to be a let's following the information available to him that the All Progressive Congress APC was already preparing for a possible rerun of the 2023 presidential elections. This he explained was because the ruling party was aware of the tide that was heavily tilted against them in the ongoing legal challenge of the presidential election resource as declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Acting National Publicity Secretary of the party, Ubiora Ifo, in a statement quoted Aburi as calling on the over 10 million members of the party to be on the alert and get ready for further humiliation of the APC and its government in the polls if the sinister plot fails to materialise. Well, joining us tonight to discuss this is Professor Richard Wakachahi, is a professor of law at the River State University in Port Hatter. Thank you so much for joining us, Professor. Good evening. Good evening and good evening Nigerians. Great. Let's start by looking at this situation. The tribe, you know, still sits as we speak. There's not been any conclusion whatsoever and we're yet to hear anything on that issue. Why would you think the Labour Party would take this position quite early in the day? Hello. Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, Professor. Okay. Yes. The tribunal is this sitting and I think this is regular. It's normal. In a context, parties expect one of two judgments, either a successful one if you are the claimant or one that is not successful. And so I think it's normal for the gentleman to make the statement he has made to our show party members that they are still on course and there is every possibility. He says he hears from the rumours. So I'm sure that's not something that we can give much attention as far as the substance of what is talking about is concerned. But whether or not he talks about it, I think it is normal for all contestants at the tribunal to prepare or to hope for preparation for a rerun since that is a possibility from the outcome of the election. A lot of people who have reacted to this, of course, you know that just before the presidential elections, many would say that the Labour Party was a tsunami of sorts because it had the support of many young people and several others who were tired of the Bahá'í administration and the likes. But many are saying, as opposed to the Labour Party members and the followers, so many people are calling this matter subject. Is it something that we can count as subject being that this case is still in court? Discussing how a matter should end, why the matter is in court is clearly delving into the realm of the court and prejudging the court. So that would be dealing with something that is subject. But discussing the possibilities of outcomes and possible preparations for what follows those outcomes, I think it's something a citizen can do without running foul of the law. So at this point, we cannot talk of what we believe will be the judgment of the court from our evaluation of the facts that are before the court. That is the business of the court to do. But yes, we can safely talk of whether parties should prepare in the event, I mean, there are just two possibilities alone, either a successful contestation or a not successful one. So we will not be telling the court what to do if we say, oh, parties should prepare or are preparing for possible outcome of that contestation. So I think that would be all right. But we cannot say that we have evaluated the facts and this is where the judgment of the court is going. That would be acting on a matter that is subject. Again, let's look at some of the messaging in the press release that was split out by Mr. Blu-ray of the Labour Party. He talked about the fact that the tide is heavily tilted against the APC in the ongoing challenge of the presidential elections result as declared by Eileen. And he also went on to say that over 10 million members of the party need to be on alert and get ready to further humiliate the APC and its government in the polls if their sinister plot fails to materialise. He said, and I quote again, rumours have it that those in government are already planning to rerun this election and this is one of the supports we will be combating from you. I know that as the media we should not be running on rumours. But again, we live in a country where information, no matter how you try to get it, you have the source for it and sometimes we have to rely on some of these hearsays. But let's look at the matter that he's referring to and the possibility that maybe the Tinnabar administration could be talking about a rerun of this election. The administration would not be doing so. Remember that the speaker is a party at the contestation that is going on before the tribunal. So he is at liberty to think he has done his best and to say, oh, yeah, I think I have hit home running and I'm expecting something good. I think those are all within his rim. But if he says this is what the court will do, that is not within his rim. He can praise himself for what he has done, how well he thinks he has done. But if it is for the court, the tribunal, to determine the what of the much he has done and to affix value to it in terms of the outcome of the contest that is before that tribunal. Throughout this contestation you have seen outright and had outright statements that clearly appear to prejudge the case. But this is not one I will worry myself about. One who goes into the witness box and comes out is free to say, oh, I think I have done very well. I think I demolished them and all that. I think those are things that are normal that he can say. But he cannot say this is what the court will do. And he hasn't said so. Mind you, he said in the event that the plot does not work. And that is a plot of successfully defending the electoral victory. So he is speaking like you and I. And he's predicated on what the outcome may be, possibilities. He's not saying this is what the judge... He's not saying I hear that the tribunal will rule in our favor or has prepared judgment in our favor. No, that's not what he's saying. He's evaluating the performance of his party at the tribunal and thinking that everything is possible and in the event that our expectation comes through prepare. I think that is all right for me. I want to move away from this a bit. Let's just digress into the EU report on the election. There's a lot to unpack in that report. For some reason, then lots of people are just glossing over it. But let's pick it in bits. Most importantly, the EU report is talking about the conduct of the elections from INEC's perspective, the promises that were made by INEC and what they were able to deliver, the uploading of the results, the fact that it took so long for these results to be announced, and when it was announced, they also clearly talked about the fact that there was misinformation and disinformation. It clearly states names, times, events of members of the APC, misinforming members of the public against their position using the powers of the incumbent. Let's look at that report from the INEC and the sitting government, first and foremost, and then we'll talk about security agencies and across the media. What do you overall think of the position of the EU report as opposed to the ECU as the African Observatory Team? The first is that as an observer, you are expected to report what you experienced, what you saw, and practically what you experienced. As a kid, you are supposed to report. You may also report what you had, but you will have to specify with a caveat that this is what you had and not what you saw and experienced. So you can't fault any observer with respect to what he says I saw and I did, or what I saw and I experienced. So to that extent, you can hardly put it with you. You will also agree that some of these issues have also been in the media in Nigeria that have been talked about, the issue of expectations and what eventually turned out and all that. But at the end of the day, these are also, I believe, a lot of the things that have been presented before the court on which the court is to make pronunciation or pronouncements on what the amount to and the value to be attached to them with respect to their effect and their election. So I think if you have conflicting reports, we can at best say, baby, each man reported what he experienced, where he was and from the point from which he was looking at it. But I won't be surprised, but again, you will note that this is almost consistent with all our elections. The reports from the external sector, the bodies coming especially from outside our region have been more critical and have always faulted nearly all our elections. They have always raised positions that they have observed. Let's zero in on the issue of disinformation and misinformation. Again, we've seen a pushback from the federal government, the Senegal administration calling it a, I might not be able to support it directly, but a biased desk job from the EU. But critically looking at what happened on that day. I mean, let's even start by talking about the issue of Fanny Kayadier and the Minister of State, Francesca Jammu, and all of the unfounded allegations that were made. Yes, in the case of FFK, he was invited by the DSS, if I remember clearly. But then for the sitting minister, nothing was done. In fact, he went on to have press conferences and pushing for an arrest of the PDP presidential candidate. And this is something that does not necessarily look good for us as a country. As you have said, the EU has continually faulted our electoral processes. So why haven't we been able to take a lead of sorts or borrow at least from all of the recommendations they've made in some of our previous elections in terms of these kinds of disinformation and misinformation? On the issue of disinformation and misinformation, if I were to hold a particular ground with respect to informations affecting the election, I would say that is one area I did not quite see on a serious note, especially from the part of the government at that time, disinforming or disinforming citizens in a manner that will affect the outcome of the election. Making comments on what a person said and what a person did and drawing conclusions on what you think is the legal value of those things and calling for investigation on those things, for me, would not be the kind of misinformation and disinformation of an electoral character that I would find disturbing or affecting the election. This is one election, really, in which there was a lot of misinformation, a lot of libelous and defymatory information about parties. But I would think there was more against the party that eventually won the election than the other party, with respect to things that were published consistently, that at the end of the day, you cannot say with certainty we are true or found to be true. Nevertheless, we are at sleep or shoot. So I would be surprised if the issue of misinformation and disinformation will be said to be coming from the end from which the report is saying it came from, because there was much more at the other side. This is one of the most divisive election campaigns we have had in our history. And I do not think it's in the direction that the report is talking about. So I think I would not agree with them completely on that issue of misinformation and disinformation. I was expecting if they are talking about misinformation and disinformation, they are talking of policy issues and the information relating to policy and the conduct of the election that were deliberately false and that could have affected the outcome of the election. But if it is the one that we are talking about now, it would appear to me, going by what transpired at that time, as a person who was in this country, that there was more on the other part than on the part that the report is leaning on, in terms of the weight of misinformation and disinformation. It's still false politics, apologies for that break. We're still talking with Professor Richard at Ducey Wakata. Now Professor Wakata, we're trying to talk about information and misinformation and disinformation. Let's move away quickly from that and talk about some of the issues connected to the media. In that report clearly, I looked at it very closely today, it talked about the fact that the NBC used the power of the state to muscle the media. It made reference to the fact that a media house or media houses were fined for certain statements that were made. It also talked to a new recommendation saying that the government of the day should not, in fact, the executive should not have a hand in picking who has the NBC being that it should be an independent commission that oversees the running of the media in Nigeria. Let's use, for example, Ofcom in the United Kingdom. This is an independent body that oversees all media houses in the UK, whether it be the BBC, the state-owned or every other media house. Do you share the opinion of the EU on this particular matter? I think of a regulation that is always bad for public interest, especially in matters of this nature. While it is true that we are a country that has been unnecessarily and wrongly sensitive in the sense that things that are not issues, as we can trigger our manner of criminal activities here, including killing of persons and citizens and all that, that will make you understand that we need some level of regulation. Yes, but regulation is not good for anybody. It's not good for the media. It's not good for the society. When we over-regulate, there is a tendency to politicize the over-regulatory powers. That can have adverse effect on what is an issue, and that is the integrity of the public process we are talking about. I agree that it will make sense if you can take it away from the hand of a participant in the election. If you can make the sector completely independent, it will be beautiful. Remember always that there is always a price to pay for wrong publication. There is already some level of mitigation that has been introduced by the law, that if you malign somebody, you prepare to face a libel suit or some kind of defamation suit. You said something that is contrary to the law of the state. You prepare to face the necessary criminal consequences of what you have done. So I believe that media houses are capable of regulating themselves. But again, we are in an age in which, besides the traditional media, you have a number of media that have unrestrained access to the public and are creating impacts that are both positive and negative. So it's a two-way team. Given the peculiarity of your country, what works in England may not work beautifully for you. Many devourers can be killed just at the shot of blasphemy in your country, and there will be no consequence. And so you will make some level of state intervention that may not be necessary in England, where people are more civilized and activities are different. So it's a two-way team. There is need because of your peculiarity to make some level of intervention on the part of public authority. But on the whole, in an ideal situation, an independent regulatory body is always better for society. So I would agree with them on that. Quickly, before I go to the EU report in its entirety and why it's being heralded much more than other observatory reports that were put out here in Nigeria, let's talk about the past of the report that looked at how voters were molested, right in the view of security agents, and the recommendations that they've also made as it concerns the police, and this violence that ensued. Many of these observers said that several states had violence, and journalists were also being violated, abused, beaten, and bastard, including Legostate, which one expects not to have that, but we of course recorded several incidences. And they also talked about the role of security agencies in the election. I want to ask, because for me, I feel like this is a deja vu feeling. Every single election cycle, before, during, and after, we seem to be having these same kinds of conversation. And I want to ask, it's a historical question. If we keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting for a different result, are we not crazy? Yeah, that's the definition. It's not modern. It's always been the diffusion of madness when you do one thing over and over and you expect something different. I think the security agencies, in my opinion, performed less than expected. But you see, in our peculiarity again, the problem is not even limited to the security agencies. Look at the way state actors acted. Look at the way governors acted in their various states. Look at the way they deliberately and against the law restrained other parties from being able to do what the constitution says they should do because election is not a business. It's not a private affair. It's not a commercial activity. It's a constitutional public activity in which all participants must try to sell the idea to the public, the electorate, on why they are a correct choice for the electorate to make. And you can't say people should pay before they can speak to the public or because of where they want to stay to speak to the public. INEC is to determine that the law makes the National Assembly the appropriate authority to make law on regulation of elections. And that law is made in the Electoral Act. INEC is giving the power. And INEC made these regulations. No state ought to have made those other regulations and those other orders and directives that they were given restraining other parties from being able to participate freely in selling their ideas to the electorate. A lot of things went wrong. I think something was wrong with the way we coordinated security. The slept where they should have been active and people acted with impunity and did not give a damn. They did not hide their faces. Sometimes it was on national television and they acted against the law and there was no consequence. The natural expectation when you have that kind of situation is that everybody will either go mad and the election will become much more nasty in subsequent times or something will definitely give. So I think that problem manifested in a whole lot of areas the ones that were of greater concern to me was the one by public authorities that were acting in direct violation of the law. Finally Professor because we have just a minute to go. I am most bothered not necessarily worried but bothered as to why we heralded the EU process. I am not in any way saying that this is not authentic or querying it. I am just saying we have the CDD, the centre for democracy here, we have Yaga Africa, we have enough as enough. There were reports that were released but we did not necessarily herald those reports in the way that we have uplifted and made this news. You and I in fact are discussing this on national television. Why do we seem to uphold this as opposed to the other reports that we have from in-house? Well it is something coming from the international community and something of greater magnitude in the international community. So its area of coverage and its evaluation will be much wider than that of the others. Naturally when something like that comes those invulnerabilities will hold it up. Oh look at it, we have said it, that is what we said. And those against whom it is will definitely come up with answers and reasons why it should not be taken seriously. So I think it is a natural expectation especially in the third world where we attach greater importance to what is coming from outside than what is coming from the inside. Well Professor Richard Wokoccia is a professor of law at the River State University in Port Hackett. We want to thank you very much for being part of the conversation and we are hoping that some of these recommendations will be looked into other than just discarded. Thank you very much for speaking with us. Thank you for having me. Okay great. Now if you are a mother and you have been trying recently to get a passport for your child to go out of the country and you found it difficult to do, well we will be having a conversation as to why the NIS must change this policy on passport issuance for minors. Stay with us we will be right back.