Newspaper of the Year
...94 D AYS TO GO DA
•Nigeria’s widest circulating newspaper
VOL. 10, NO. 3135 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
•www.thenationonlineng.net
TR UTH IN DEFENCE OF FREEDOM TRUTH
Battle to save naira may be long, complex
D
ESPITE the scrapping of the Retail Dutch Action System (RDAS) by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the trouble with the naira may linger longer than envisaged. The pressure on the for-
•AND
ON •Oshiomhole: don’t use army to protect ambition MORE PAGES •Ambode launches stickers for Lagos Okada riders 2-9,58 •APC candidate demands audit report’s publication & 60 •Obasanjo’s exit PDP’s death warrant, says Kwankwaso
By Collins Nweze, Finance Correspondent
eign exchange reserves following falling oil prices is not helping matters. Compounding the woes of
the naira the market’s anticipation of the eventual unification of the different exchange rates. It is expected that the RDAS exit, the window under which
foreign exchange was previously available at a subsidised rate, will effectively be discontinued. Going forward, all demands for foreign exchange will be channelled through
the interbank foreign exchange market instead. The trouble with the naira has long been associated with political volatility and bad economic policies that encour-
N150.00 age the government to spend more than its earnings. The announcement that elections would be postponed to 28 March and April 11 subjected the markets to greater volatility. •DETAILS ON PAGES 2&3
•INSIDE: COURT FREES BABALAKIN, OTHERS P6 RICE ‘IMPORTATION TO END SOON’ P6
Shekau order: APC alleges plot to blackmail Buhari Insurgents ‘posing as women in Baga’ From Tony Akowe, Abuja
T
HERE is a plot to frame up Gen. Muhammadu Buhari as a Boko Haram sponsor, the APC Presidential Camapaign Organisation (APCPCO) said yesterday. The proof lies in the Federal Government’s order to troops to capture alive Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau. A fake Shekau, said the APCPCO, will be made to state that he is working for Buhari, the APC’s presidential candidate. But, said the organisation, it is all blackmail because: •the military has claimed several times that Shekau has been killed; and •Gen. Buhari was attacked in Kaduna by suspected Boko Haram bombers who killed some of his guards. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) postponed the general elections from February 14 and 28 to March 28 and April 11 because the Service Chiefs
•Cache of arms recovered from terrorists
•A captured terrorists’ vehicle set ablaze
Continued on page 4
‘
The charge to the military, that they should catch Shekau alive by the President in the last 24 hours lends credence to the report that indeed a fake Shekau is about being created
?
WILL THE CHIBOK GIRLS KIDNAPPED ON APRIL 15, LAST YEAR EVER RETURN?
’
•One of the suspected terrorists disguised as a woman
•Another terrorists’ vehicle set ablaze
Fayose under fire over death wish for candidate •SEE PAGES 4&60
Amosun, others condemn action Governor: I’m not on his trail
•TRANSPORTATION P12 •SPORTS P20 •ENERGY P51 •PROPERTY P53 •POLITICS P57
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
2
NEWS
Saving the naira at all cost
•Presidential candiate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (left) with the party’s Natioanl Leader Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu in London... yesterday.
T
•Industry, Trade and Investment Minister Dr. Olusegun Aganga (left) admiring a personalised CocaCola bottle presented to him by Managing Director, Nigerian Bottling Company Ltd, Mr. Ben Langat as part of the Share a Coke Campaign in Abuja.
•From Left: Anambra State’s ex-Governor Dr Chinwoke Mbadinuju (middle) after defecting to the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Abuja...yesterday. With him are APC leaders Mr Tony Momoh (left) and Chief Ogbonnaya Onu.
•From left: Channel Development Manager, Friesland Campina, WAMCO, Mrs. Funke Ayoola; Customer, Mrs. Folake Adebowale; the company’s Regional Sales Manager, Mr. Seyi Odubena and another customer, Mrs. Vivian Ezeokoli at the inauguration of Three Crowns 380g Powder Milk Trade Activation at Regina Mundi Catholic Church Hall, Idioro, PHOTO: DAYO ADEWUNMI Mushin...at the weekend
HEY craned their necks and stared as he made his way into a conference room in Lagos where an emergency meeting of stakeholders in the Foreign Exchange (FOREX) market was summoned on January 27 at the instance of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). The over 2,000 guests, including Bureau de Change (BDC) operators, bank chief executives, and captains of industry, were waiting eagerly for him to address them on the FOREX market and the fate of the naira. When Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele finally began to speak, it dawned on all present that Nigeria was heading for a major crisis, and that unless something urgent was done to stop FOREX speculators, the economy is doomed. Emefiele told the audience that the coming weeks would be tough for FOREX speculators and importers, who misuse dollar allocations from the apex bank to import commodities that could be produced locally. He said the urgent nature of the meeting implied that activities of speculators and importers were hurting the naira, foreign exchange reserves and the economy and must be halted at all cost. So, many saw it coming when last weekend, the CBN scrapped the Retail Dutch Auction System (RDAS) and replaced it with the Interbank Foreign Exchange (IFEX) market because of “undesirable practices” by those it called economic agents. By scrapping the RDAS, a key part of its currency-management system, the CBN has effectively devalued the naira for the second time in three months. Before now, Emefiele had threatened to withdraw the FOREX dealing licences of banks that engage in speculative demand for the dollar at the market. He said the speculative activities had led to artificial demand for the dollar and an unnecessary pressure on the naira. “We will not hesitate to suspend the dealing licences of banks speculating on the dollar. Companies caught involved in sharp practices under the guise of seeking dollars to import items into the country will lose their licences,” he said. Emefiele, who described currency speculation as sharp practice, said the CBN would not shy away from dealing with the unpatriotic behaviour which could make the nation “plunder its external reserves and throw the country into crisis”. The CBN chief said frontloading demand for FOREX and other speculative practices made the apex bank to come up with certain measures aimed at stabilising the markets. The CBN Director in charge of Corporate Communications Department, Ibrahim Mu’azu, said that with the scrapping the RDAS, all demands for FOREX should be channelled to the IFEX market. He noted: “With the sharp decline in global oil prices and the resultant fall in the country’s FOREX earn-
ings, the bank has observed a widening margin between the rates in the interbank and the RDAS window, thus engendering undesirable practices including round-tripping, speculative demand, rent-seeking, spurious demand, and inefficient use of scarce foreign exchange resources by economic agents.” This, he said, “has continued to put pressure on the nation’s foreign exchange reserves with no visible economic benefits to the productive sector of the economy and the general public” as a result it had to wield this big stick to protect the naira. Mu’azu added: “It has become imperative that appropriate actions be taken to avert the emergence of a multiple exchange rate regime and preserve the country’s foreign exchange reserves.” He said the managed float exchange rate regime, which the CBN had adopted following the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market, has for the most part been successful in ensuring exchange rate stability in line with its mandate, but giving the infractions commuted by the so-called economic agents the CBN he said, had no choice but to take this decision.
Stakeholders speak When the news hit the market, it triggered diverse reactions. President, Association of Bureau De Change Operators of Nigeria (ABCON), Alhaji Aminu Gbadabe, said the policy was ill-timed. He told The Nation that the policy would push interbank rate to N250 to dollar and increase the panic in the sector. “It is not the right time to cancel RDAS now; there is panicking in the FOREX market,” he said. Gbadabe said the policy will aggravate challenges faced by importers. He said that the CBN should have punished banks that violate the RDAS rules, instead of scrapping it. “I expected the CBN to conduct a forensic examination of the of FOREX trading and punish erring banks. There were cases where banks used fake documents or no documents at all to demand for FOREX at RDAS,” he said. But the former President, Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (CIBN), Mazi Okechukwu Unegbu, described the policy shift as mixed blessings. He said the problem started when Emefiele came in and made statements that triggered a rush for the dollar. “Many people started changing their naira to dollar and that created dollar scarcity. It was made worse when oil price started coming down and banks not disciplined enough, have also been accessing FOREX without proper documentation,” he said. To him, the economy is very weak because of the drop in oil price. Foreign investors only come in and make huge returns without investing in the economy, he said, adding that the policy shift will equally increase market speculation. Unegbu advised the government to
PO THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
3
•Emefiele
•Rewane
•Gbadabe
•Various denominations of the naira
Last week’s decision of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to scrap the Retail Dutch Auction System (RDAS) and focus on the Interbank Foreign Exchange (IFEX) market has generated reactions from stakeholders. Although the apex bank acted to save the naira and foreign reserves against falling oil prices, many people doubt that this measure will do the magic in an import-dependent economy like Nigeria’s, writes COLLINS NWEZE. solidify the economic base by diversifying the economy and covering the leakages that encourage corruption. He predicted a rise in unemployment, saying that he was already thinking of how to downsize as an employer of labour to enable him cope with the expected rise in cost of production. The Managing Director, Bluewall Bureau De Change, Lucky Aiyedatiwa,, said the policy has made it easy for the interbank to be the centre of attraction and allowed the naira to defend itself. He said the RDAS created room for abuse, and that the policy will check round tripping. “Let the naira defend itself. The CBN can on its own sell to the banks once. The CBN has also brought everyone on the same page by unifying the market. I think we have finally gotten it right,” he said. The President, Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI), Remi Bello, said the CBN’s action was inevitable since the country had been running on a mono economy. He said the level of gap that existed between the RDAS and interbank was too high and created room for speculation and volatility. He said the gap that created will only be felt now, but later, it will benefit the economy. He predicted that inflation will go up and that locallymade products will now be cheaper overseas. Bello, however, cautioned that Nigerians with penchant for foreign goods should have a rethink. The Managing Director of Financial Derivatives Company Limited, Mr Bismack Rewane, said the RDAS structure meant buyers get FOREX in official market at N168 per dollar and sell at the parallel market at N215 to the dollar, leaving a profit margin of N47 on every dollar for doing nothing. He said the CBN has now converged the market and rates into interbank and parallel markets which leads to pure competition and reduced arbitrage opportunity. He said that the IFEX will make aggregate demand for FOREX to fall, aggregate supply will increase, while price system will be efficient. To Rewane, there can never be a good time to adjust a currency to its fair value but it will always be better late than never. Only 10 to 15 per cent of transactions are covered by the subsidised RDAS rate, according to
him. He said: “After a period of heightened uncertainty, the CBN restored some calm in the markets by scrapping the RDAS forex segment. Nigeria now leaves the club of 34 countries in the world operating multiple exchange rates. Most countries have gone through this phase in the journey towards full currency convertibility.” Rewane said the new system has one big advantage because it discontinues the practice of all the banks mobilising their naira and queuing up to purchase dollars. The interbank system, he said, is not only more efficient but it allows interest rates to find their levels naturally. “The cost of imported raw materials will increase; part of which will be passed on consumers. Besides, devaluation is not inflation as it will lead to compressed profit margins for companies; about 15 per cent decline in corporate earnings is expected,” Bismack said. The Head, Markets at the FBN Capital, Olubunmi Ashaolu, described the scrapping of the RDAS as a ‘bold but necessary step by the CBN’, even as he admitted that the slide in oil prices effectively forced the hand of the CBN. His words: “Official reserves at the beginning of this week stood at $32.7 billion, 18 per cent below end-February 2014 levels. In December, the CBN spent $2.3 billion defending the naira. Despite the occasional interventions, the pressure on the naira intensified, forcing the CBN to shift demands out of RDAS to the interbank market. While this brought some relief to the RDAS, the interbank rate diverged sharply from the official rate. The writing was on the wall for the de-facto devaluation.” He said the CBN has effectively shifted all RDAS demand to the
‘
interbank market, thus minimising its role as the ‘prime’ market maker. “The move”, he said, “is a necessary one to ensure the stabilisation of the naira and reflect the demand and supply dynamics. This will improve market depth and efficiency. It effectively closes the arbitrage opportunity for “round-tripping, speculative demands, rent-seeking and spurious demands,” he said. Ashaolu said the naira will get more support with a slight recovery in oil prices to $60/barrel. According to him, the CBN decision will bring a positive impact on the raw materials being imported by companies dealing in consumer goods. Head, Macro Research Africa at Standard Chartered Bank, Mrs. Razia Khan described the policy as positive news that will create more transparency in the market. She, however, suggested the close monitoring of the CBN’s support of the interbank FOREX with the current oil prices and the difficulty in replenishing the foreign exchange reserves. Her words: “With Nigeria’s foreign exchange reserves under pressure as a result of sliding oil prices, markets had anticipated eventual unification of different exchange rates. Following the announcement in February that presidential and parliamentary elections would be postponed to 28 March, Nigerian markets were subject to greater volatility.” Mrs. Khan said that with foreign reserves under pressure and amid growing concern that a wide RDASinterbank spread will encourage ‘round-tripping’, the CBN will now stop RDAS auctions; effectively discontinuing its foreign exchange subsidy for certain categories of demand.
Naira woes For two consecutive days last week, FOREX market operators
Cost of imported raw materials will increase, part of which will be passed on consumers. Besides, devaluation is not inflation neutral as it will lead to compressed profit margins for companies, about 15 per cent decline in corporate earnings expected
‘
pulled the plug on electronic trading in the naira, after it slid past N200 to the dollar on fears that the postponement of the elections could trigger a constitutional row. For the first time, frontline bankers in Lagos agreed to deploy a ‘circuit-breaker’ and halt trade after the naira dropped more than two per cent. At its weakest, it was quoted at a record low of N204.25 to the dollar, a decline of 20 per cent since November last year. The rout has been driven by the combination of tumbling oil prices and a rise in political risk. While these lasted, the CBN stopped banks from reselling dollars bought at the RDAS to other lenders, or use them for purposes they were not meant. The move was aimed at curbing currency speculation and strengthening of the naira against the greenback. The naira on Friday closed at N197 to the dollar at the IFEX but exchanged at N210 at the parallel market. It has lost five per cent over the past 10 days - the most on a weekly basis since December 2008. The 2008 global financial meltdown contributed to the naira’s freefall. According to Rewane, Nigeria was not prepared for the shock. “The Nigerian economy believed to be one of the most resilient in the world was caught unawares by the global crisis,” he said.
Previous measures and BDC’s regulation The CBN has for long, been making changes in the BDC sub-sector. On June 23, last year, it raised the minimum capital requirement of BDCs to N35 million from N10 million. It also raised the mandatory caution deposit to N35 million from $10,000. It recently gave approval to additional 102 BDC operators, bringing the total to 2,544 since the recapitalisation deadline lapsed in July, last year. The CBN has also directed that all importations including electronics, finished products, information technology, generators, telecommunication equipment and invisible transactions must henceforth be funded from the interbank FOREX market only. The policy was introduced to maintain the existing stability in the market and strengthen the various
measures already initiated by the regulator.
Failed promises? The misfortune of the naira began in November 2008, when it first crashed to N120 to the dollar from N118. By the middle of that month, it fell to about N134 to the dollar and the free-fall continued in the following year. Before the close of the first week of January 2009, the naira had fallen to about N144 to the dollar at the IFEX market. The situation became even worse at the parallel market as the currency exchanged for N147 to the dollar. It later fell to N160 to the dollar, causing greater shocks for international business transactions. Against all odds, former CBN Governor Prof. Charles Soludo said he was taking full charge to bring stability to the economy and restore the glory of the naira. “I can tell you that those who have bought up dollars and are stockpilling them in anticipation for profit will regret because it will soon bounce back,” Soludo had said. His successor, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi believed strongly on exchange rate stability. Under his wtach, the apex bank consistently pursued a policy aimed at achieving exchange rate stability, banking sector stability and singledigit inflation target. Sanusi’s successor, Emefiele has also promised to sustain his predecessor’s legacy. The apex bank chief said in his inmaiden speech in June 2014: “In view of the high import-dependent nature of the economy and significant exchange rate pass-through, a systematic depreciation of the naira will literarily translate to considerable inflationary pressure with attendant effect on macroeconomic stability. “Therefore, under my leadership, the CBN will continue to focus on maintaining exchange rate stability and preserve the value of the domestic currency.” Despite these promises, the fate of the naira has clearly shown that successive CBN regimes have all failed to protect the local currency from value erosion. The development has grave consequences for the economy.
4
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
NEWS Police: Okrika violence perpetrators ’ll be punished •Emir of Kano, Malam Muhammadu Sanusi II (middle) with the former Head of Interim National Government, Chief Ernest Shonekan and Kano State Governor Rabi’u Kwankwaso at the emir’s palace ...yesterday.
Shekau order: APC alleges plot to blackmail Buhari Continued from page 1
said they could not gurantee security. They needed six weeks, they said, to wipe out the Boko Haram insurgency. Shekau issued a video tape in which he lampooned the plan to defeat him. The APC campaign said in a statement signed by its Director, Media and Publicity, Mallam Garba Shehu, that the directive to soldiers to capture Shekau alive is a ploy by the government to claim glory for winning the war on terrorism. He said that “the charge to the military, that they should catch Shekau alive by the President in the last 24 hours lends credence to the report that indeed a fake Shekau is about being created.” The statement argued that the profile of the leader of the insurgents as a dedicated ideologue presupposes that the man is not likely to allow himself to be caught alive.
“It is both contradictory to the ideology he preaches and the psychological profile that the world has of him that Shekau would allow himself to be caught alive,” it added. According to the statement, the attack in Kaduna on Gen. Buhari was seen and believed by most Nigerians as perpetrated by the Boko Haram. “The police that is constitutionally empowered to investigate and report on such incidents has not contradicted the widespread belief that this was a Boko Haram attack,” APCPCO said, adding: “The view of the APC is that it does not make sense for General Muhammadu Buhari to be in league with, or be associated in any way with people who have set out to kill him.” Shehu advised the government to listen to the various counsel from international bodies and lately by religious leaders that campaigns must be
about issues and not maligning people, adding that “unfounded allegations linking the opposition to insurgency amounts to leaving the issues to pursue personal attacks as warned against, barely 24 hours ago by leaders of the Catholic Community through Arch. Bishop John Onaiyekan”. The APC Campaign said it was shocked, as other Nigerians by the President’s admission in a weekend newspaper interview that he had underestimated the Boko Haram challenge, arguing that any leader in that circumstance should not consider himself fit to seek re-election. Quoting President Jonathan’s recent confession that he underestimated Boko Haram, the APC presidential campaign said the admission was a direct evidence that the President has nothing to offer and must bow to the wind of change. President Jonathan is out of
touch with the realities of the lethal challenges posed by global terrorism, including Boko Haram, which is believed to be affiliated to Al-Qaeda global terror network, Shehu said. Malam Shehu maintained that for any President to under-estimate terrorism, it means that he doesn’t take any national challenges seriously, including health, poverty, unemployment, power, education, infrastructure and other issues. He emphasised that with his admission, President Jonathan has passed a vote of no confidence on himself and his administration, adding that his confession underlines the imperative for change. Shehu said a President admitting his incompetence in tackling a mortal challenge to the security of Nigerians, he has no business seeking re-election or looking for excuses to delay elections.
Troops arrest terrorists disguised as women
T
HE Defence Headquarters yesterday said it has uncovered Boko Haram insurgents in Baga disguising as women. It said it has also discovered more bombs hidden in various locations in the area. Troops have stepped up air strikes on Gwoza, Bama and
From Yusuf Alli, Abuja
the Sambisa Forest. The Director of Defence Information, Maj-Gen. Chris Olukolade, stated this in a statement on the update on the ongoing cordon and search in Baga. There was no independent confirmation of
the claims. The statement said: “The cordon and search in Baga has revealed some terrorists disguising as women. “The searches are also yielding more discoveries of arms, especially bombs, hidden in various locations, especially Baga town.
“Apart from those captured in the course of fighting, many arrests of terrorists hiding in the town are being made and troops are still busy interrogating the suspects.” The DHQ said air strikes Continued on page 60
T
HE Assistant Inspector General of Police( AIG) Zone 6, Mr. Tunde Ogunsakin, said yesterday there is no going back from the agreement to visit violators of the “no political violence” peace pact signed by political parties, stakeholders and political aspirants in Rivers state with the punishment stipulated therein. Ogunsakin stated this at a news conference in Port Harcourt, the state capital, yesterday while giving an update on the on-going investigation into the All Progressives Congress(APC), Okrika rally attack with led to the death of a policeman and injury to many others. The former commissioner of Police in the state, frowned at the deliberate refusal of politicians to abide by the content of the peace accord, insisting that anybody indicted by the investigation must be prosecuted, irrespective of who he is. According to him, his office had temporarily been relocated to Port Harcourt to ensure full investigation. He said full scale investigation had already commenced. He maintained that anyone found wanting in any of the reports be made to face the music, insisting that he could not compromise peace and tranquillity in any of the states under him. Ogunsakin said: “I emphasised that political activities must effectively accommodate the interests of all without undermining the funda-
From Rosemary Nwisi, Port Harcourt
mental human rights of the citizens and without also compromising the peace, order, security and safety of lives and property in Rivers State. “Unfortunately, it has become apparent that the political actors who were present at the said meeting are not complying with the peace accord. “It was agreed at that meeting that in the event of violation of the content of the peace accord, we will not hesitate to visit any of the persons or parties concerned with the full wrath of the law. “It is on the strength of this that I am temporarily relocating to Port Harcourt. I once again warn that I shall not condone any act that will disrupt the peace and order in any of the states under my control especially Rivers state. “I have the capacity to overwhelm any person(s) or group(s) that will rise to contravene the Electoral Act or disrupt public peace, In line with my intentions to partner with all relevant stakeholders, I have met with politicians, religious leaders and key stakeholders in Okrika and Ogu/Bolo Local Government Areas where I re-iterated my commitment to ensuring zero tolerance to crime and violence. “I have warned them to advise their loved ones against being used by politicians to Continued on page 60
I met with Buhari, says Blair
A
FORMER British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has confirmed that he held a private meeting with the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, in London on Saturday. There has been speculations that a picture showing Messrs. Blair, Gen. Buhari, Ogun State Governor Ibikunle Amosun and Senator Bukola Saraki, was photoshopped. To buttress their claim, some
of the critics claimed Mr. Blair was not in the U.K. on Saturday and could not have met Gen. Buhari. “Mr. Blair had a private meeting with General Muhammadu Buhari in London,” said Rianne Buter, in an email response to PREMIUM TIMES’ inquiry. Ms. Buter also said Mr. Blair “hopes to visit Nigeria shortly when he will see the President”.
Fayose under fire over death wish for candidate
E
KITI State Governor Ayodele Fayose came under fire yesterday as eminent Nigerians criticised his continous death wish for All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate Gen. Muhammadu Buhari. Ogun State Governor Ibikunle Amosun, Senator Ayo Arise, Ekiti State APC and others had harsh words for the governor. But despite the criticism of his hate message, Fayose yesterday in Abuja inissted that Gen. Buhari is receiving treatment in a London hospital. Amosun wondered how some people in the name of politics could descend to a ridiculously low level of wishing Gen. Buhari dead. Amosun, who travelled to London with Buhari and returned on Sunday, wondered how a “sane person” could wish his fellow human being ill or dead , adding that it is even a “disgrace to the Yoruba race” for a Yoruba to indulge in such. The governor, who spoke with reporters shortly after a meeting with representatives
From Gbade Ogunwale, Abuja, Ernest Nwokolo, Abeokuta, Odunayo Ogunmola, Ado-Ekiti and Bode Durojaiye, Oyo
of over 57 Community Development Associations(CDAs) and Cooperative Societies at the June 12 Cultural Centre, Kuto, Abeokuta, said “Buhari is alive, hale and hearty”. The APC presidential candidate is agile and healthier than the “character” behind the spate of ill-will and death wishes against him, he said. The governor urged genuine lovers of democracy and humanity to call those wishing the former Head of State dead to order, stressing that the strange practice did not only go against tradition but does not have basis in Christianity and Islam. Amosun said: “Let me say this is a big shame. We are Yoruba. It is an unwritten rule they would say that even if in different pàrties they are not fighting, they want to represent our people. How can a sane person wish somebody else dead? Why? It has never happened, it is a disgrace.
“For your information, Buhari is even stronger than the character saying the man is ill, maybe because of his military background. “The man is hale and hearty for his age. It is like Baba Obasanjo; this is a man that is very agile and you just have to tell him slow down to catch up with, just like some people will tell me to slow down. “We went to about five places. Even when I went to Ben Television, I told him, ‘sir, you can’t follow me; you have to go home;’ he was ready to follow me even in the cold. “The man was working round and you saw the photoshop they are using; they sre saying a lot of rubbish. That is not politics; it has descended to an abysmal level. All lovers of democracy and humanity should call them to order. “Politics will end one day and where will such people be? I think they are descending to a level that is unheard of, that negates good living.” Senator Arise, a PDP chief-
tain, who spoke on a Channels Television breakfast programme monitored in AdoEkiti, said although Fayose is entitled to his opinion, he is not speaking for the party. To Arise, who represented Ekiti North in the Senate between 2007 and 2011, the hate campaign mounted by Fayose is needless as all what is needed is for PDP members to work for the victory of President Goodluck Jonathan at the March 28 presidential contest. He said: “Our party has come out strongly to say that Fayose is not speaking for the party. So, I won’t say he is not entitled to his opinion at this level. “But, left to me as an individual, I disagree with him on this. I believe we don’t need such in the PDP. All we need is to work hard and campaign for Mr. President to win the election fair and square.” In a statement on Monday signed by its Publicity Secretary, Taiwo Olatubosun, the Ekiti APC accused Fayose of diverting the atten-
tion of Nigerians from his alleged fraudulent victory as revealed in the audio tape leak. It said the revelations in the tape would not be eclipsed by his anti-Buhari campaign antics, stressing that the money the governor is spending in his hate campaign could have been channelled into productive activities for the benefit of Ekiti people. The statement said: “He knows with Gen. Buhari as the President, that will be the end of impunity and fraud through which he was declared the governor. “He knows he can’t survive the revelations contained in the tape when Buhari becomes the President. That is why he wants General Buhari dead. We know Fayose very well. He will go to any length in his hate campaign, wishing Buhari dead. But he will not succeed. “Theý spirits of Nigerians that desire change in their lives are stronger than Fayose’s selfish spirit whose only wish among millions of Ekiti is to build an empire around
•Gen. Buhari
himself with stupendous wealth while Ekiti people beg him for crumbs from his table. “Governor Fayose is taking his hate campaign against General Buhari to the level of personal agenda far and above the collective agenda of Ekiti people for good goverContinued on page 60
ADVERT HOTLINES 08023006969, 08052592524
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
5
NEWS
... 94 D AYS TO GO ...94 DA
•Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola (fourth left); Deputy Governor Adejoke Orelope-Adefulire (fifth right); President, Governing Council of Institute of Directors Chief Eniola Fadayomi (fifth left), IoD 2nd Vice President Rufai Mohammed (left); the institute’s past president, Chief Olutoyin Olakunrin; Lagos State Head of Service Mrs. Folashade Jaji (fourth right) and others when the IoD’s delegation visited Fashola in Lagos...yesterday. PHOTO: OMOSEHIN MOSES
Missing $1.8b: publish forensic audit report, Buhari tells Jonathan
T
HE All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, has challenged President Goodluck Jonathan to order the release of the full report of the audit of the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). Gen. Buhari’s campaign organisation, the All Progressives Congress Presidential Campaign Organisation, said the President should live up to his flaunt-
ed belief in the rule of law and public probity, by acceding to the request of the National Assembly to release the forensic audit by PriceWaterHouseCoopers. Gen. Buhari said the President should also go ahead and publish same in mainstream newspapers for Nigerians to assess or query the degree of transparency involved in the controversial transaction. “Why should the President and the PDP develop the
feet of clay like an immovable Colossus when the representatives of the people in the National Assembly asked for copies of the forensic audit report, which public outcry forced the government to procure in the first place?” the statement by the APC campaign said. “So many respected experts on national economy have condemned the wanton waste of the country’s hard currency earnings at the Nigerian National Petroleum
T
‘’The Fifth Schedule Part 1 (Code of Conduct for Public Officers) of the 1999 Constitution, Section 1 states that ‘a public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts with his duties and responsibilities.’ But that’s exactly what the President did by leveraging his high office to grab a prime land in Abuja. Would Goodluck Jonathan have been given 90.04 Ha of such a prime land were he not a sitting president? ‘’What happened in that Abuja land grab is nothing but the height of indiscretion and abuse of office, and cannot be justified or explained away just like that. “Without mincing words, it also amounts to corruption, which is defined in part as a perversion of integrity, and a glaring instance of bad leadership,’’ the party said. It alleged that the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Mallam Bala Mohammed, was emboldened to also grab 40.40Ha of prime land in Abuja, under the facade of using it for farming, because his boss, the president, had done so. APC slammed the president’s apologists for seeking to justify Jonathan’s action because Chief Obasanjo, according to them, also acquired land for farming during his own presidency. ‘’Those pushing this kind of argument are worsening the President’s case and insulting Nigerians. When did one bad act become a justifi-
ic Party (PDP) and NNPC in disobeying the National Assembly’s request to scrutinise the PriceWaterHouseCoopers audit of NNPC. “Is the NNPC a sacred cow? And should the President be an umpire in a game to which he’s a contender or a judge in his own case?” the statement asked. It added: “Is the President and his Petroleum minister telling Nigerians that no wrong has been done in terms of stealing of public
funds? If corruption was established in any form, is anyone listed for punishment? “It is pertinent to put all these information in the public domain for third party’s verification. The PriceWaterHouseCoopers report funded by taxpayer’s money is itself a public property. And until this is done, the NNPC under Jonathan shall remain in public consciousness the abattoir for corruption, immodesty, dishonesty and impunity.”
Court joins APC, PDP, one other as defendants in PVCs’ suit
APC: Jonathan’s land grab abuse of office HE All Progressives Congress (APC) has alleged that President Goodluck Jonathan committed a serious error of judgment, abused his office, violated the constitution and engaged in corruption through a land grab that fetched him 90.04 Ha of land in the Aviation Village, Abuja. APC National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, in a statement in London yesterday, claimed that the land deal took place barely seven months after the president was sworn into office. The party said nothing could justify the indiscretion of a sitting president acquiring such a huge swath of land, as contained in a newspaper advert and yet un-refuted by the president. The statement stressed that “the claim of the president’s apologists that he grabbed the land because he wanted to engage in farming, which it said is allowed under the Fifth Schedule Part 1 (Code of Conduct for Public Officers) of the 1999 Constitution, and the disingenuous justification of the land grab on the basis that Chief Olusegun Obasanjo did the same while in office, missed the point”. APC added that the issues involved went beyond the fact that a public officer was legally allowed to engage in farming, adding that the provision quoted by the president’s apologists was a weak and untenable defence.
Corporation (NNPC). Worse still, those in charge have treated Nigerians with impunity by hiding the facts relating to petro-dollar trade from the taxpayers. Some of them have been gallivanting and globetrotting around the world in luxury while their compatriots languish in poverty and squalor,” the statement said. The campaign team queried the audacity of the President, the Peoples Democrat-
•Buhari’s disqualification suit: Judge fixes March 19 for hearing
A •Mohammed
cation for another? Does a thief escape punishment by saying he stole because someone else has stolen? If indeed Chief Obasanjo did it, does that make it right? Is this not part of the reasons this president has been unable to fight corruption? ‘’It is also important to point out that the Aviation Village, under the Abuja Master plan, is meant only for Aviation-related activities and not farming. The president knew this, yet he went ahead to apply and was allocated land for farming in the Aviation Village. Perhaps his intention is to subsequently apply for a change of use. How many other people were allocated land for farming in the Aviation Village?’’ the party queried. APC asked the president to apologise to Nigerians for engaging in such a brazen abuse of office, act of corruption and violation of the constitution and immediately give up the land he allegedly grabbed.
FEDERAL High Court in Abuja has joined the All Progressives Congress (APC), its presidential candidate, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and one other as defendants in a suit seeking to prevent the use of Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) and card readers for the next general elections. Justice Abdulkadir Abdulkafarati, in a ruling yesterday, granted the joinder applications filed by the political parties, Buhari and the Registered Trustees of Fiscal and Civil Rights Enlightenment Foundation (FCREF). They were joined as 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants. The joinder applications were not opposed by the plaintiff - Society for Advancement and Protection of Public Rights (SAPPR) and the first two defendants in the suit - the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF). Earlier, lead lawyers for Buhari, APC, PDP and FCREF - Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), I. A. Adedipe (SAN) and M. S. Ibrahim - moved their clients’ applications for joinder. Buhari, the APC and FCREF are opposed to the suit. APC and Buhari said they intended to challenge the suit, because “its grant would jeopadise their preparations towards the 2015 general elec-
From Eric Ikhilae, Abuja
tions. APC contended that the use of PVCs was to ensure a hitchfree and fair election, and to prevent rigging. It argued that should the court grant the plaintiff’s prayers, its interest would be adversely affected, because as a registered political party with candidates contesting the next elections, the use of Temporary Voter Cards (TVCs) would promote manipulation. The PDP said its participation in the suit was necessary to enable court reach a just conclusion. The plaintiff is seeking to restrain INEC from using the PVCs and card readers for the next general elections on the ground that they were likely to lead to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. It contended that since INEC had not engaged in trial application of the PVCs and card readers, they could not guarantee their effectiveness. The group wanted the court to, among others, direct INEC to revert to the use of TVCs, which it said, had been tested during previous elections. Justice Abdulkafarati has adjourned the case to March 18 for mention. Another judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja Justice Adeniyi Ademola has fixed March 19 for the hearing of all pending preliminary applications in two suits seeking to disqualify General Buhari from contesting the next presidential election on
the ground that he was not qualified. Proceedings were stalled in the case yesterday owing to the request by plaintiff’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), for time to respond to an application filed by Buhari, who is challenging the propriety of service of the originating processes on him through substituted means. Both suits were filed by Chukwunweike Okafor and Max Ozoaka. The suits were among 13 of such cases filed against Buhari and APC by individuals with link to the PDP and President Goodluck Jonathan. Buhari and his party, the APC were also challenging the plaintiffs’ locus standi and the order made by the court abridging time within which the defendants should file its defence. The plaintiffs, in their separate suits, were contending that the INEC Form CF 001 submitted to INEC by the APC candidate was incomplete and, therefore, urged the court to declare the form as incompetent. They stated that the failure of Buhari to accompany the INEC Form with evidence of his educational qualifications and evidence of his birth certificate or affidavit of declaration of age had altogether rendered the form inchoate. They faulted information contained in other documents attached to the form, including Buhari’s voter card, which described the presidential candidate as a public servant.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
6
NEWS Fed Govt: Nigeria to exit rice importation soon •670,000 jobs created
W
ITH the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development’s “rice revolution” gaining added momentum with a projected 2.9 million metric tons of rice from last year’s farming season, “Nigeria is already at the exit door from its importation”. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, said this while inspecting a 420-hectare rice farm and mill belonging to Olam Nigeria in Rukubi, near Doma, Nasarawa State. He said 2.9 million metric tons of high quality milled rice was expected to be produced beginning from 2014 farming season. The minister added that with importation at about 1.9 to 2.0 million metric tons per annum, rice importation would soon stop. “We are going to be Thailand of Africa in terms of rice production and export,” Dr. Adesina said. The minister stated that no fewer than 670,000 jobs were created in 2013 through rice production. He said 1.9 million metric tonnes of rice was produced in the 2013 dry and wet seasons, contributing N320 billion to the GDP and creating 670,000 jobs in the process. The minister said the Federal Government was putting in place the enabling environment for production of rice on small, medium and large-scale through its Growth Enhancement Support scheme (GES) for the rice value chain under the Agriculture Transformation Agenda (ATA) launched in 2011. In addition to seed and extension support to farmers, the minister said the government has provided subsidised inputs and mechanization services through Agricultural Equipment Hiring Service (AEHE) for which financing support is accessible through the Bank of Agriculture (BOA) and Bank of Industry (BOI). Dr. Adesina said 15 rice and other staple crop processing zones would be set up at various locations in Nigeria, with a projected contribution of $9.0 billion to the GDP. The minister, who was visibly impressed with the
wide hectarages under cultivation, the growing stockpile of mill-ready paddy rice, mechanised planting and harvesting operations and land preparation for new planting and the installation of the 600 metric ton capacity mill, stated that all the factors favourable for growing and processing large quantities of rice were already in place and effectively working. Dr. Adesina explained that, prior to the launch of the ATA in 2011, only one integrated rice mill was in place, but that in addition to 12 others, the 60, 000 ton Olam Farm mill expected to begin milling in June brings the number of mills to 13 within three years. He said the small mills have increased to 4,350 and growing at a yearly rate of 40 per cent. The minister said paddy bulking and aggregation centres, a bridge between rice farmers and millers, were going to be set up to effectively address the problems of stock supply security identified by investors in a commissioned study as a concern along with poor infrastructure and access to credit. The paddy bulking and aggregation centres will stock, assess and grade paddy sourced from growers with a view to creating easy access to millers that might have neither farms nor paddy supply from farmers. These facilities, Adesina said, would bolster Nigeria’s rice production capacity along with 15 rice and other staple crop processing zone (SCPZ) to be set up at locations in the country, with a projected contribution of adding $9.0 billion to the GDP. Briefing the minister and his entourage, as well as reporters who visited the Olam Farm for progress assessment, the country head of the farm, Mukul Mathur, and the Rukubi Farm Manager, Regi George, stated that Olam Farm is a subsidiary of Kewalrams Group, which has been in Nigeria for 150 years and in different sectors of agriculture for 25 years. He said the company’s foray into rice farming began four years ago, with the Rukubi rice farm and mill being its biggest commitment with $72 million.
Obasanjo visits Ebola-hit countries
F
ORMER President Olusegun Obasanjo has visited Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia in solidarity with the West African nations worse hit by the Ebola Virus Disease. Obasanjo arrived in Guinea Conakry on Thursday and was received by President Alpha Conde at the Presidential Palace. During a meeting with the Guinean President, Obasanjo said he was in Conakry to commiserate with the people over the losses suffered due to the Ebola outbreak and to congratulate the nation’s leadership for its efforts at containing the disease. He said: “True friendship is tested in times of trials. I am here because this is a trying time for my brother and the people of Guinea. “I commiserate with you and also congratulate you for the way and manner you have handled this crisis.”
The former president reiterated his commitment to seeking international assistance for countries affected by the Ebola crisis. “Let me assure you that I am personally involved in mobilising support for the affected countries,” he said. “I have been working closely with the African Union (AU) chairperson to raise funds from the private sector in Africa to support efforts to eradicate Ebola,” Obasanjo added. The former president said although Guinea and the other affected countries had reasonably contained the disease, it was important for global partners to provide assistance to victims and find ways to ensure such outbreaks were avoided in the future. Conde said Chief Obasanjo’s visit came as no surprise to him, even though other global leaders were reluctant to visit the Ebola-hit countries.
Boko Haram: Jonathan, two African leaders seek global support
P
RESIDENT Goodluck Jonathan and two African leaders have called for more international support against terror in Nigeria and neighbouring countries. Jonathan, President Denis Sassou N’Guesso of the Republic of Congo and President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea spoke when the two leaders visited Nigeria. They met behind closeddoors for about three hours at the Presidential Wing of the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja. Their visit followed the decision by the Heads of State and Government of the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) at their summit in Yaoundé, Cameroon, on February 16. The three presidents welcomed the proposal for a joint Summit of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and ECCAS to mobilise international sup-
•ECOWAS, ECCAS to partner against insurgency From Augustine Ehikioya, Abuja
port for the Multi National Joint Task Force (MNJTF). President Jonathan promised to contact the ECOWAS chairman on the proposal. The visiting presidents undertook to relay the outcome of the meeting to the other heads of states and government of the ECCAS. A statement at the end of the meeting reads: “The visiting presidents held very warm and useful discussions with their host on issues of common interest to the countries of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).” “The three presidents reviewed the current security challenges facing the West African and Central African Regions, especially terrorism and the menace of the insurgency by Boko Haram.
“They unequivocally condemned the insurgency, its destructive activities such as the indiscriminate killing and the wanton destruction of property, the abduction of innocent women and children, especially young school girls, who had been turned to sex slaves. “They underscored the imperative of a multi-prolonged approach to fighting the terrorist group and in particular, commended the initiative of the member-states of the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC) for the MNJTF to combat the Boko Haram insurgents. “They welcomed the active support of the international community, especially the African Union (AU), the United Nations (UN) and other partners for the efforts of the LCBC and Benin Republic to enable the earliest deployment of the MNJTF. “While underscoring the
fact that the MNJTF is wholly owned and driven by the member states of the LCBC, they urged the international community to render the necessary material and financial support and assistance to its on-going efforts.” Speaking with reporters at the end of the meeting in French, N’Guesso said the meeting deliberated on the Ebola Virus Disease and insurgency in the region. He said that from Abuja, they would go to Accra, Ghana to meet with President John Mahama, who chairs ECOWAS. “We will study the situation together and put in place security architecture to see how we can coordinate all our actions to put out and eradicate the Boko Haram, which has been spreading in a very grave manner. We look forward to peace, security and development in Africa,” he said.
•Dr. Jonathan flanked by President Sassou Nguesso (left) and President Ngueme Mbasogo...yesterday.
PHOTO: NAN
N4.7b fraud charge: Court frees Babalakin, four others
A
LAGOS High Court, Ikeja has discharged the chairman of BiCourtney Limited, Chief Olawale Babalakin, of the allegation of N4.7 billion fraud preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo also discharged four others charged with him for similar offences. The four other defendants include Babalakin’s companies, Stabilini Visinoni Limited, BiCourtney Limited and Alex Okoh and his company, Renix Nigeria Limited. Ruling on an application to quash the charges filed by Babalakin and co-defendants, Justice Lawal-Akapo formulated four issues raised by the defendants to determine his ruling. The issues, according to the judge, are: •whether the EFCC can prosecute a defendant without fiat; •whether James Ibori is a public officer; •whether two prosecuting authorities can jointly sign a charge; and •whether the charge on the surface contains sufficient information. The judge, however, resolved three of the issues in favour of the defendants and only upheld that the EFCC had the power to prosecute any criminal matter in court with-
•No basis for charges, says Judge By Adebisi Onanuga and Peace Iyere
out fiat. The EFCC charged Babalakin and others to court on a 27-count of conspiracy, retention of proceeds of criminal conduct and corruptly conferring benefit on account of public action. The commission alleged that Babalakin and his co-defendants fraudulently assisted former Delta State Governor James Ibori to transfer money through various parties to Erin Aviation account in Mauritius for the purchase of a plane. But the defendants pleaded not guilty to the 27-count charge. Babalakin and co-defendants, through their counsel, filed separate applications, praying Justice Lawal-Akapo to quash the N4.7 billion charges. They hinged their prayer on the position that the EFCC, as a federal agency, lacked valid fiat to prosecute them in a state high court. The defendants, through their counsel, Dr. Biodun Layonu (SAN), Mr. Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), Mr. Roland Otaru (SAN), Dr. Joseph Nwobike (SAN) and Mr. Oladapo Akinosun, argued that the state high court had no jurisdiction
to hear offences brought under the EFCC Act. The lawyers posited that the charges against the defendants were predicated on repealed laws of Lagos State and urged the court to quash same. They also argued that the defendants were not properly informed about the facts of the offence they were charged with as stated in the constitution. They argued that they were not informed of the details of counts 2 to 13 of the offences they were alleged to have committed and that neither did they constitute an offence under the country’s written law. EFCC, through its lawyer, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), opposed the applications of the defendants. Jacobs told the court that the EFCC had the constitutional right to prosecute the defendants before a state high court. He contended that Section 286 of the Constitution permits state high court to entertain federal offences. On the fiat issued by the attorney general of the federation, Jacob had submitted that the only person who could complain about not getting the said fiat was the Lagos State attorney general and not any of the party before the court.
He argued that both EFCC and the attorney general of the federation were authorised by law to initiate criminal proceeding, adding that the fact that both bodies jointly initiated the charges against the defendants did not make it illegal. However, Justice LawalAkapo upheld the argument of counsel to the defendants that the EFCC had not disclosed enough information to sustain the allegation made against the defendants. The judge, among others, held that the EFCC, for instance, did not disclose the particulars of the offences allegedly committed, when the offences took place. “The amended information filed on May 7, 2013 is incurably bad and ineffective,” Justice Lawal-Akapo said. The judge also held that James Ibori, who was alleged to have corruptly conferred the N4.7 billion on Babalakin, was not a public officer as stated in the charge. On prosecuting authorities jointly signing a charge, the judge agreed with the defendants that the trial was a joint prosecution between the EFCC and the attorney general of the federation. Justice Lawal-Akapo discharged Babalakin and his codefendants and threw out the matter.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
7
NEWS Youths urged to apply for immigration jobs
Y
OUTHS have been urged to apply for the fresh Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) recruitment. The Comptroller General, Mr. David Paradang, spoke at a meeting with the Africa Youth Patriotic and Development Mission (AYPDM), in Abuja. He assured graduates of the credibility of the new process, while advising them not to disparage the exercise. He called on interested graduates to take advantage of the new recruitment exercise, adding that the NIS would ensure that the recruitment was fair and credible. Parading said the youths were needed to patrol the country’s boarders; hence the need to recruit capable hands into the service. According to him, graduates should have faith in the ongoing recruitment, as a committee has been set up to oversee the exercise, which is for credibility sake. He assured graduates that their applications would be treated without fear or favour, urging those with interest to work with NIS to apply. Parading said that the last exercise was unfortunate as it could not go as planned, stating that the new exercise would be pleasing to all Nigerians, and at the same time reflects federal character.
From Bukola Amusan, Abuja
He called on Nigerians to help the service with necessary information that could help forestall illegal entries into the country especially by foreigners with evil motive. “Nigerian should help the immigration service with information, our boarders are too wide, and we need the corporation of all Nigerians to effectively police the boarder. Mr Adefila Kamal, Executive Director, AYPDM, praised the NIS for its effort during the outbreak of Ebola Virus Diseases (EVD), adding that the NIS saved the boarders from infiltration. He urged relevant agencies to allow the transformation agenda of President Goodluck Jonathan to be more visible in employment by allowing the NIS conduct their employment just like the military. Mr Akoshile Muktar, Executive Secretary, AYPDM said that the protection given to the country’s boarders had helped both foreign and local investors to bring in expatriate into the nation’s economy. He said this had enhanced the confidence of foreigners in the Nigerian business environment and gave the locals to venture into relatively unknown area of business.
APC to Jonathan: courting Yoruba monarchs won’t save you
T
HE All Progressives Congress (APC) in the Southwest has told President Goodluck Jonathan that his last minute “romance” with the region’s monarchs will not rescue him. In a statement by the Director of Media and Publicity in the zone, Ayo Afolabi, the party explained the reason Jonathan would lose in the Southwest. According to the APC, Yoruba voted for him in 2011, following their conviction that he was a better candidate but that they were disappointed by his poor performance, particularly in the area of good governance. “The strategic question the President and his campaign managers should have tried to answer before engaging on the rash moves is: how
From Bisi Oladele, Ibadan
many of such desperate and impromptu meetings were needed before Yoruba people voted for him in 2011? “How much did President Jonathan spend to get Yoruba votes in 2011 and why should he think money will save him now? “All other regions extracted several promises from President Jonathan in the race to the 2011 elections except the Southwest, which voted based on its convictions and commitment to justice and good governance. “However, despite getting Yoruba votes effortlessly, what did the region get in return? In the last five years, the Jonathan administration has shown unbearable contempt for the region and its
people and their values, especially in the attempt to adulterate their leadership values. “For instance, many top Yoruba people in the civil service have been the victim of Jonathan administration’s nepotism. “Under no compulsion, no Yoruba will be proud of those President Jonathan has imposed as leaders representing Yoruba people in various capacities whether as governor, minister, or party leaders. “From all intent and purposes, governance has stopped in Ekiti State as the governor has been functioning more as a campaign manager with the resources of Ekiti people than as a governor. Ekiti people deserve better than they are getting.
“The Southwest APC is confident that Yoruba monarchs and voters are conscious of the implications of such Greek Gift and as the bastion of democratic justice and good governance, they will vote true to their cultural identity that loathes tyranny, corruption, and nepotism. “In fact, activities in the Presidency in the last few weeks have confirmed that Jonathan did not realise the need for governance, until it was evident that Nigerians have embraced the opportunity of change offered by the APC. “Nigerians deserve better and they will use their votes to pass a vote of no confidence on the wasteful administration on March 28.”
‘Enough of Obanikoro in FEC’
A
GROUP, Yoruba Youth Congress (YCC), has urged the National Assembly to reject the nomination and screening of former Minister of State for Defence, Musiliu Obanikoro. In a statement in Akure, the Ondo State capital, YCC’s National President Dapo Adepoju wondered why President Goodluck Jonathan always related with people of “questionable character”. Adepoju said: “Going by Obanikoro’s antecedent, particularly his recent activities as a junior minister, he used his position to humiliate innocent Nigerians, especially during the Ekiti and Osun states governorship elections. “The ministerial-nominee’s
From Damisi Ojo, Akure
involvement in the Ekiti election saga, where he allegedly colluded with some military officers and notable Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leaders to rig the poll in favour of Governor Ayodele Fayose was unpatriotic and condemnable. “In other climes, Obanikoro would have been probed for his role in the tension-soaked elections in Ekiti and Osun rather than being pacified with a ministerial nomination. “We wonder if there are no more qualified PDP members other than Obanikoro. This development is ridiculous and disturbing.”
Minister, NOA DG to women, youth: join campaign against violence
M
INISTER of Water Resources Mrs. Sarah Ochekpe and the Director – General of the National Orientation Agency (NOA), Mr. Mike Omeri, have called on women and youths to join the campaign against violence. They made the appeal in a statement in Abuja by the Deputy Director,( Press), Ministry of Water Resources, Mrs. Boade Akinola. According to the statement, they urged Nigerians to join the WAGEPEACE campaign, which was initiated by the NOA, urging them to desist from violence in whatever circumstance they find themselves. The campaign, is aimed at encouraging Nigerians to imbibe non violent ways of settling disputes with the sole aim of preventing chaos in the society. The Minister made the call when she received on advocacy visit, the Director-
From Frank Ikpefan, Abuja
General, National Orientation Agency (NOA) Mr. Mike Omeri, in her office in Abuja, last Thursday. The Minister urged all Nigerians, particularly women and youths to actively participate in the campaign of WAGEPEACE. “I am calling women and youths because they are true owners of Nigeria, we are at a point where some people want to create problems for Nigeria but I believe that women can stand to see that Nigeria is solidly one country”. She added that “We cannot sit down and see few selfish people trying to destroy the country by heating up the polity and causing disaffection among us, it is important that we collectively put our hands and senses together to see what we can do to ensure peace in all parts of Nigeria.”
•Ambode flanked by his running mate, Mrs. Oluranti Adebule and Seriki at the launch...yesterday.
T
Ambode assures pensioners of better life
HE governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Lagos State, Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode, has assured senior citizens of government’s support and prompt payment of their entitlement, if elected. Addressing members of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners (NUP), at the Blue Roof Center, Ikeja, he said the APC placed much emphasis on the welfare of the people, noting that he would make life better for them. “My father served in Lagos State, he served for 34 years and six months. He was unable to collect his gratuity. Ten years after his death I became the auditor-general for local government. “So, I had the opportunity for the first time to encounter pensioners, in view of my personal experience, I decided that I will correct the pains and agony encountered by pensioners. “The APC is after the welfare of our senior citizens, they will not be made to suffer for nothing. We are not only after the welfare of those who served in Lagos State but also those who did not serve in the state. “As senior citizens we need to take care of all of you. This administration is working on the harmonisation of the benefits of our senior cit-
•Launches Okada allowed stickers By Musa Odoshimokhe
izens.” He added that government had built recreational centres, called ‘Welfare Villa’ in some locations, where senior citizens can relax and entertain themselves free of charge. Responding, NUP State Secretary Oludara Awoseye said they will support Ambode because of the innovation he brought to the management of local government, noting that the APC candidates ensured that pensioners received their entitlement promptly. He said: “There was a time we were owed five months, we planned to stage a protest, but somebody advised us to approach Ambode which we did and he solved the problem for us. “We appreciate all that you did for us when you served at the local government; we are particularly convinced that you will not leave us now that you are aspiring to be the governor. We will support and vote for you because you are dependable and reliable,” he said. Ambode launched the ‘Okada Allowed Stickers’ campaign, calling on motorcycle operators to ply the ap-
proved 9000 roads and stay off 475 roads for their safety. He said the government of the progressives had responded to the needs and yearnings of Lagosians by providing basic amenities. He said the safety of the commuters was the motive behind the traffic law awareness effort of the Support Group for Ambode 2015 as the right step in the right direction He praised the volunteer group for the radical shift it recorded in campaign management, stating that he was overwhelmed by the passion and commitment which made many professionals in the volunteer group to leave their businesses and commit their time to his election. Noting that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) deliberately misinformed the public to score cheap political points, he said the sticker campaign will expose their campaign of misinformation and show that the Babatunde Fashola administration meant well. The Chairman of the group, Demola Seriki, said the group discovered that the campaign of misinformation of the PDP was misleading many commercial
motorcycles operators to assume that they were banned from operating on all routes. He said the group studied the Lagos Traffic Law and interacted with stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Transportation, Local Government, Lagos State Signage and Advertising Agency and grassroots politicians to design the sticker campaign. Seriki said each LASAA street pole on roads that commercial motorcyclists could ply, according to the traffic law, would be decorated with the sticker. He pleaded with law enforcement agencies to be humane in enforcing the law, noting that complaints from operators were mainly on extortion. Similarly, he called on operators to obey the laws by using helmets and carrying the approved number of passengers to ensure their safety. Present at the launch were the former Secretary to the State Government, Mrs. Adenrele Adeniran-Ogunsanya,; former Auditor-General of Local Governments M.M. Hassan; former Special Adviser to the Governor on Environment Sesan Olanrewaju; former Chairman, Ajeromi-Ifelodun Local Government Kamal Baiyewu, among others.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
8
NEWS Oyo students endorse Ajimobi
‘Makinde isn’t SDP candidate’ From Oseheye Okwuofu, Ibadan
From Tayo Johnson and Bisola Oloyede, Ibadan
T
HE Federal High Court in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, yesterday began hearing a case challenging the candidature of a business mogul, Seyi Makinde, as the governorship candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in Oyo State. The suit was filed by Olugbenga Bayode and Rasaq Adegboyega, who introduced themselves as SDP members. They alleged that Makinde was not the “proper” candidate to represent the SDP in the election. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain Makinde from parading himself or taking any step as the SDP governorship candidate. They are also seeking an order compelling the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to recognise, accept or treat Makinde as the SDP candidate. The plaintiffs said the party held its primaries last December 6, adding that at the end of the exercise, Aworinde Oluwafemi Samson emerged as the governorship candidate. According to them, the list of candidates was forwarded to INEC on December 10 and the electoral umpire acknowledged the receipt of the list the following day. Makinde was reportedly declared as the governorship candidate on December 15. “By provision of the Electoral Act 2010 sections 35 and 33, a candidate whose name is filed with INEC is expected to withdraw for another candidate by filling Form CF004. “Aworinde and the first defendant (Makinde) did not complete or file Form CF004. “By the list submitted on December 10 to the third defendant (INEC), Aworinde is the governorship candidate of the second defendant (SDP),” the plaintiffs said. No date has been fixed for the hearing.
T
•Oyo State Governor Abiola Ajimobi (left) acknowledging cheers from members of the Association of Food Vendors and Canteen Workers when the group visited the Government House, Ibadan...yesterday.
INEC clears air on alien cards in Ogun
T
HE Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has said it is working to ensure that all registered voters in Ogun State get their Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) before the elections. On the 625,000 alien PVCs in the state, INEC said only 21 of them were discovered to belong in Edo State, and have since been returned. The rest,the commission said, belong to students, who registered in 2010 and 2011. It said at the end of last week, there were 1,795,794 registered voters in the state and a total of 1,368,875 PVCs have been received by the state headquarters. Of the figure received, 795,962 have been distributed, showing 56.7 per cent distribution rate while
•CDHR protests non-release of PVCs to owners From Ernest Nwokolo, Abeokuta
573,236 cards are yet to be collected by their owners across the 20 local governments. The commission’s Administrative Secretary, Atiba Dickson, who represented the Residential Electoral Commission(REC), Timothy Ibitoye, said INEC was working to ensure that all registered voters get their PVCs before the elections. Dickson spoke yesterday when members of the Committee for Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) marched on the commission, demanding bulk release of the PVCs for registered voters in the state. CDHR accused the com-
mission of deliberately hoarding the cards for ulterior motives. The group, led by the state chairman, Folarin Yinka, warned the commission against denying people the rights to vote by withholding their PVCs unnecessarily. Yinka queried the rational behind the almost 100 per cent success in the PVCs distribution in crisistorn states such as Gombe, Borno, Adamawa, Nasarawa, among others, whereas a peaceful Ogun State has recorded a mere 40 per cent distribution by the same INEC. He urged the commission to embark upon speedy and bulk distribution of PVCs to registered
voters. Dickson assured that by Saturday, most people would have gotten their cards, adding that those yet to collect theirs would be listed to enable them collect them. “You know there are many tertiary institutions in this state. Most of the students who registered then have graduated and left Ogun. “Some of these PVCs we are talking about also belong to security personnel, who have been transferred from the state.” According to Dickson, since the owners are presumably no longer in the state, the cards would remain uncollected as though they were of fictitious and alien origin.
Fayemi for ALC lecture in UK
Rigging audio: Omisore admits attending meeting
F
T
ORMER Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi will deliver a lecture at the African Leadership Centre (ALC), King’s College, London, United Kingdom (UK) on Thursday. Fayemi, according to a statement, will speak on “Peace-building, Leadership and Democratic Consolidation in Africa” at the lecture, which holds at the university campus, as part of the yearly lecture series of the ALC. The founding director of ALC and member United Nations (UN) Advisory Group of Experts on Review of UN Peace-building Architecture, Dr. Funmi Olonisakin, would chair the lecture. The event will also feature talks by some other renowned African scholars, including Abdel-Fatau Musah, deputy head of Office and Director of Political Affairs, United Nations Office, African Union (UNOAFU), Addis Ababa; and Prof Cheryl Hendricks, head of Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Johannesburg, at the three-day event.
HE candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last August 9 governorship election in Osun State, Otunba Iyiola Omisore, has confirmed attending a meeting captured in a leaked tape, which allegedly provides details of how PDP leaders and soldiers plotted to rig the Ekiti election last year. Omisore, however, denied that they discussed how to rig the election. In an interview reported by Sahara Reporters yesterday, Omisore said Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose, who was the PDP candidate, merely went to the army camp to complain that his supporters were being harassed by the soldiers while police officers were being disarmed. “There was no meeting actually. Fayose went to the army camp to complain about soldiers arresting his people, alleging that former Governor Kayode Fayemi bribed soldiers to arrest his people. That was all.” The audio clip, recorded by an army captain, Sagir Koli, revealed a meeting
between Brig-Gen Aliyu Momoh; former Minister of State for Defence Musiliu Obanikoro; Minister of Police Affairs Jelili Adesiyan; Omisore and Fayose, allegedly strategising on how to rig the Ekiti governorship election. Omisore’s admission came barely a week after President Goodluck Jonathan who was mentioned in the audio by Obanikoro, claimed the audio was fabricated and would not give it any attention. “It’s all fabrications. Why should I investigate things
that are not real?” the President told Wall Street Journal, in a recent interview. Jonathan later explained that he did not rule out the possibility of a meeting, but denied the claim that it was about rigging. Both Adesiyan and Fayose have admitted the meeting held but that it was not about how to rig the election. Obanikoro denied participating in the meeting. The former minister threatened to sue media organisations, which have continued to report the issue. Omisore, a former senator
and deputy governor of Osun State, admitted urging the participants in the meeting to “calm down” when they went to complain to Gen. Momoh about disarming the policemen on duty and harassing the PDP members. “What I am saying is that if you listen to that tape, you will know the difference. The issue being canvassed on that tape was complaints by Fayose about soldiers arresting PDP members and disarming policemen, simple!”
Lagos Assembly hails cleaner who found N12m
T
HE Lagos State House of Assembly has invited Ms. Josephine Agwu, a cleaner at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport Lagos, who found N12 million in various currencies and returned the money. The House, which reconvened after a month’s recess, invited Miss Agwu to plenary, for being patriotic. The Clerk, Segun Abiru, has been directed to put everything in place to invite her to the House. Deputy Whip Rotimi Abiru, under Matter of Urgent Public Importance, raised the issue, calling the attention of his colleagues to the fact that Ms Agwu was returning lost money for the third time.
By Oziegbe Okoeki
Abiru said the lady, who earns N7,800 monthly, was given $50 the second time she found and returned lost money. Sanai Agunbiade (Ikorodu Constituency 1) noted that the incident did not occur in a state establishment; neither did it occur in an agency of the state. He pointed out that it won’t be out of place for the House to show a sign that others would emulate, adding that the House should invite the lady to celebrate her as a sign of moral motivation. Speaker Adeyemi Ikuforiji, who presided over the session, directed the Clerk to invite Ms Agwu.
HE Federation of Oyo State Students’ Union (FOSSU) has endorsed Governor Abiola Ajimobi for a second term. The union’s Vice President 1, Yusuf Imran, said: “We commend the present administration in Oyo State for the state of education and other initiatives, many of which had never been done by any previous administration. “We, the executives of FOSSU, reject the statement of the union president, Olalere Damola, endorsing the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Senator Teslim Folarin. It is a misrepresentation of the resolution of our meeting and therefore does not represent the decision and stance of the association. “The union is appreciative of the effort of the government and the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Mrs. Monsurat Sumonu, for embarking on student-friendly programmes. “We urge all politicians to therefore refrain from distortion of issues for political gains. We urge politicians to base campaign on issues capable of developing the state and stop using students for political destruction.”
Post-confab summit in Ibadan
A
post-confab summit will be held in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, on Thursday. The event with the theme “2015 Elections and the Yoruba Nation” will hold at the Premier Hotel. Yoruba delegates to last year’s National Conference and some leaders converged on Akure, the Ondo State capital, last Thursday for a post-confab summit, where President Goodluck Jonathan was endorsed for a second term. Participants insisted that the only genuine change the nation craves is that of the constitution and not of personality. The convener of the summit and Ondo State Governor, Dr Olusegun Mimiko, said the basis for the summit was to call for the implementation of the confab being the only solution to the challenges confronting the nation. He said the confab report, when implemented, will create room for each state to have its constitution, police force, prison service, create its local governments, build its airports, seaports and railways. “In the economic domain, solid minerals that had been the exclusive preserve of the Federal Government since independence, have now been brought to the concurrent list. “States can now create employment and develop at their own pace. With all that, it liberates everybody, it opens up the political space. “In a rational and reasonable society like ours, I don’t expect anything less than the enthusiasm in wanting to implement the report.”
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
9
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
10
CITYBEATS
CITYBEATS LINE: 09091178827
Residents accuse police of profiting from Mushin gang wars
Another victim dies of gun wounds
S
A
NOTHER person reportedly shot by uniformed men at Majidun near Ikorodu, Lagos, last week, has died, bringing to three number of casualties. Daniel was said to have died in hospital yesterday. One person was shot dead at the scene last Wednesday; the second died in hospital last weekend. Yesterday, the army began a probe of the incident, promising to get to the root of it. Two soldiers in uniform and a man in mufti were at the General Hospital, Ikeja, Lagos to see Alhaji Aminu Salis, an engineer. Salis and his wife were among those reportedly shot by the uniformed men. His wife has since been discharged. Salis told The Nation that the late Daniel lived beside Oando Filling Station on Isawo Road, Ikorodu. “One of my neighbours called this morning (yesterday) to inform me about the death of another person that was shot. He gave his name as Daniel. The late Daniel and two others are the ones we know that have lost their lives in this crazy incident. You can imagine the number of people that may have lost their lives that we don’t know yet. Many people were carrying wounds to different places after the gun shots; some moved to the direction of Ijede, some to Odogunyan, another set to Ikorodu
R
ESIDENTS of Papa Ashafa and Alagba Community Development Association (CDA) in Agege, Lagos marched yesterday on the Dopemu Distribution Centre of the Ikeja Electricity Distribution Company over incessant power outage and outrageous billing. About 70 residents, mostly youths and elderly men, said their communities have been in darkness for a couple of months. The protesters were led by the Youth Alliance for Better Nigeria. They held placards bearing different messages such as: Say no to power failure, crazy bills electricity, electricity rotations, Ikeja electric dramatic liars and saboteurs etc. A mild drama played out at the company premises, when they demanded immediate restoration of electricity to the area and a reversal of the outrageous bills from the company. The staffs of the company were overwhelmed by the fury of the residents before the intervention of the Branch Team Leader, Mr Banji Ogunleye and the Marketing Manager, Mr Victor Amaraegbu to calm the protesters. Speaking with The Nation,
•‘They are professional shooters’ •GOC’s men visit injured in hospital •Alhaji Salis on his sick bed By Tajudeen Adebanjo
proper,” he said. Salis, an engineer, told The Nation that policemen who checking his vehicle wondered how he survived the gun shots. “After carefully looking through the car, the policemen told me to thank God for still being alive. They told me that the gunmen are professional shooters. Besides that, you remember they said the bullets in my car belonged to the military,” he said. Told that the General Officer Commanding (GOC)
81 Division in Lagos, Maj. Gen. Tanmi Dibi, said the gunmen were not soldiers, Salis asked him to send his men to collect some of the bullets from the OwodeOnirin Police Station for verification. “We are in a modern world whereby when you see a bullet, you know where to trace it to. Let the GOC do that; that will aid their investigation,” he said. The GOC, he said, directed his men to get first hand information on the incident, adding: “I told them how it happened and they promised to get to the root of the mat-
ter. It is a good omen for the military to have sent their men here (hospital); they have once again proven that the military institution remains disciplined and would not allow any individual or group to denigrate it,” he said. Lagos State police spokesman, Kenneth Nwosu, a Deputy Superintendent, yesterday said, no arrest had been made. He said the police would do all they could to unveil the gunmen. The case, Nwosu said, has been transferred to the Special Anti Robbery Squad (SARS).
OME residents of Mushin, Lagos, have accused the police of profiting from the frequent gang wars in their area. The police, they alleged, have been extorting them under the guise of quelling the riots. The clashes have become a ploy for the police, particularly those attached to Olosan Divisional Headquarters, to round up traders, passers-by and artisans at spots within the area, handcuff them, bundle them into patrol vans, take them to their stations and make them part with amounts ranging between N5,000 and N10,000”. Comrade Daniel Oguine of Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), said efforts to stop human rights abuses by the police failed. He said: “I have been involved as a member and lately secretary of CDHR in campaigns against abuses by the police but the efforts seem to be getting us nowhere. The more complaints we come up with, the more we have to deal with. “As a member of Police Community Relations Committee (PCRC), I have challenged the police openly and many times. In one of our meetings, I gave them four different incidences involving the police and their illegal arrests of people. “There also was the case of three persons picked up at Papa Ajao. They accused them
Housemaid charged with stealing HOUSEMAID, MerN5.5m gold cy Odita (18), has been
A
arraigned before a Tinubu Magistrate’s Court in Lagos for allegedly stealing gold jewellery N5.5 million. . Odita, of House 4, Road 8, Abraham Adesanya Estate in Ajah, Lgos was arraigned on a two-count charge of conspiracy and theft under Sections 409 and 285 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos, 2011. The prosecutor, Francesca Okere, told the court that the defendant conspired with oth-
Residents protest poor power supply
•The protesters... yesterday By Olalekan Ayeni
the group’s coordinator, Mr Moruf Niniola, said several appeals made to the company to address the power failure in the area fell on deaf ears. He said the company have denied residents of the area their pre-paid metre, even upon several approached. According to him, the bills being paid in the area has even got higher than the amount paid for house rent. He said many house owners are ejecting their tenants
because of the dangers of generating sets. “That a house of six rooms must have six generator sets is worrisome and danger to our health. Many lives have been lost due to generator fume,” he said. He said the residents are spending their income to buy generator, fuel it and at the end of the month, pay for electricity which they didn’t use. “All we are saying is, we can’t just remain like this, suffering and smiling must end. The cheating is too much,” he said.
A letter submitted by the communities demanded among others “the outright cancellation, rotation or shedding of the areas’ light; that in the absent of the prepaid metre, the company should ensure the old metres are perfectly working and reading appropriately to prevent electric fraud.” They also demanded quick revisit of crazy bills to guaranteed transparency. Imam of Ike Anobi Mosque, Alhaji AbdulGaniu Salawudeen demanded to know if the government is
By our reporter
of wandering. I asked them when they were found wandering and I was told ’11:30 in the morning. Does a person wander in daytime?. “There was another case, I was sure none of those people would have paid less than N5,000 before regaining freedom”. An artisan (name withheld), said the police knew those behind the unrest but would only go after the ‘innocent.’ He said he was arrested yesterday while cleaning his shop, handcuffed and taken to the police station where he paid N5000 for his release. “We have to act fast in this area. They come everyday to round us up, bundle us into their patrol vans for no just cause. Each time like this, we lose money to them. “As we are speaking, go to Daleko in Mushin here, just before the bridge. They have turned the place to a permanent toll gate where they collect toll from motorists who they take to their stations without reasons. “The police know the notorious spots including Alasalatu, Idi-Oro, Idi Araba, Fadeyi, and Itire Road. They will never go there to make arrests. They are always around Olufunmilayo, Aromire, Oniyide, Iyala, Folarin, Oduduwa, Alaafia and other such areas where no problem exists. We are tired here,”he said.
swindling their money through the electricity company. We don’t understand what is happening. That for four to six months, there was no electricity in this area. Surprisingly, our bills kept increasing monthly. How can we pay for electricity we didn’t consume? They are killing us silently,” he said. Alhaja Asiata Fasobo, said she wondered how the residents should be levied heavily when there was no electricity supply. According to her, the peo-
By Precious Igbonwelundu
ers at large to steal the jewellery of her employer, Ngozi Okeke. Okere said the crime was committed on February 10, at 9am. The defendant pleaded not guilty and was granted N500, 000 bail with two sureties each in the like sum. Magistrate A. T. Omoyele adjourned the matter to March 23. ple are running at a loss for doing business with generator, yet “we are still paying for electricity at the end of the each month.” She presented her recent bill, which stated that he consumed 456kilowatts, with a bill of N25, 000. Mr Adenekan Adebakin said their sufferings dated back to the days of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN). Adebakin told The Nation that electricity in the area does not last longer than two minutes. Amaraegbu, commended them for the peaceful conduct of the exercise. He said the present transition programme in the country also affect the activities of the electricity company. “We have generating section, transmission section before the distribution section. I want to assure you that the government is doing so much to improve the generation and it is when the generating section is well established that the transmission will transfer to the distribution unit. If you look around here, there is no where we are generating electricity”, he pleaded.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
11
BUSINESS THE NATION
E-mail:- bussiness@thenationonlineng.net
What does corporate governance do? It ensures that you have set up a structure and a culture within the institution that can drive the business in line with given rules. That’s what corporate governance does. -Seplat Petroleum Managing Director Mr Austin Avuru
Senate laments Nigeria’s lack of access to broadband services
T
HE Senate yesterday said that the little broadband access granted the country with the number of undersea cables running across Nigeria is unacceptable. This is coming on the heels of the Executive Vice Chairman, Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), Dr. Eugene Juwah’s pronouncement that the Commission has concluded arrangements to present a Bill to the National Assembly on Telecom Critical Infrastruc-
• NCC to present Bill on vandalism From Onyedi Ojiabor, Asst. Editor and Sanni Onogu, Abuja
ture to tackle vandalism of telecommunication infrastructure and fibre cut. Chairman, Senate Committee on Communications, Senator Gilbert Nnaji, who spoke at the 2015 budget defence meeting with the NCC, said the telecom operators are complaining that the
Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) directive that foreign exchange should be sourced only through inter bank has constrained their efficiency level and hampered their expansionary drive. He enjoined Juwah to highlight issues bothering on the development of telecommunication and ICT in Nigeria. Nnaji listed some of the issues to include low penetra-
tion of broad band and the effect of fallen value of the naira on telecoms’ quality service delivery. “The fact that our nation has little access to broadband services even with the number of undersea cables running across the country is worrisome,” Nnaji said, adding, “it is regrettable to note that Nigeria finished 2014 with eight per cent penetration, after stagnating at 66
A
NIPC, NEPC partner on non-oil sector
T
HE Nigerian Invest ment Promotion Com mission (NIPC), in partnership with Nigerian Export Promotion Council (NEPC), are working towards the process of diversifying the economy through the development of the nonoil sector. To this end, the Executive Secretary, NIPC, Saratu Umar, her NEPC counterpart, Segun Awolowo, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as part of efforts aimed at establishing a framework of collaboration with other agencies. The MoU is also aimed at promoting and facilitating domestic and foreign investments in specific areas identified by NEPC for development of the export sector. Umar, said her agency would ensure inter-agency
From Franca Ochigbo, Abuja
collaboration in a way and manner that will promotes the realisation of the respective mandates of the two institutions. “This enhanced interagency collaboration is part of NIPC’s current strategy of effectively actualising its mandate which includes encouraging, promoting and coordinating all investments in the economy, coordinating and monitoring all investment promotion activities, as well as being the liaison between investors and Ministries, Departments and Agencies, institutional lenders and other authorities concerned,” she said. Umar explained that the investment coordination framework, developed by the NIPC, will see the Commission entering into partnership with
some key agencies in the investment ecosystem for seemless coordination, as well as greater support to investors. “This initiative forms part of NIPC’s ongoing Corporate Transformation into a gold standard of excellence on the African continent and a world- class investment promotion agency, comparable to any in the world, that will effectively deliver on its mandate and bring Investment to the forefront of national socio-economic development. “This partnership could not have come at a better time than now, when the Nation is experiencing dwindling fortunes in the oil sector, and the current situation demands the diversification of the economy through the development of the non-oil sectors of the economy.”
‘FAAN not indebted to power firm’
T
HE Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) said yesterday that it is not indebted to the Ikeja Distribution Company (IKEDC) for power supplied to the Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos. The General Manager, Corporate Communications, FAAN, Yakubu Dati who made this known yesterday, said FAAN will continue to carry out its obligation to the power distribution company to enable it serve its teeming clients at the airport,
By Kelvin Osa-Okunbor
He said information making the round that the power company is planning to cut supply of electricity to the airport is part of the blackmail plot by some debtors who are reluctant to pay what they owed the authority. Dati urged users of the airport and other stakeholders, to discountenance any information suggesting that there would be power outage at the Lagos Airport on ac-
count of the alleged debts. He said FAAN has over the years maintained good relationship with the power and distribution company for regular supply of power to the airport. ”There is no planned black- out at the airport. FAAN is not owing Ikeja Distribution Company. People who are spreading such rumour are embarking on cheap blackmail. They are going under the radar to pull FAAN down,” Dati said.
to N15 billion in 2014. He noted however that this cannot be said of the total amount proposed for special projects which is N 2.1 billion in 2015 as opposed to the N3. 4 billion in 2014. He explained that while there is a greater emphasis on capital project in 2015 as against 2014, special projects in 2015 do not appear to enjoy the same attention, which the committee is going to look critically into.”
Firm to adopt coal gasification for 500Mw
N indigenous firmOne Nation Energy Platform Limited, in conjunction with a South African Technical partner Stefani Saluti, is to adopt coal gasification in its generation of 500Mega Watts (MW) from coal in Enugu State. The Chairman of One Nation Energy Platform Limited, Chief Uzoma Obiyo, who known this in Abuja, explained that coal is available and accessible and could also be turned into clean fuel as there is now available technology for gasification of coal. He assured that there is a plan • Managing Director, MultiChoice Nigeria, John Ugbe (left), presenting the certificate and prize to the overall winner of the 2014 DStv Eutelsat Star Awards Poster, Emmanuel Iyama, at the MultiChoice Head quarters in Lagos...yesterday. With them is Public Relations Manager, DStv, Caroline Oghuma.
per cent between 2011 and 2013.” He said telecoms operators are also of the view that CBN’s directive that foreign exchange should be sourced only through inter bank, has constrained their efficiency level and hampered their expansionary drive with its attendant effect on quality of services.” On the 2015 budget, Nnaji said there is a remarkable improvement on capital project proposal of N21.1 billion in 2015 as compared
From John Ofikhenua, Abuja
to apply such technology during this development. Obiyo submitted that the company has put measures in place to ensure that the project overcomes environmental challenges, noting that the firm has the required technology for clean energy. “I can assure you that we have the required clean energy technology to embark on this project,” he said, adding that his firm would ensure that there are no environmental
hazards as soon as the projects takes- off. He said that full assessments must be carried out to the letter, even as he insisted that his firm will ensure that all that is required to ensure the appropriate implementation of the project is done. It would be recalled that the firm had last week signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Federal Ministry of Power on the project. Although the project is planned for three years, it has already spent one of the years on feasibility study, he said.
12
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
THE NATION
BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION
E-mail: ynotaderibigbe@gmail.com
How does a speed limiter work? What are its benefits? These are some of the questions being asked by motorists as the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) begins its enforcement, first, with commercial vehicles in June, reports ADEYINKA ADERIBIGBE
The coming of the speed limiter N
OTHING underscores the urgent need for speed regulation of drivers than the ghastly Valentine’s Day accident in which some women associates of the wife of the President, Dame Patience Jonathan, died in a crash on the East-West Road, Port-Harcourt, the Rivers State capital. “When I saw the pictures, I knew nothing that could have led to such a gory end other than over-speeding,” Mr. Abdul Bamgbopa, a auto track and safety expert told The Nation. The accident has strengthened the case for the speed limiter, which his firm is marketing. “It has become more of a passion; there is an urgent need to save lives, and we are driven by the desire to save as many lives as we can,” he said. The high accident rate is becoming worrisome. Few weeks ago, on Ife-Ilesa road in Osun State, 10 people, including women and babies, died in an accident.
Worrisome Statistics Worldwide, the number of people killed in crashes yearly is estimated at 1.2 million and injuries are the eighth leading cause of death among people aged 15-29. Despite 60 percent of its estimated 170 million population using road transportation, Nigeria lacks a reliable accident data. At a recent forum, experts canvassed for crashes to be pushed to the front burner of national discourse because they are becoming the leading cause of death. Founder and Director of Safety Beyond Borders (SBB), Adenusi Patrick said more than Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and cancer, accidents are responsible for rising cases of deaths and permanent disabilities. There is also an economic perspective to crashes, as experts said crashes account for between one and three per cent loss to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) yearly. In its yearly Road Traffic Crashes (RTC) casualty data for December last year, the FRSC was upbeat about the marginal difference between 2013 and 2014. According to the data, 54 persons died in accidents in 2013, and 48 only in 2014, representing 11.1 per cent difference. Those injured within the same period dropped from 205 in 2013, to 166 in 2014, indicating 19 per cent difference. The figures for post-Ember months’ RTC between December 19, 2013 and January 13, 2014, and December 19, 2014 and January 12, 2015 for Lagos equally showed a marginal drop. FRSC said there were 41 crashes in 2013 and 37 in 2014,
representing 9.7 per cent difference. Thirty-four persons were killed in 2013 and 16 in 2014 a 52.9 per cent difference. The injured were 137 in 2013 and 102 in 2014, indicating 25.5 per cent decrease. No fewer than 171 persons were involved in crashes in 2013 compared to 118 in 2014, showing a 30.9 per cent difference. What could be responsible for the reduction? Studies show that seat belts have reduced death risk by 61 per cent and chances of injury by 45 per cent. Wearing of helmets by motorcyclists has also reduced severity of head injury risk by 70 per cent; the • The speed limiter campaign against drunkdriving is said to have lowered the risk of being injured by 40 per cent. FRSC’s sustained campaign against speed and drunkdriving, use of helmets, (in states where motorcyles are still permitted), seat belts and child restraints is believed to be responsible for reduction in crashes and deaths.
Poor road infrastructure and over speeding Since Nigeria largely depends on road transportation, the pressure on federal, intercity and inner city roads and streets has been fingered for the bad state of the roads. Bamgbopa said despite all safety measures, 30 per cent of crashes is still traced to overspeeding. According to him, speeding increases the likelihood of a fatal crash. Wondering why drivers overspeed when the roads are bad and riddled with potholes, or when the roads lack traffic lights or reflectors and road signs, Bamgbopa said though vehicles were manufactured with a speedometer reading 0-200, responsible driving dictates that motorists must subject themselves to speed regulation.
Speed limiter to the rescue Bamgbopa, the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Sattrak Telematics Limited, which is championing the use of the speed limiter, describes the devise as a governor that will limit the top speed of a vehicle. This, according to him, could be either by controlling the fuel feed to the engine or by modifying the electronic signal from the electronic accelerator pedal or by disengaging the mechanical accelerator pedal. He said over 33 countries have speed limiter laws, adding that all of them have experienced significant reduction in crashes and casualties. According to him, in the United Kingdom, heavy duty vehicle accidents have dropped by 26 per cent since the limiter was introduced in 1992. He said if developed countries despite their strict traffic fine re-
‘Wondering why drivers over-speed when the roads are bad and riddled with potholes, or when the roads lack traffic lights or reflectors and road signs, Bamgbopa said though vehicles were manufactured with a speedometer reading 0-200, responsible driving dictates that motorists must subject themselves to speed regulation’
gime and avalanche of CCTVs could deploy speed limiter, that cuts down speed by reducing the fuel supply into any vehicle, Nigeria, must see the device as the best way out of fatal road crashes. Bamgbopa said the devise limits top speed despite driver’s urge or love for speeding.
Benefits A limiter enhances safety of vehicle, owner, goods and other road users. It lowers fuel consumption from three to 11 percent, lower maintenance costs, (tyres, brakes engine) and reduce insurance premium. It equally improves the atmosphere by cutting down on the CO2 and Green House Gases (GHG) emissions because of the improved fuel consumption, as vehicles burn less fuel. Bamgbopa said over 100 motor vehicle models can be fitted with the speed limiter adding that all vehicles ranging from saloon to commercial buses, trucks, articulated vehicles and trailers can be fitted with the device. The device, he said, can be used on vehicles produced from year 2005 upwards which were fitted with electronic pedal system, while those up to 2004 with mechanical pedal system can have the devise fitted to their fuel supply and pedals. It will cost N35,000 to install the device on vehicles produced in 2005 upwards and N45,000 for vehicles produced from 2004 downwards.
For vehicles with speed sensor, Bamgbopa said, the device would boost the sensor by regulating the fuel supply in a non-intrusive way that the vehicle would not jerk, but would cut down speed once the sensor’s regulated top speed is being crossed.
Challenge to seamless implementation Stakeholders believe that motorists could compromise the limiter’s functions through tampering, removal of the device after fitting and resetting of the same by unscrupulous drivers. Also, lack of strict compliance by the regulator- the Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON), could also compromise its effectiveness, while ignorance by the rank and file of the FRSC could limit its enforcement. Bamgbopa said the non-conformity to standards could affect the implementation across the states of the federation and the device’s effectiveness. While lauding the FRSC for coming up with the June 1 deadline for commercial drivers, Bamgbopa said a more seamless implementation could be achieved by aligning the limiter’s installation to the yearly renewal of vehicle papers. “One would expect the Corps to partner with other agencies involved in vehicle particulars renewal at licensing offices across the country. “Another impediment that must be streamlined is the unavailability of uniformed speed
•Bamgbopa
limits and lack of adequate information on the devise by the enforcement personnel.” FRSC’s Lagos Sector Commander Hyginus Omeje said the limiter was adopted in the Corps efforts to reduce crashes in line with the United Nations Decade for Safe road campaign 2025. He said the implementation would begin with commercial buses, fleet operators and heavy duty vehicles on June 1. Shying away from the pricing row, Omeje said: “No amount can equate a life lost that could have been prevented. If people can afford the price of a luxury bus and have a fleet of those, why would they complain that a device that could save more lives and improve efficiency is expensive?” He said the device, which has been tested by the corps, could prevent accidents that can kill and destroy property, adding that this double loss can be avoided. Bamgbopa said prices would respond to market forces once enforcement begins. He admitted that the price may initially be high, but this, he said, is natural with new products. “Early buyers may likely pay more on the long run, but the prices would begin to respond to the market pull once more buyers begin to open up, buy and install in their vehicles,” Bamgbopa said.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
13
THE NATION
BUSINESS MARITIME
e-mail: maritime@thenationonlineng.net
Council seeks N150b from terminal operators C
AN an appeal automatically stop a litigant from enjoying the fruit of litigation? This is the puzzle the Court of Appeal is expected to unravel as the Nigerian Shippers Council (NSC) and terminal operators squabble over the execution of a judgment ordering the operators to stop ‘illegal’ revenue collection
Stories by Oluwakemi Dauda MaritimeCorrespondent
at sea ports. Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court, Lagos last December 17, ordered the operators to stop the collections, which NSC contends is illegal, from importers and clearing agents.
The operators appealed the judgment and asked the high court to suspend its execution, pending the determination of their appeal. But NSC returned to Justice Buba, praying him to compel the operators to pay N150 billion for allegedly disobeying his order.
Customs generates N909.9m
T
higher and we will definitely be able to surpass our monthly target of N1.1 billion,” he said. Olottah said the command generated N9.6 billion in 2014, adding that the figure was 3.4 billion less than the N13 billion target for the year. He assured that the command would surpass the N13 billion target set for it this year. He said the command made 52 seizures with a Duty Paid Value (DPV) N14.5 million. “The items that were seized included cars, hard drugs, rice, vegetable oil, paints, second
ply the full weight of the law on such persons as may have authorised the publication.” But NSC’s lawyer Mr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) disagrees, saying: “The mere fact that there is a pending application for stay and an appeal do not remove the effect of the judgment we got. “Our position is supported by a Supreme Court decision that it will be unfair to allow a losing defendant “to continue cutting down and selling economic trees on the land” adjudged by the trial court not to belong to them simply because of a pending application for stay of execution and an appeal. “What the appellants who have been found not to be the owners of the land in dispute want of this court, in effect, is for the court to lend its authority to the appellants, for them to continue devastating the land in dispute by being allowed to continue cutting down and selling the economic trees on the land while the owner of the land – the respondent – sits back and watches, helplessly, the fruits of his judgment being denied him. That will be justice inverted. I will not be a party to such an inversion. “This Supreme Court decision is apt to our case. Applying the decision, it is clear that the terminal operators cannot continue to impose and collect illegal charges on the pretext that they have filed a pending application for stay or appeal.”
Don’t bribe police, CP tells agents
•Goods seized at Tin-Can Port, Apapa, Lagos.
HE Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) Seme Command generated N909.9 million last month. Its Public Relations Officer (PRO), Mr Ernest Olottah, told The Nation that the amount was 13.92 per cent higher than the N783.2 million collected in the corresponding period in 2014. “In the month of January, we generated so much because trading activities were high since it is the beginning of the year. “As the year goes on, our revenue generation would get
In a statement, Seaport Terminal Operators Association of Nigeria (STOAN) lawyer Mr Femi Atoyebi (SAN), accused NSC of making frantic efforts to ride rough shod over the judicial process. Atoyebi accused NSC of adopting illegal and unacceptable method because the case is subject of an appeal, adding that STOAN also has an application for stay before Justice Buba. The statement reads: “The law in Nigeria is that where, as here, there is an appeal against a court decision and a motion for stay of execution/injunction is filed, none of the parties must do anything to frustrate the hearing of the appeal until the application has been determined. “It is also trite that the court from which an appeal lies and the court to which an appeal lies have a duty to preserve the ‘res’ (subject-matter) so that the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory. We consider that the NSC lawyers should have advised them appropriately of the correct position of the law and if they did, it would appear that NSC are refusing to follow the advice. We hasten to add that the NSC publication and any further step that may be taken by them in a bid to frustrate the pending appeal and foist on the Court of Appeal a situation of complete helplessness would be highly contemptuous of the court and we would not hesitate to ap-
hand clothes, frozen poultry products and general goods. The image maker urged Nigerians to desist from smuggling due to its adverse effect on the economy. “Smuggling isn’t good for the economy, so we must work together to save our economy and embrace legitimate trade. “In the course of importing and exporting any products, protocol must be observed by paying levies and duties to the Nigeria Customs Service as required by the law,” Olottah said.
T
HE Commissioner of Police in charge of Western Ports, Mrs Hilda Ibifuro Harrison, has urged the Association of Nigeria Licensed Customs Agents (ANLCA) to report any police officer who demands bribe. Speaking during her visit to ANLCA national secretariat, Mrs Harrison said she was not happy that ANLCA members accused some of her officers of demanding as much as N25,000 bribe before allowing them to move their goods out of the ports. To show her readiness to deal with the situation, she gave ANLCA members her private mobile numbers, and directed the clearing agents to shun any request for bribe from her officers.
“Until some persons are taught lessons, they don’t ever change, and you are the people to assist me do my job, not when the case has passed, but when they are right in the act, making the demand for corruption, I promise you that I will act. “If you have any case of injustice, report to me and I will take it up, but the problem is that a lot of you fraternise with my police men to sweep these things under the carpet and that is why they come to you again and again. “I urge you not to fraternise with the bad eggs in the Nigerian police come out and let us fight the fight of bribery together and we will achieve its,” she said.
Elections force shift of NIMAREX 2015 to April
T
HE Nigeria Maritime Expo (NIMAREX) 2015 initially slated for next month has been shifted to April because of the coming elections. Organisers of the yearly event said the Expo would hold between April 27 and 29. Secretary of the Planning Committee Osuala Nwagbara said the postponement of the elections made it imperative to shift the expo. He said the expo would be heralded by a cocktail party on April 26 for indigenous and foreign dignitaries. The theme is: Nigeria: Regenerating economic growth through the maritime sector, stressing that the resources in the industry is enor-
mous, but yet to be tapped. Nwagbara said this year’s edition is being organised to make the public and private sector know that the country can survive without the oil and gas industry. He maintained that the falling price of crude oil at the international market is a call to action for all. “For Nigeria to be a shipping nation and to meet with the requirement of the Cabotage Act as regards vessel ownership, it requires a functioning iron and steel industry which will be a focal point of the 2015 NIMAREX”, he said. The scribe added that it also considers other events that are ongoing internationally before
choosing a new date, stressing that other countries of the world have their eyes on the Nigeria Maritime Expo 2015. Nwagbara noted that a viable maritime nation like Nigeria requires that ships should be built in the country, even as he argued that, there are laws existing to support building of ships. Citing relevant sections of the Cabotage Act, he said Section 5 of the Act makes it imperative for every vessel that must lift crude oil or petrol products within the Nigerian territorial waters must be owned by Nigerians. He said the Cabotage Act requires that every vessel that operates within the Nigerian waters must be built in the country,
crewed by indigenes of the country, registered in the country and must be owned by Nigerians. He pointed out that Nigeria is endowed with a huge potential in the iron and steel industry that can engage over a million Nigerians if proper looked into. “China in 2010 employed 3.5 million people in the iron and steel sector and that number of persons is more that the population of Bayelsa and Nasarawa states put together.” “Now assuming Nigeria employs one half of what China employed in 2010, it means at least 1.5 million people will gain employment from a particular sector. “We are bringing the entire
world together through NIMAREX 2015 as far as maritime and other related industry are concerned, because we are inviting ship building companies to come over and locate ship building industry in Nigeria which means that ship building firms abroad would have to partner with Nigerians and establish ship building yards in the country” “We expect a partnership between entrepreneurs in the ship building industry and government to revitalise the iron and steel industry, so that materials for ship building will be sourced from the steel sector, thus form a viable iron and steel sector,” he said.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
14
THE NATION
BUSINESS AVIATION
Insurance firms fleecing airlines on premiums, say operators D
OMESTIC airline operators are groaning under what they call the yoke of high insurance premium. The Nation learnt that they pay higher premiums than their foreign counterparts. They are said to be paying almost five times higher rates than foreign operators. It was learnt that the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) said the practice amounted to undercutting the operators. But the development has fuelled talks that local brokers lack the financial muscle to underwrite aviation risks. To have a cut in the business, indigenous brokers have resorted to re-insuring airline liabilities and passengers, and third party liabilities with major underwriters, such as Allianz Aviation Insurance, Aerospace Insurance and Lloyds of London. Insurance cover is a mandatory requirement by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) for airlines, which are required to insure their aircraft, passengers and third party liabilities. Domestic operators have kicked over the “exploitative” premiums, calling on the government to prevail on NAICOM to call insurance companies to order. But NAICOM spokesperson Rasak Salami said the airlines cannot prove the allegation. In a short message service ( SMS),
By Kelvin Osa Okunbor
he said: “Both NAICOM and NCAA have investigated this allegation in the past. There is no fact to substantiate it. We have asked the airline operators of Nigeria to provide evidence but they have not.” The Executive Chairman of Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON), Captain Nogie Meggison, says indigenous airlines pay the highest insurance premiums in the world. He urged Aviation Minister Chief Osita Chidoka to look into the matter, stressing that with such high premiums, the future of domestic aviation appears bleak . Last year, the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority ( NCAA) initiated meetings on how to achieve lower insurance premiums. Part of the initiative was a push for the consolidation of insurance companies to enable them underwrite aircraft risks. It was gathered that an aircraft valued at $10 million with crew and third party liabilities in Europe, the US, Britain or Barbados attracts a premium of between $80,000 and $100,000 per annum, as against the $300,000 to $600,000 charged by Nigerian brokers yearly. Experts are worried that with the attainment of Category One Safety Rating by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (USFAA), Nigeria ought to be considered a low risk country.
It was learnt that NAICOM is concerned about brokers who collect huge premiums, but remit to their overseas underwriters the globally prescribed rates. Major insurance companies are said to be pushing for enhanced capitalisation to enable them undertake aircraft risks. If the move succeeds, the profiteering from airlines may continue unabated. “The source, who pleaded for anonymity, said: “These people are not underwriters, they cannot underwrite an accident in this industry, they don’t have the capacity as they are just brokers. All they do is collect so much money over five to 10 times of the internationally known cost and re-insure with Lloyds and others. “These middlemen are making business tough. We reject this in its totality. We need immediate change, so we can remove the im-
pediment and get insured anywhere else that would be cheaper for us.” An operator has questioned the nature of risks some of the brokers are bandying to justify their “exorbitant” charges, arguing that the rates are untenable, since Nigeria is Category One certified. “What kind of risks are you talking about? Nigeria is Category One. Therefore, a low risk country, and one of the advantages of being Category One is reduced insurance premiums. So, since we are low-risk to the international community, why should our own country operators fleece us?” he queried. The operator argued that if the premiums are reduced, even foreigners will insure here “so there should be no border limit to insurance as there are none elsewhere in aviation,” he said, adding that since it is an international business, it is out of place for them to insist on Nigerian operators insuring only in Nigeria.
“They should leave the airlines alone to their choice as their counterparts the world over. It should be a matter of choice and not compulsion as is being practised today, especially as the use of local insurance brokers is not competitive,” he said. He said operators should have the option either to use a local or foreign broker, insisting that these rights should be freely exercised by the operators. He urged NCAA to maintain neutrality in the matter. Another operator also called on the government to compel NAICOM to caution insurance companies to desist from this “embarrassing and unholy exploitation”. He enjoined all operators to stand firm against what he termed “this shameless exploitation.” “You cannot force a man to buy your goods because he is your neighbour, when your goods sell at a far higher price than on the next street,” he said.
Expert warns on adoption of single African sky
A
N expert and former President, National Cabin Crew Association of Nigeria, Olumide Ohunayo, has warned against the endorsement of the proposal by African Transport Ministers to adopt a single continental sky policy. He said the adoption of such a proposal could have adverse effects on the growth of Nigeria’s aviation as it would result in opening the nation’s routes to all manner of carriers without bilateral restrictions. Ohunayo argued that the proposal would put Nigeria in a weak position on issues bordering on how to utilise her routes, which are the most lucrative in Africa. He added that such a deal would open the aviation business to foreign carriers, thus, compromising entry restrictions. The African Union Commission last week proposed the establishment of a single African air transport market by 2017. The proposal has received the support of African Ministers of Transport. Ohunayo argued that Nigeria signed Open Skies agreement with the United States since 2000 , but till date, the government has not taken advantage of the agreement, saying the agreement remains lopsided because there are not enough Nigerian carriers to utilise the window offered by the agreement . While many American carriers fly directly into Nigeria, only Arik Air operates flight to the United States. Citing the demerits of the Open Skies agreement, Ohunayo warned that the Africa single sky proposal championed by Ethiopian Airlines, will not do Nigeria any good, as it would only allow Ethiopian Airlines to fly from the Murtala Muhammed Airport (MMA), Lagos and the Nnamdi Azikwe Airport
(NAA), Abuja to Europe and other parts of the world. He said: “We signed Open Skies with the US and had a five year head- start which we frittered away till this moment because the decision was hasty with no carrier(s) to capitalise on it. The African single sky being proposed is a baby of Ethiopia Airlines (ET) and the target is to operate to Europe, Far East and America from Lagos and Abuja. It’s a subtle cabotage that will make us the usual sitting giant.” He said claim by Ethiopian Airlines that Nigeria is not favourable to invest in, is not tenable, wondering why the same airline has the highest frequencies into Nigeria of all the foreign airlines operating into the country. Ohunayo lamented that instead of investing in Nigeria, it prefers to partner with other African countries. “Ethiopian Airlines claimed the conditions are not ripe to invest in Nigeria, but the same conditions have given them the highest frequencies and points into the country. Rather, they have chosen to invest and partner other African countries such as Togo, Rwanda, Malawi, Congo and Zambia,” he said. The caveat in liberalisation, he pointed out is collaboration and that those airlines that are benefiting from the single sky policy are not solely owned by government or person, though protected by their respective governments. The Aviation Analyst hinted that if Ethiopian Airlines wants a single sky policy, ownership structure must be diluted, and that it should offload a certain percentage to countries that contribute to their total payload rather than grandstand.
•From left: Captain Victor Lemba and First Officer Joan Obasi in the cockpit of Arik Air inaugural flight to Abidjan International Airport, last week.
Arik Air to develop Cotonou Airport as regional hub A
RIK Air plans to develop the Cotonou International Airport into a regional hub to feed its passenger traffic for West Africa, its Deputy Managing Director, Captain Ado Sanusi, has said. Sanusi said the Cotonou Airport is considered as a hub by Arik Air because Lome Airport is being developed by another airline. Sanusi, Arik Air Senior Vice President, Operations, told The Nation that the airline has carried out feasibility studies on the viability of the Cotonou Airport. The airline is also extending its operations into Abidjan to offer passengers reliable air-link between Anglophone and Francophone countries. His words: “We have done a good study on the route and found out that there is a good market between Lagos and Abidjan. We also discovered that there is the potentiality of transit passengers that will be going to our long haul destinations via Lagos. “This also will make Lagos the natural hub we are trying to build. Passengers going to Dubai, London, or JFK can come to Lagos via Abidjan. We have seen it coming
and we are going to capitalise on it. “We are not flying through Lome Airport for strategic reasons. Besides, we want to build Cotonou as another hub because Lome is being developed by one of our competitors and so we want to do the same thing with Cotonou. “Abidjan is a preferred destination for Nigerian businessmen and women. Arik Air’s foray into this commercial city will make life a lot easier for our guests who have been yearning for flight connection between Nigeria and Cote d’Ivoire. This service will further underline Arik Air’s position as West Africa’s premier airline,” he stated, adding that the reason for opening the route is because of the economic potentials citizens of the two countries stand to gain through the air link. Also, Nigerian Ambassador to Cote d’Ivoire Mrs. Ifeoma Akabogu-Chinwuba said at the Felix Houphouet Boigny Interna-
tional Airport, that the service provided by Arik Air would boost the bilateral relationship between Nigeria and Cote d’Ivoire in many ways, including trade and business transactions. Her words: “There are so many benefits the two countries can gain by this direct air link by Arik Air. For instance, there are over three million Nigerians living in Cote d’Ivoire and they all have families. There are indeed a lot of bilateral activities between the two countries, particularly, economic and commercial activities, mainly from Nigeria to Cote d’Ivoire. “Many Nigerians have made so much investment in Cote d’Ivoire. They have hotels, schools and banks such as UBA, GTB and Diamond. All are Nigerianestablished banks. We also have churches owned by Nigerians, as well as oil and gas companies belonging to Nigerians,” she said. Mrs. Akabogu-Chinwuba praised Arik Air for providing direct service to millions of Nigerians in Cote d’Ivoire who have been itching for such opportunity to transact their businesses using an airline belonging to Nigeria.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
15
COMMENTARY EDITORIALS
LETTER
Shame, NLC, shame
JP Morgan alert •It’s economic mismanagement, stupid!
T
HAT Nigeria faces possible removal from the J. P. Morgan Emerging Market Bond Index (EMBI) shows an economy in probable free fall — but why is no one surprised? With a coordinating minister for the economy who seems to know too much and commander-in-chief who seems to know too little, that should hardly be any news! On January 16, JP Morgan announced that, over the next three to five months, it was putting Nigeria’s Government Bond Index on a negative index watch, a sort of “investors beware” caveat, to international investors. It gave as reason the tight squeeze on the dollar in the local economy, in a dollar-dominated international sovereign bond market. This setback is, of course, due to the crash in the global price of crude oil, where most of Nigeria’s export earnings come from. The JP Morgan alert is serious because its EMBI, for global basket investors, is about the most sought-after guide to decide whether to or not to invest. So, a JP Morgan alarm casts a negative perception on the economy involved — and maybe, if it lasts long enough, sets off a run on that economy. But even as in Nigeria’s case, where many of the investors are said to have already sold off their Nigerian bond holdings, the prospects of new investors in Nigerian sovereign bond further diminish. In a globalised economy, where investors are pulling funds from the matured markets of America and Europe to invest in the comparably high yields of the emerging markets of Africa and the
Middle East, Nigeria risks losing out in attracting these funds. Other things being equal, that would further retard the economy. For an economy prostrate with high unemployment, signifying the irony of statistical growth without development, this is additional bad news. But the structure of the economy makes it even more dire: the parlous state of key infrastructure — power, rail and road — makes the economy import-dependent. If imports are key and there isn’t enough dollars to buy those imported input, the logical result is deepened poverty, misery and very likely, crime. That profile is unenviable; to say the least. Still, though the rot is economic, the root cause is failed political leadership. In his well publicised intervention, Chukwuma Soludo, former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), accused President Goodluck Jonathan of virtually outsourcing the economy to a coordinating minister, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the finance minister, who has made a hash of it. Prof. Soludo may have his own axe to grind with the duo, particularly the minister. But every objective analysis of the situation points to an economy that could have been better managed. The immediate trigger of the present crisis is the collapse of the global prices of crude oil. Yet, in fairness to oil, it gave Nigeria more than enough notice. If a product, for upward of four years, sells fairly steadily for more than US $100, and then for just a few months now, it per-
sistently inches below US $50, and there is already a blind panic, definitely something is wrong. What were our economic managers doing in those years when the price was spiralling? Might Dr. Okonjo-Iweala, always (at least under President Olusegun Obasanjo) making a mantra of saving for the “rainy day”, not be walking her talk? Also, what went awfully wrong, such that the brazen stealing of Nigeria’s crude suddenly got out of control? Now, the current industrial-scale stealing, combined with the price slump, is a lethal combination for an economy already gasping for breath! The JP Morgan alert is a wake-up call: this economy is in dire straits. So, the present managers had better shape up — or ship out.
‘The JP Morgan alert is serious because its EMBI, for global basket investors, is about the most soughtafter guide to decide whether to or not to invest. So, a JP Morgan alarm casts a negative perception on the economy involved — and maybe, if it lasts long enough, sets off a run on that economy’
NNPC’s indigenous challenge • An industry without engineers is a sad paradox
T
HAT the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) is now looking inward in its bid to find solution to the intractable maintenance glitches of refineries in the country should ordinarily be heart-warming. But, it is beyond that, especially given the circumstances under which the decision was taking. The corporation said some of its inhouse indigenous engineers have been saddled with the task of rehabilitating the country’s three ailing refineries, including Port Harcourt Refining Company, Kaduna Refining and Petrochemical Company Limited and Warri Refining and Petrochemical Company Limited. The decision was reportedly taken to save cost, since foreign contrac-
‘However, having settled for the option, perhaps the point the corporation is making is that it is better late than never, to challenge our local engineers with a view to bringing out the best in them. But what we would not want is a situation where the refineries would be used for trial and error purposes that would end up being counter-productive to the nation’
tors working with the corporation threw a bill of $1.6bn (N288bn) on its laps as against the in-house engineers’ $550m (N99bn). Mr. Ian Udoh, NNPC’s Executive Director, Refining and Petrochemicals, during a media parley on preference for indigenous engineers and costing puts it succinctly: “For the three refineries, the estimates going with the nominees of the original builders of the refineries would have come up to $1.6bn. But we can’t afford that because we are not going to get any funding from the government for that. We examined the work scope and picked up the essential things that we must do to get these refineries to operate optimally at around 90 per cent of capacity. That was done and we did the pricing template; not the international rates, we used the local rates. And everything for the three refineries combined came to around $550m, which is significant, maybe up to 70 per cent reduction.’’ He added: ‘Even the $550m is quite much. So, we amortised it over 18 months so that we will be able to swallow it in bits more easily. The 18 months started since last October and this means that early next year, the refineries should be in shape.” In other words, therefore, funding was the necessity that brought about the ‘invention’ in this case. This is where our fear lies. Why did it take the NNPC this avoidable snub and its attendant high cost to know that these foreign engineers have shown no commitment to the nation but to her money? But the corporation is to
blame for this belated recognition of indigenous engineers in its stable in over 54 years of the nation’s independence. The question of local engineers handling the TAM ought to have been settled years back; indeed they ought to have been understudying their foreign counterparts since the establishment of the refineries. If they had done that, they would have been familiar with the operations of the refineries and we would not have cause to be apprehensive over reports that they (local engineers) are now to do the TAM. However, having settled for the option, perhaps the point the corporation is making is that it is better late than never, to challenge our local engineers with a view to bringing out the best in them. But what we would not want is a situation where the refineries would be used for trial and error purposes that would end up being counter-productive to the nation. These are critical equipment that require specialised skills to handle. Our fear is exacerbated by the fact that the original builders of the refineries had pushed forward their purported partners that are not willing to give the standard engineering pledge of post-rehabilitation performance guarantee. All said, we hope that the current NNPC leadership would do everything to ensure standards for the TAM under any circumstance. One of the things that Nigerians want from the corporation are functional refineries. It is a shame that Nigeria is the only major crude oil producer that is importing refined petroleum products.
S
IR: ‘’Against popular opinion and allegations of a sinister motive, INEC has been made to postpone the general elections. We would want to register our disappointment about this development...any further attempt to frustrate the process of the general elections by whatever means, a postponement or otherwise, shall be resisted.’’ – Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) on February 9, condemning the postponement of Nigeria’s general elections. Fate has an uncanny way of bringing us face to face with the bitter truths concerning the lies and deceits we surreptitiously, deliberately design and peddle as gospel truths which at once cast us in the image of saints and demonize others. The Greeks called it nemesis. For their presumption and holier than thou posturing, which the Greeks called hubris, so eloquently captured in the above quotation about the postponed elections, the NLC was sufficiently and well shamed and exposed only three days later when it ironically, woefully, failed to conduct its own general elections as they ended midway in utter pandemonium! For the records, the NLC’s 11 th delegates’ conference was convened in order to hold elections into executive positions on Thursday, February 12. But this was not to be as the elections suddenly ended in chaos. The depressing pictures of scattered ballot boxes, torn ballot papers and upturned and broken tables and chairs that showcased the commotion that characterized the botched elections is a perfect replay of the typical narrative and scenario that have become a worrying, recurring decimal in Nigeria’s wider political landscape, elections especially. We have become so used to talking about and castigating the Nigerian political elite of corruption and all of its various ugly derivatives that we forget that, one way or the other, we ourselves have become willing accomplices in these devious crimes or are, worst of all (as we have seen in the case of the NLC), even more culpable culprits because we have bred and raised our own versions of this prevailing monstrosity. But what makes it more reprehensible is the fact that we secretly perpetrate this corruption and hide under the veneer of the privilege, a sense of immunity, integrity and respect our being unionists and social critics confer on us. We shamelessly perpetrate even more grievous sins than those for which we take delight and relish in maliciously accusing and castigating others so as to appear as saints. Nigeria is slowly inching towards the precipice because those ferocious flames of corruption are being further fanned by hypocrisy and this cynical holier than thou attitude. Generally speaking, institutions in Nigeria are still weak and at best still slowly evolving. And the price of this is this pervasive weakness in character and a blurred perception of what is wrong and right in both the ruling elite and the citizenry as a whole. And the leadership of labour is by all intents and purposes part and parcel of this ruling elite, despite the illusion of their being self-styled comrades. • Chris Gyang, Jos, Plateau State
TRUTH IN DEFENCE OF FREEDOM Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief Victor Ifijeh • Editor Gbenga Omotoso •Chairman, Editorial Board Sam Omatseye •General Editor Adekunle Ade-Adeleye •Editor, Online Lekan Otufodunrin •Managing Editor Northern Operation Yusuf Alli •Managing Editor Waheed Odusile
• Executive Director (Finance & Administration) Ade Odunewu
•Deputy Editor Lawal Ogienagbon
•Advert Manager Robinson Osirike
•Deputy Editor (News) Adeniyi Adesina
• Gen. Manager (Training and Development) Soji Omotunde •General Manager (Abuja Press) Kehinde Olowu •AGM (PH Press) Tunde Olasogba
•IT Manager Bolarinwa Meekness •Deputy Editor (Nation’s Capital) •Press Manager Yomi Odunuga Udensi Chikaodi •Group Political Editor Emmanuel Oladesu •Legal Counsel John Unachukwu •Group Business Editor Simeon Ebulu • Manager (Admin) Folake Adeoye •Group Sports Editor Ade Ojeikere •Acting Manager (sales) •Editorial Page Editor Olaribigbe Bello Sanya Oni
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
16
CARTOON & LETTERS
S
IR: ENVISAGE, what these persons would have done had they been Nigerians, during the Richard Nixon Watergate investigations, in the United States in 1973: George Bush Snr (Chairman Republican National Committee), Leonard Garment (Counsel to the President), J. Fred Buzhardt (Special white house counsel for Watergate), General Alexander M. Haig Jr (Chief of staff, the White House), Charles G. Bebe Rebozo (Friend of the President), they would, even in the face of unflattering evidence, take to the press to refute all accusations and pray Nigerians to see all scheme as that by the president’s political enemy. As with all things in Nigeria, the Watergate scandal would have found itself in the current of air, forensic experts would have told us the break-in into the Democratic National Congress office, and bug of prominent people were stories planted by the opposition, and Nixon would have served out his second term as president and become a revered statesman. But in the US during that era, the only person involved in an abrasive maneuver and cover up was president Nixon, two of his counsel (Fred Buzhardt and Leonard
S
EDITOR’S MAIL BAG SEND TYPEWRITTEN, DOUBLE SPACED AND SIGNED CONTRIBUTIONS, LETTERS AND REJOINDERS OF NOT MORE THAN 800 WORDS TO THE EDITOR, THE NATION, 27B, FATAI ATERE ROAD, MATORI, LAGOS. E-mail: views@thenationonlineng.net
Country of swift boaters? Garment) did what no presidential aide had ever done in history: they asked him (Nixon) to resign due to the devastating evidence against him. Imagine what Vernon Jordan, Bill Clinton’s best friend, go-between, confidant, during scandals regarding Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones would have done, were he a Nigerian. He would haven taken efforts to the press to haul over the coals on the benefactors of both ladies and, accuse them of being front-runners of the opposition and, that the ladies were spies planted to tarnish the image of the president. But in the US, he was the first to unsettle Clinton and asked him: “ Mr. President, look me in the eye, did you do it.” Imagine how a soldier’s recorded audio tape of how an election was
rigged would be likely viewed by the governments in the United States, Australia, the UK, Japan and even Ghana etc. The governments will appoint Ombudsmen to investigate the damning revelations, they will not point fingers elsewhere as that of the swift boating antics of perceived political enemies. The named culprits over there can never take the moral high ground like ours over here to engage in more holistic preachments in the presence of cheerleaders and many others with clouds of debauchery over their heads who become self-styled Major Domo in project ‘destroy Nigeria.’ They would be blacklisted by their establishments and societies never again to aspire for any elective offices, would not be appointed to offices and would be discharged from the arms services.
Youths and Nigeria’s future
IR: Are the Nigerian youths prepared to take on leadership roles? Given that the world is on the fast lane of transformation, can we truly advance competitively in the comity of nations without harnessing the potentials of youth? Certainly, Nigerian youths have come of age; they are qualified, lettered and have what it takes to take our nation to the next level. They have left so much mark in the sand of time in their chosen professions here at home and abroad. Support, encouragement and the enabling environment to excel is what it takes to spur the youth to move Nigeria to greater heights. As a nation, the leadership potentials of the youth should be identified by the youth themselves and jointly harnessed by the society. In the build up to the 2015 gen-
eral elections, it was clear that Nigerian youths have again been deprived of another golden opportunity to showcase their potentials as capable driving forces in the development of our dear country. It is evident in the candidates contesting various elective positions amongst political parties. To be able to make the desired change, the youth should endeavour to be faithful and loyal members of political parties of their choice and volunteer to employ right attitudes. This will afford them the opportunity to be able to force the tired to retire gracefully. Most youth act as though they lack direction. They have become ready prey to the antics of the experienced grandfathers by their actions and inactions thus limiting their chances of assuming leadership positions. If we
continue to support the old politicians for the reason of stipends they dangle as baits and even become violent tools in the hands of politicians, the expectation is for the remaining aged to march as quickly as their walking sticks could permit them into the political rings. As youths, any act of violence and bids by politicians to employ youths to satisfy their insatiable political thirst should be avoided. The youths should prove that they can assume their rightful place as leaders. Nigeria can achieve greatness in the hands of her youths. What is needed is the enabling environment to excel. The shape and future of our nation is too much valuable to be assigned to the aged. • Oliver Uche Eze Kaduna
It is not unusual for people in our country, to take to their hills to hide for safety after offering services as whistle-blowers. There are no witness protection programmes here. But it is sacrilegious, that a whistle blowing soldier is in the wind and, is not protected by his establishment’s hierarchy, he is not court martialled to obtain the truth for posterity and for wrongdoers to be reproved. Yet the state expects civilians to come forward and provide information to law enforcement agencies on criminality. If a soldier trained with tax-payers money to be alert at all times feels insecure and flee for acts not
subversive to our sovereignty and whose behaviour is seen, almost akin to that of swift boaters, who then is safe? Imagine what would happen to the family of the policeman killed by ‘direct bullets’ calculatedly shot into a campaign rally in Okrika recently. A rally that didn’t take place in a war zone in eastern Ukraine. It would take forever and a day for the state to give the family and many others who die on active duty what are due them and eternity for the state to keep on trading blames and forever to be in the usual sleepy state not to be able to put names on the shooters and their benefactors. The same way buses for campaigns were burnt elsewhere, people beaten and others went beserk to destroy campaign posters, yet these acts are always linked to enemies or to unknown people. • Simon Abah Port Harcourt, Rivers State
INEC is playing with our future
S
IR: We are compelled to appeal to Professor Attahiru Jega the chairman of Independent National Electoral Commission, through your national newspaper, to please prevail on the Resident Electoral Commissioner in Ogun State to please make available the Permanent Voter Cards of the recently registered voters so as to enable them exercise their franchise in during the general elections AdoOdo/Ota Local Government Area of the state. It is appalling that after the commission had voided the registration of nearly 60 percent of the voters that registered in 2011, the commission has not deemed it fit to provide many eligible voters with the PVC. The action portends serious danger to the future of our people in this area of the state as any failure in releasing the card will render us ineligible. It is equally sad that INEC has not commenced any voter’s education exercise hence we are in the woods election-wise whenever the exercise commence. It worrisome that less than 50 percent of registered voters
have collected their PVC in Ogun State while majority continue to flood INEC offices within the local government offices on daily basis without any positive sign from the commission. We are of the firm belief that should the electoral commission continue to foot drag on the issues raised, it might be dancing to the drum beat of a political party or playing an already agreed game-plan and crafted by a faceless group, government or some jittery candidates. It is in view of this that we are now appealing to the chairman of INEC, human rights groups, the government and all good people of Nigeria that they should not fold their arms and allow the electoral commission to systematically disenfranchise us in the name of non-availability of Permanent Voters Card. It is our right to vote and having taken the pains to register in spite of all odds we faced during the registration exercise, we must be allowed to vote. •Chief Femi Oni Sango Otta, Ogun State.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
17
COMMENTS Even the gibberish about the HIS is no jeer at an unravelled behepresent-day military besting the moth, scythed by own sheer hubris: Obasanjo-era one is pure gas! fixation with power and nothing Obasanjo-era military went to else. It is rather the lamentation for a tragiCongo and everywhere and excomic Nigerian polity: a party democracy celled. Buhari-era military sans organic political parties. chased intruding Chadian rasBut it is also a penetrating x-ray into the cals almost all the way to personal odyssey of Gen. Olusegun Ndjamena. Now, present-day Obasanjo — a truly iconic citizen, at least Nigerian military gasp for Olakunle by the Lugardian ethos that threw him up; breath facing a hitherto ragtag lordbeek1@gmail.com, 08054504169 (Sms only, please) Abimbola but which spectacularly let Nigeria down. Boko Haram — until, irony of iroHence, the many fits and starts; and nearnies, the same Chad came to the eternal instability. rescue — or the latest push, No news: Obasanjo is in a titanic face-off which the ever fond Jonathan with President Goodluck Jonathan; and somewhat hopes will save his therefore, with the Peoples Democratic doomed re-election chances! Party (PDP). By Obasanjo’s own presidenNice dreams! at worst, putative co-habitants, that nevertheless grimly told tial power code, Jonathan is PDP’s sitting emperor — long reign Some spiritual-inclined could even wager the authors of that Abacha his transmutation would be morally wrong. the king! You brawl with the emperor — what effrontery! — brutal putdown have earned themselves a Karma-like profesStill, there was some democratic temper, some etiquette, some and remain in one piece? sional curse, which dooms them to similar treatment from fudecorum. But all that vanished when President Obasanjo gruffly But what is news, at least to the not-so-discerning, is that the ture juniors. proclaimed himself the PDP national leader — sure a US concurrent war’s many battles are strictly according to Obasanjo’s The saving grace though, is that there is no evidence that revention, but with thick and heavy bad faith — that vaulted the own “war” manual: his PDP sack and counter-sacking; and the lease came from DHQ, since no one from there signed it, even president over and above the party that presented him for elecDefence Headquarters’ rather reckless disavowal. Both leap off if it appeared on their website. Just like the unsigned document tion. the Obasanjo personal manual — as would be presently demthat started the disastrous annulment of the 12 June 1993 presiWith a new party Leviathan, the purge list was instructive: onstrated. dential election result, this is another bastard document by cowChief Lar, first PDP national chairman, forced to abdicate beConfounding? Maybe. But first, the latest from the Obasanjoards not man enough to append their signatures. cause the “national leader” declared he could not work with Jonathan “war front”. But the Karma bit is no comfort, for again it emanated from him; and Chief Awoniyi, who accused Obasanjo of “spiritual Paparazzi clicked as cameras buzzed and whirred, and flashthe Obasanjo war of attrition manual. corruption”. “When a man is afflicted with spiritual corruplights exploded; and Obasanjo’s PDP Ward 11, Abeokuta, coJust as the present military commanders now mock their old tion,” he warned, “he corrupts everything around him”. Still, members whooped in victory: Baba just shred his membership commander-in-chief, Gen. Obasanjo once mocked his. no stopping the new PDP king-kong! Lar and Awoniyi were in card! It was the hilltop drama of February 17. In his Not My Will, with supreme rudeness and intolerable the original G-34. Adabayo Dayo, Ogun PDP chairman would, two hours later, petulance, Obasanjo growled at Gen. Yakubu Gowon. He acThe last PDP chairman with a mind of his own was arguably announce Obasanjo’s expulsion; the brash Ayo Fayose would cused “Mr. Gowon” of duplicity and complicity; and merrily Audu Ogbeh, now an All Progressives’ Congress (APC) chieftrumpeted his dismissal from the Nigerian Army. Whenever prompt South West PDP to make some hostile noise; but PDP tain. But Obasanjo crushed him over the Chris Ngige Anambra Gowon set foot on Nigerian soil, he thundered, he would anNational would eat crow, with Sule Lamido, Jigawa governor, governorship kidnap, pulled off by Chris Uba and gang. Ogbeh, swer for his crime! Gowon’s “crime”? Unproven allegations hinting at begging the old man. Too late: the old fox had outthe national chairman, shrieked his outrage. Obasanjo, the naabout involvement in the Bukar Dimka failed coup, that took smarted his estranged presidential godson and allied traducers! tional leader, bawled what the heck! the life of Gen. Murtala Muhammed. But beyond the high drama: the card Obasanjo tore — did it Years later, Uba is fingered in the Ekiti rigging scandal. From As it happens, Gen. Gowon, 80, honour fully restored, resymbolise the original PDP? Hardly! Rather, it was the PDP kidnapping a governor without sanction, he has graduated, given mains the quintessential elder citizen, officer and gentleman. In Obasanjo moulded in his own image. But how could someallegations from the Ekiti rigging audiotape, to crossing the contrast, Gen. Obasanjo faces a tempest in his winter years. Is body’s own image disgust him so much — the severe wages of Niger into Yorubaland, with soldiers under his command, to rig the supernatural whispering something to the old general? playing god? another governor into office. Pee-dee-pee ... pawa! Ironically, his latest anti-Jonathan campaign seems for public Make no mistake: the Alex Ekwueme-led G-34, with the likes Even Ahmadu Ali, Obasanjo’s garrison commander, he of 101% good, though yoked with private ire. Yet, he looks more and of Solomon Lar and Sunday Awoniyi (both late), who confronted zombie-like loyalty as national chairman, has switched camp as more like Barnabas, the tragic hero in Christopher Marlowe’s Sani Abacha, were no especial revolutionaries. G-34 later formed Jonathan campaign director-general. The hirelings of yesterJew of Malta. Barnabas loved only himself. But the first time he PDP. year have come of age — and are feigning the Pharaoh who committed to others, he was double-crossed! Obasanjo always Indeed, while the NADECO home pair of Adekunle Ajasin knew not Joseph! pushes a private agenda. But now that he seems to push a public and Abraham Adesanya intensified their anti-Abacha war of That was the PDP which card Obasanjo tore! Will the pristine one, not a few remain sceptical! attrition, Dr. Ekwueme and company were, at best, moderates; PDP, warts and all, ever reincarnate? Obasanjo, in the context of a collapsing PDP, should be a lesThen, the excitement from Defence Headquarters. Declaring to APC. No political party should allow its own nominee, ‘Obasanjo, in the context of a collapsing PDP, as an “embarrassment”, Gen. Obasanjo — four-star general, three- son though he be president, so much power as to turn the party into should be a lesson to APC. No political party time commander-in-chief and Civil War hero, who received the his own fiefdom. History may doom Jonathan for destroying PDP — and possishould allow its own nominee, though he be Biafra instrument of surrender — makes the Army velvet ranks an embarrassment to that once great national instibly Nigeria, as Obasanjo fears. But it would also, while recordpresident, so much power as to turn the party themselves tution that brought the old soldier to national fame, honour and ing his present heroics, blame Obasanjo for creating the Jonathan into his own fiefdom’ even wealth! destructive genius.
T
R
epublican ipples
Pee-dee-pee ... shred your card!
J
UST as I predicted, the dust raised by former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Chukwuma Soludo on Nigeria’s missing trillions, seems unlikely to settle anytime soon. Once I had thought the matter settled – disappointingly – after Finance Minister Ngozi OkonjoIweala contemptuously dismissed the weighty issues raised by Soludo as “outright nonsense and self-seeking aggrandizement that need not be dignified with a response”. With last week’s response by President Goodluck Jonathan as reported by Premium Times (the latter quoting Thisday), the season of indifference is not only over; the matter – mercifully – has become live again! Permit yours truly, dear reader to bring you up to date on a controversy that the administration would rather sweep under the carpet. In January, Soludo had observed in a letter to the Finance Minister and Coordinator of the economy, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala that “the basket of our national treasury is leaking profusely from all sides”. He cited examples. First is the issue of oil theft which he noted averaged 400,000 per day which came to about $60bn ‘stolen’ in just four years. He put the cost in naira to about N12.6tn. The second was the issue of foreign reserves. Soludo had claimed that minimum forex reserves should have been at least $90bn instead of the current level of $30bn. To him, the gross mismanagement of the reserves has denied the country some $60bn or another N12.6tn. Expectedly, he brought up the issue of ‘missing’ $20bn from the NNPC (N4tn); the fuel subsidy racket and the import duty waivers bazaar. He asked: “How many trillions of naira were paid for oil subsidy (unappropriated?)? How many trillions (in actual fact) have been ‘lost’ through customs duty waivers over the last four years? How many trillions of naira self- financing government agencies earn and spend?” His conclusion was that “probably more than N30tn has either been stolen, or lost, or unaccounted for, or simply mismanaged under your watchful eyes in the past four years. Since you claimed to be in charge, Nigerians are right to ask you to account. Think about what this amount could mean for the 112 million poor Nigerians, or for our schools, hospitals, roads, etc.” And what did the super-minister, the lone official in the eye of the storm have to say to the matters that are not only legitimate but of immense public interest? A rude and haughty riposte delivered through an aide, Paul C Nwabuikwu. Dismissing Soludo’s charges off-hand as “littered with abusive and unbecoming language” she stated that the comments “shows how an embittered loser in the Nigerian political space can get so derailed that they commit intellectual harakiri by deliberately misquoting economic facts and maliciously turning statistics on their head to justify a hatchet job...We hope all the intellectuals in the
Policy Sanya Oni sanyaoni@yahoo.co.uk 08051101841
Now, it’s GEJ versus Soludo! international circles in which Professor Soludo has told us he flies around in will read what a Professor of Economics has chosen to do with his intellect”! Mercifully, yours truly is not alone in finding the language offensive; I recall that the descent to vulgar abuse actually prompted Obiageli Ezekwesili to write on her Twitter handle shortly after – the “nation and people seem to be on an accelerated race to the bottom. So sad! Why would a statement from (the) government read like that? Gosh!” Did the President finally clear the fog? Let’s hear the President speak through Thisday as reported by Premium Times: “Not too long ago I read in one of the papers, I think Vanguard, that former chief economic adviser to President Obasanjo who also went to become a CBN governor… Soludo is a professor and first class material. Yes, making a first class in economics, he is a brilliant person. His secondary school records are fantastic. So by all standards he is a brilliant person... he accused Ngozi; that N30 trillion was stolen under the watch of Ngozi in four years.” He went on: “Ngozi became a finance minister, let’s say from 2011 till date. From that time till now, our annual budget is between N4.3 trillion and N4.9 trillion. So even if you put all together, it is about 18 plus trillion naira, and not 30 trillion. The budget for these four years is less than N20 trillion, but Soludo said that under Ngozi’s watch they stole N30 trillion. This is in the papers, social media, stored in the clouds and will continue to be there. And when you type it in it will come out that during President Jonathan’s time they stole N30 trillion.” You think the President deliberately muddled up the issues? Then wait for this assault on the professional integrity of Soludo: “We asked Ngozi how her colleagues in the World
Bank saw the accusation and she said they were laughing and couldn’t believe it. There are certain things that you just cannot believe and if that is coming from somebody considered to be cerebral like Professor Soludo, then of course you know what the ordinary person would say. It is all political.” Interesting isn’t it? Soludo ignorant, doing mischief – or simply playing politics? Ignorant? That seems extremely doubtful. Mischief? Even more unlikely. Playing politics? The President should know – after all, he’s been doing a lot of shuttles of late, doing rounds to revamp his beleaguered presidency. So what’s wrong with Soludo taking a sip from the giddy brew? Expect Soludo to thunder again – if only to defend his honour being rubbished by the President and his appointees. It would be most tragic should Soludo be forced into an arrangee silence so as not to further ruffle feathers. Now to the substance. I am alarmed that a matter as serious as those raised by Soludo – on which several other Nigerians have also voiced alarm – would be reduced to a trivia by a President obviously in awe of his appointee! If you ask me, I’ll say that the President needed not have reminded us that his super-appointee to whom he outsourced his economic management has his roots in the World Bank – where all knees must bow when it comes to economic wisdom! As if we didn’t know that already. After all, where else, except in Jonathan’s Nigeria would an appointee secure appointment on such terms as to negate the federalist principles, and in such undisguised affront to the constitution of the republic? Or is the president saying that a sojourn at the World Bank automatically translates to immunity from questions over an individual’s stewardship? By the way – I am unaware of the resolution of the import duty waiver bazaar – in which our untouchable minister would swear that her ministry granted waivers and exemptions worth N55.96 billion in 2011, N55.34 billion in 2012 and N59.42 billion in 2013 – totalling N171 billion while the implementing agency, the Nigeria Customs Service, would show that a whopping N1.4 trillion waivers were granted during the same period. So much for the Jonathanians and their white-washed sepulchres.
‘I am alarmed that a matter as serious as those raised by Soludo – on which several other Nigerians have also voiced alarm – would be reduced to a trivia by a President obviously in awe of his appointee! ‘
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
18
COMMENTS
L
AST Tuesday was a particularly bad day for the Rivers State governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the now rescheduled April 11 gubernatorial election Dr. Dakuku Adol Peterside. As you all know, he almost lost his life while campaigning in Okrika, the home town of our First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan. Those who watched the event live on Channels Television were shocked as unknown gunmen rained bullets on Peterside and his team as he mounted the podium to address thousands of Mrs. Jonathan’s kinsmen/women who had gathered enthusiastically to listen to the man who could be the next governor of their state. As the reign of terror continued, there was pandemonium everywhere. Those who could ran as far as their legs could take them while many more took cover to avoid being hit. By the time the gunmen were done, a police corporal, Ifeanyi Okorie, 33, was killed while no fewer than 50 others, including the Channels television reporter Charles Eruka were injured. The Okrika mayhem was the height of the series of violence that had characterized electioneering campaigns in Rivers State since the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) signaled the beginning of this general elections cycle. The violence had been targeted at the APC campaigns and fingers, rightly or wrongly, are being pointed at the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). To be sincere, the violence was not
‘If the president is determined to provide a level playing field for everybody, then he should go ahead today and give a firm instruction to the Inspector General of Police to fish out those behind the Okrika attack and their sponsors and punish them accordingly. That is what a commander in -chief should do’
M
Y dear President, it’s with a very heavy heart that I’m writing this letter to you. Sir, whether you are re-elected in the coming Presidential Election rescheduled for March or rejected by the same Nigerians, who massively voted for you in 2011, there is no way the history of Nigeria would be written without a mention of your name on the list of honours. Like an adage says: ”A good beginning or good ending, only the middle will mend itself,” seems best for a time like this. You had a good beginning with Nigerians and that was why we stood with you, despite your ‘shoeless’ background; and, like everyone destined to the top, you became the acting President and in 2011, you were elected by nearly all Nigerians wishing for ‘a poor boy’ to become the President. Today, things may not be the same, but, I am strongly persuaded that you can still have a good ending if you allow the current electoral process to go on according to the will of the people. I’m confident that if you so do, whatever misgivings anyone has (and there will always be) against you during the period you served would be taken care of by your act of courage, genuine and evident commitment to fatherland. ýThis letter is intended to among others, remind you that before now, God had given some other Nigerians opportunities to lead and, like you, and depending on how they used that office, we either celebrated or mourned their exit. Remember, men like the late maximum ruler, Sani Abacha. Today, no public relations efforts will erase the jubilations across the length and breadth of Nigeria at his demise. He ruled for nine years, but the man who took over from him, the gentle AbdulSalam Abubakar, who spent only few months in office, is seen as a hero. He knew this nation does not belong to an individual or group; but to all of us and whoever we have chosen to lead us, must align with the will, wishes and desires of the generality of all of us. Ibrahim Babangida, (IBB), as he is fondly called, also had his chance to lead us, but because of the way he handled the fate of Nigeria, he is today saddled with the hard
Sad tales from Okrika unexpected judging by the intense rivalry between the ruling APC in the State and the opposition PDP. But the scale was unexpected. No one would have thought that guns and other firearms would be used to disrupt campaign rallies, to the extent of even threatening the life of the governorship candidate of a major party. Whoever was behind the attack did mean well for Rivers State. If any harm had been done to Peterside that day, where would Rivers State and indeed Nigeria be today? What would have become of our democracy? In the run up to that disrupted APC campaign, explosions had gone off earlier in the day near the campaign ground, destroying public properties. Even before last Tuesday, APC offices had been similarly bombed in different parts of the state by unknown people. Nobody has yet been brought to book for these. Peterside taking his campaign to Okrika was an act of bravery as Mrs. Jonathan and her supporters including former warlord Ateke Toms had reportedly vowed never to allow him campaign in their backyard. But for a man who intends to govern the whole of Rivers State, no part of the state is or should be a no go area. The Okrika attack should be a source of concern to President Goodluck Jonathan not just because a repeat of such could derail this democracy, but most importantly, the attack took place in his wife’s community. Mrs. Jonathan is noted for picking quarrel with anybody who dared to stand in her way. And her husband has never for once called her to order.
At the height of the criminality unleashed on the Niger Delta by a section of the then Niger Delta militants, Okrika waterfront served as the hideout for the criminals terrorizing Port Harcourt and environs, and when Rivers State governor Rotimi Amaechi attempted to clean up the area, Mrs. Jonathan resisted claiming to be fighting her peoples cause. Hmmmm. And now to allow APC campaign in her backyard, we are told is something she doesn’t want to hear. Well, Madam must hear this. The people of Okrika, just like every other community in Rivers State deserve to see and hear from all the candidates jostling to become the next governor of the state. It doesn’t matter which party; it is their right. They should have enough information to assess all the candidates before making their choice on the day of election. This kind of attack doesn’t present the president, his wife and the PDP well before the public. If such was going to happen anywhere at all it should not be in Okrika because nobody would believe it if they deny knowledge of it. But should such even happen anywhere at all? We have been told several times that the president is a good person but surrounded by bad people. But I ask, why must a good person surround himself with bad people? It is either of two things; the person is bad but pretending to be good, or is incapable of identifying and picking good people as aides. And if you find yourself surrounded by bad people accidentally, why is it difficult to dispense with their services? How the president deals with the Okrika
Open Letter to President Jonathan By Abdulwahaab Oba task of selling his ideals to Nigerians again. It is sad but the truth is that Nigerians find it difficult to believe and accept him. He acquired an uncomplimentary pitiable nickname, Maradona simply because of his unprecedented inconsistency. What of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo? He was able to come back as President after he first served as military ruler, simply because he did what the people wanted in his first outing. Nigerians will not forget in a hurry how he almost succumbed to the temptation of Third Term; a move that would have terribly dented his hardearned reputation. But like all great leaders, he sensed the danger signals of subverting the will of the people and humbly let Nigerians have their way. Today, not only is Nigeria standing when he talks, but African countries as a whole. In Africa, the picture of Hosni Mubarak, the former President of Egypt, once deified in the political and military history of Egypt, but today treated with little respect and wheeled to court in the most cruel of manner, to face charges of wickedness and corruption, holds sad memories. Often paraded in cage before a court of law, his, is enough lesson to anyone who wants to have his way, like it or not. These are a few frightening examples nobody, not even an enemy, can wish for a president, who once had ‘no shoes’, but today, has more than enough to serve him for a life time, just because he suddenly sees himself as above the same people who gave him their votes in trust a few years ago. No! I reject it for you; even if you are already thinking of taking a walk on this dangerous path. I know you have many Bishops and pastors as friends; and have even visited many
of them recently. I can guess correctly, too, that they have prayed and probably are still praying for you; and told you nice things any leader would love to hear, but, I want to appeal to your conscience. Nobody wears your conscience; not the pastors or your hordes of aides at Aso Rock or even all those who beat war drums ‘for your sake’ in your home town. History, when it will be written, will surely not lump you together with them since they were not directly in charge of Nigeria, but, you, alone. Therefore, my prayer is that you end well; not as meat to the dogs of war as was the case of Samuel Doe, former President of Liberia, former dictator and Libya’s leader, Colonel Ghadaffi or Sadam Hussein; all of who had opportunities to act right and live, but yielded to the lure of office to their peril. Today, the entire world has moved on with their aides, some of whom refused to let them see danger signals, finding new vocations in other governments. I wonder if it has ever crossed your mind why Nigerians would still want a “performing” President out sharp sharp as shown in the six online polls conducted by Nigerians, two of which were done by your aide and the African Independent Television (AIT) whose owner is probably a card-carrying member of your party. Have you ever thought why Nigerians are still angry at your government though you say you created over one million jobs? Couldn’t they have shown understanding and trust you to create more jobs when reelected? ý It is probably your lack of understanding of the situation of things that has driven Nigerians to want to support an erstwhile dictator rather than, forgive me sir, have a failed leader as they often refer to you behind closed doors. Really, who dares call you that to your face? For every
attack would go a long way to show whether he truly believes in giving Nigeria a free, fair and credible elections. You might want to ask what has Jonathan got to do with it after all it is the business of the security agencies . A lot. If the president is determined to provide a level playing field for everybody, then he should go ahead today and give a firm instruction to the Inspector General of Police to fish out those behind the Okrika attack and their sponsors and punish them accordingly. That is what a commander -in -chief should do. The danger here if the perpetrators were not fished out and punished is that others might be encouraged to try out a similar thing as we move towards the general election. And if such became the order of the day then this democracy would be in serious trouble.
Fayose’s death wish for Buhari Part of the problem with President Jonathan is his penchant for surrounding himself with bad people (as stated above) like Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State. Repeatedly the governor has been speaking on the health of the All Progressives Congress Presidential candidate General Muhammadu Buhari , saying the former Head of State is not healthy enough to assume Nigeria’s presidency and would probably die in office if elected. Jonathan has not distanced himself from Fayose over this nor has he called him to order, suggesting that he tacitly support the erratic governor. When key supporters of Jonathan talks like this and the president keeps quiet, it says a lot about him and this is disturbing even to some of his genuine supporters. Comments like this from people like Fayose would further alienate Jonathan from right thinking Nigerians. If the president had called the governor to order even in private, he would not go about repeating this death wish for Buhari. Death is a necessary end for everybody and it will come when it will. But to wish Buhari to die now as Fayose is doing is to wish Nigeria bad. God forbid, if anything happens to the APC candidate now, Nigeria could be plunged into a crisis the outcome of which nobody can predict.
five Nigerians, four agree that you fanned corruption with everything within you. They point to the pardon you granted to Chief Dieprieye Alamieseigha, your former boss to the point of handing him ticket to run for Senate in your state. Others point to the Pensions scam, the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) scandal, the money-in-a-South Africanbound flight and the several reports of probes gathering dust as the days go by in your cupboard. Truth is, Nigerians crave a leader they can trust; one with a strong character that transcends ethnic and religious chauvinism. Never forget that your arithmetic of 16 being greater than 19 during the election of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum; suspension of Emir Lamido Sanusi and your elevation of people either indicted or going through trial for corruption are some of your major albatrosses. Hope is not lost though things look hopeless. The opportunity to change things for the better and make history are still available. That opportunity will come on March 28. How the election is organized; who is used and how your men and the military comport themselves during and after the election, will go a long way in changing the perception of Nigerians about you. If, as most Nigerians fear, you deploy the military to advantage during the election, you can be sure where you will stand in history. But more than anything else, the reactions that will trail the election will point to how well you have prepared to let the people see you.
‘Have you ever thought why Nigerians are still angry at your government though you say you created over one million jobs? Couldn’t they have shown understanding and trust you to create more jobs when re-elected?’
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
19
21
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
call someone the Chairman of an independent electoral body and ’ You you will now sack him for being too independent minded? These for
me are speculations by recurrent monumental political nitwits. They are speculations by political jobbers, who are stared in the face by their dwindling political fortune and now resort to heating up the polity
’
- See page 42
E-mail:- law@thenationonlineng.net
•Combat ready soldiers. Inset: A model armoured personnel carrier (APC)
Senior advocates, others to Jonathan: obey courts on soldiers’ deployment The Court of Appeal has held that it is illegal for the president to deploy soldiers for elections. The All Progressives Congress (APC) has written President Goodluck Jonathan, asking him to comply with the order. But will he? Lawyers advise the president not to do anything that will portray his administration as lawless. JOSEPH JIBUEZE sought their views.
I
INSIDE:
F Nigeria was a country where the rule of law guides government’s actions, there would be no debate as to whether a judgment would be obeyed. In other countries, compliance with court verdicts is a given because it has become a way of life. One issue that is generating heated debate now is whether soldiers should be deployed for the general elections. The courts have held that it would be illegal to do so. Ordinarily, the matter should end there. Yet, there are doubts that the Federal Government will obey the judgment during the March 28 and April 11 elections. Concerned that court judgments are usually treated with levity, the All Progressives Congress (APC) wrote President Goodluck Jonathan, insisting that the military should be excluded from direct election duties. The party’s letter came after Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) chairman Prof Attahiru Jega spoke about the elections vis-a-vis security at the National Assembly last week. Jega said: “I keep saying consistently that INEC is not a security organisation. We are an election management body, so we rely a lot on security to be able to ensure that things are done well and that there is no disruption of the electoral process. “We have been working very closely with the inter-agencies consultative committee on election security and that is why for us, if the Service Chiefs say that ‘we can’t guarantee
security, give us more time’, what is the alternative security arrangements?” In its February 16 letter, APC drew Jonathan’s and the INEC’s attention to the January 29 judgment of Justice R.M. Aikawa of the Federal High Court, Sokoto and the February 16 decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which outlawed the President’s unilateral deployment of soldiers for the June 21, 2014 Ekiti State governorship election. It urged them to obey both decisions. In the letter signed by the Director, Legal, APC Presidential Campaign Council, Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume (SAN), the party argued that by virtue of both decisions, it had become illegal for the President and INEC to involve members of the armed forces in electoral matters without the National Assembly’s permission.
What the courts said Justice Aikawa restrained the President and INEC “from engaging the service of the Nigerian Armed Forces in the security supervision of elections in any manner whatsoever in any part of Nigeria, without an Act of the National Assembly.” Justice Abdul Aboki , in his lead judgment in the Ekiti State Governorship Election appeal delivered on February 16, held that “even the President of Nigeria has no powers to call on the Nigerian Armed Forces and to unleash them on peaceful citizens, who are exercising their franchise to elect their leaders.
‘INEC should have no excuse for not holding elections’
‘Don’t allow subversion of peoples’ will’
- Page 42
- Page 43
“Whoever unleashed soldiers on Ekiti State disturbed the peace of the election on June 21, 2014; acted in flagrant breach of the Constitution and flouted the provisions of the Electoral Act, which required an enabling environment by civil authorities in the conduct of elections.” Section 215 of the 1999 Constitution makes the maintenance of internal security, including law and order during elections, the exclusive responsibility of the police. According to Lagos lawyer Mr Femi Falana (SAN), it is erroneous for Prof Jega to say that only the military could guarantee security during the elections. To him, once INEC has discharged its constitutional duty of fixing election dates, the onus is on the police to provide security and maintain law and order. Falana recalled that the courts have consistently enjoined the Federal Government to desist from involving the armed forces in elections. He cited the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal in Yussuf v Obasanjo (2005) 18 NWLR (PT 956) 96, which the court held: “It is up to the police to protect our nascent democracy and not the military, otherwise the democracy might be wittingly or unwittingly militarized. This is not what the citizenry bargained for in wrestling power from the military in 1999. Conscious step or steps should be taken to civilianize the polity to ensure the survival and sustenance of democracy.” •Continued on page 26
Why vote for Akinwunmi Ambode? - Page 44
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
22
LAW COVER CONT’D •Continued from page 25
The court, Falana said, reiterated its views in the case of Buhari v Obasanjo (2005) 1 WRN 1 at 200 when it stated: “In spite of the non-tolerant nature and behavior of our political class in this country, we should by all means try to keep armed personnel of whatever status or nature from being part and parcel of our election process. The civilian authorities should be left to conduct and carry out fully the electoral processes at all levels. “ Upholding the judgment, the Supreme Court stated in Buhari v Obasanjo (2005) 50 WRN 1 at 313 that the state is obligated to ensure that “citizens who are sovereign can exercise their franchise freely, unmolested and undisturbed.” Falana said going by the verdicts, Prof Jega should ensure that INEC is not further blackmail by the military hierarchy. “On their own part, the National Security Adviser (NSA) and the Service Chiefs should desist from usurping the constitutional responsibility of the INEC and the Nigeria Police Force,” Falana added.
PDP’s position The Director of Media and Publicity of the PDP Presidential Campaign Organisation, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, insisted that soldiers must be deployed in order to avert killings during the elections. He said: “The PDP Presidential Campaign Organisation hereby declares unequivocally that the sordid killing of youth corpers or anyone else must not be repeated in the forthcoming general elections.It is for this reason that the Federal Government must deploy soldiers to ensure peace, stability and security during and after the elections. “The attempt by the APC to discredit the use of soldiers by promoting some misleading audio footage of the so-called rigging during the Ekiti governorship election, in which one Capt. Sagir Koli was the dramatis personae, is childish and absurd. “The Federal Government deployed soldiers in the Anambra, Edo, Ondo, Ekiti and Osun governorship elections and all those elections were devoid of violence. Remarkably, the APC won in Edo and Osun; APGA won in Anambra, Labour Party won in Ondo while the PDP won only in Ekiti State.” He alleged that the basis on which the APC was agitating for the exclusion of soldiers from the election by sponsoring court cases was patently dubious and untenable. Fani-Kayode said: “The reason that the APC and its leaders do not want soldiers deployed is to be able to intimidate voters and unleash violence on the polity once they lose the elections. They know that it would be far more difficult for them to do that when soldiers are on the streets.” Asked if the President would disobey the judgment, Fani-Kayode said: “The President is a law-abiding citizen. I know this government will not work against the judgement. We are a law-abiding government, moreover, I will suggest that we allow the Attorney General of the Federation to speak on the matter.”
Will the Federal Government obey? The Federal Government and the ruling party have, in several instances, been accused of lawlessness. To some observers, the Jonathan administration has demonstrated that it has little regard for the rule of law, the Constitution and even the courts; therefore, it will come as no surprise if the judgments are defied. For instance, after the Court of Appeal ordered the re-instatement of PDP National Secretary Olagunsoye Oyinlola, rather than obeying the order, the party suspended him. Many saw this as a deliberate ploy to circumvent the judgment. The presidency was also accused of being in tacit support of the assault of judges in Ekiti State which prevented the hearing of the eligibility case against Governor Ayo Fayose prior to his swearing in. The presidency and the party, observers say, did not condemn what many believe is a blatant act of lawlessness when seven Ekiti lawmakers in the 26-member assembly, joined by three persons whose identities were allegedly unknown, “impeached” the Speaker. Last year, House of Representatives Speaker Aminu Tambuwal asked a Federal High Court in Abuja to summon the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Suleiman Abba, to explain why he should not be jailed for disobeying the court’s order. Tambuwal accused Abba of consistently disobeying the court order made on November 7, 2014, which directed parties to maintain status quo in his suit filed to stop his removal. The Speaker said Abba, in further disrespect of the order, appeared before the House of Representatives Committee on Police Affairs on
•Ngige
•Oguntade
•Okutepa
‘Don’t defy courts on soldiers’ deployment’ November 26 and told the members that he would not recognise Tambuwal as the Speaker.
Is the military non-partisan? The military is supposed to be constitutionally apolitical, but recent developments tend to suggest otherwise. Those who oppose deployment of soldiers during elections cite the allegations that army officials were used to rig the last Ekiti governorship election, won by the PDP. It was alleged that PDP chiefs gave directives to the military to favour the party. A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Emeka Ngige, said soldiers are now being deployed to assist the ruling party and its affiliate parties during elections. He recalled that during the 2010 governorship election in Anambra State, soldiers allegedly worked for the interest of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) candidate who is now in PDP. According to him, an army chief from the hometown of the APGA candidate was the commander in charge of security for the Anaocha local government area. With his presence, the agents of the opposition party were arrested, severely beaten and kept in police custody till after the election. The SAN alleged that APGA had a field day during the election, and when a complaint was lodged with the army authorities at Onitsha, nothing was done. The same scenario, Ngige said, repeated itself in 2011 elections in Anambra State. Regarding the audio tape of the alleged conspiracy to rig the 2014 Ekiti governorship election, Ngige said it was instructive that the military authorities have not issued any official statement on the scandal. “That tells you how the professionalism in the armed forces has deteriorated in the last 16 years by the meddlesomeness of the civilians in government,” Ngige said. Some have also questioned the army’s sincerity regarding the APC Presidential candidate General Muhammadu Buhari’s certificate issue. Initially, the Army claimed that it does not keep originals of certificates of service men in their files but photocopies, and that Gen. Buhari was free to apply to get copies of his certificates in his file. But the army later claimed that neither the original nor photocopies of Buhari’s certificates were in the file. According to Ngige, the belief is that the army apparently took the latter stance to portray the General as having been enlisted in the Army without a qualifying certificate. “A truly professional and non-partisan Army would not indulge in that type of double
speaks,” he said. Many called for the service chiefs’ heads after Prof Jega attributed the general elections postponement to their inability to guarantee security. To many observers, the service chiefs were merely doing the presidency and the ruling party’s bidding, despite their denials. “Clearly this attitude portray the service chiefs as working for the interest of the political party that had clamoured and wanted a postponement to enhance its chances in the election,” Ngige said.
Other lawyers speak Mr George Oguntade (SAN) said the fact that deployment of soldiers for elections duties has become a debatable point was very worrisome. “I do not know of any democratic country that is not at war where elections been accompanied by the deployment of soldiers and cannot comprehend why Nigeria has to be any different. The roles of the Nigerian Police Force and the Nigerian Army are specifically spelt out in the Constitution and it is manifestly clear that it is the Nigerian Police Force that is charged with the responsibility of providing the required security and ensuring the maintenance of peace and order during elections. “There cannot, therefore, be any justification for the usurpation of this role by the Army. Military deployment will only serve to create unnecessary tension and an atmosphere of fear that may prevent a substantial number of the electorate from coming out to vote,” Oguntade said. For Mr Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), soldiers have no business superintending or supervising elections. His words: “Deploying soldiers for elections is as dubious as it is unconstitutional. The constitutional duty of soldiers is to protect and safeguard the territorial landmarks of Nigeria from external aggression. Election is not war. Election is civil responsibility of the citizens. Mere presence of soldiers has the potential of scaring some voters. It is only in Nigeria that we use soldiers for all manner of duties. Let us keep soldiers out of our elections and confine them to their traditional role.” A constitutional lawyer Mr Ike Ofuokwu believes deploying soldiers is an indication that the Federal Government has totally lost faith in the police. “To go looking for the soldiers is a tacit vote of no confidence on the Police Force. Then why still maintain a Police Force that cannot provide adequate security during General Elections? “To drag the military into intimidating opponents and voters on election day under whatever guise is to further devalue whatever value
soldiers for elections is as dubious ‘Deploying as it is unconstitutional. The constitutional duty of soldiers is to protect and safeguard the territorial landmarks of Nigeria from external aggression. Election is not war. Election is civil responsibility of the citizens
‘
is left of the armed forces. We are still confronted with manpower challenges in fighting insurgency in the Northeast, so if no sinister motive, why bring in the military into electoral matters?” Ofuokwu asked. To him, elections can never be free and fair where voters feel intimidated by the presence of soldiers. “Please who actually is afraid of free and fair elections? Nigerians need to know. The political class needs to be warned of the urgent need to keep the military away from government to enable them focus on their core objectives. “The interpretation of section 217(2)(C) of the 1999 Constitution can comfortably be on either side of the divide depending solely on the viewpoint of the speaker. But as it is now, the Federal Government cannot afford to defy the Court of Appeal judgment barring the use of soldiers in the conduct of elections. There is no need for academic argument; it is a judicial pronouncement except the Supreme Court rules otherwise. INEC itself cannot afford to be contemptuous of this ruling.” Is there any circumstance that may warrant the military being deployed during an election? Ofuokwu answers: “The military can provide peripheral security services within any part of the country or the states but without coming close to the polling arena. To do otherwise is a violation of Section 217(2(c) of the Constitution and Section 1 of the Armed Forces Act as pronounced by the court of appeal.” However, Dr Joseph Nwobike (SAN) believes the issue of whether or not to deploy soldiers for elections is more political than legal. He noted that there are very compelling reasons to deploy soldiers in some troubled areas. “With respect to those areas, I believe that the President, as the chief security officer of the federation, should deploy soldiers to maintain peace and order immediately before, during and after the elections. “On the other hand, there are areas where the security situation is not volatile. There will be no reason to deploy soldiers in those areas. There are also borderline areas where the possibility of electoral violence of high proportion is likely. “In such areas, it is expected that the President will look at the security reports and do the needful. In all, the President is entitled under the constitution to enforce law and order during the general election,” Nwobike said. The SAN said President Jonathan should use his discretion, notwithstanding the recent judgments, as he would be blamed should there be a major security breakdown during the polls. “Some opponents of the deployment of soldiers during the general elections have been relying on the decisions of the Federal High Court in Sokoto and that of the Court of Appeal, Abuja. “While I do not contest the validity of those decisions, I take the view that they do not prevent or take away the powers vested in the President to deploy soldiers whenever the need arises. “It is very unfortunate that politicians have now successfully politicised the simple issue of national security. The same politicians are the ones that will quickly condemn the President if security breaks down anywhere in the country during the election. “So, I believe that the President should exercise his discretion in the national interest, at all times,” Dr Nwobike added.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
23
24
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
IN THE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL OSUN STATE HOLDEN AT OSOGBO ON FRIDAY THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS: HON. JUSTICE ELIZABETH NGUVEREN KPOJIME HON. JUSTICE VINCENT IGOMETI OFESI HON. JUSTICE ABUBAKAR IDRIS KUTIGI -
CHAIRMAN MEMBER MEMBER PETITION. NO.EPT/GOV/OS/01/2014
BETWEEN: 1. SENATOR IYIOLA OMISORE 2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) VS. 1. OGBENI RAUF ADESOJI AREGBESOLA 2. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) 3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
} }
-----------------------------
PETITIONERS
-----------------------------
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT The Governorship election took place in all the 30 Local Government Areas in Osun State on 9th August, 2014. The 1st Petitioner and the 1st Respondent were amongst the 20 candidates who contested at the said election. While the 1st Petitioner was sponsored by the 2nd Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent sponsored the 1st Respondent in the said election which was conducted by the 3rd Respondent. On 10th August, 2014, the 3rd Respondent announced the 1st Respondent as the winner of the said election having polled a total of 394,684 votes as against the 1st Petitioner’s 292,747 votes. Aggrieved by this return, the Petitioners on 28/8/14 filed this petition in the registry of this Tribunal challenging this result in 17 out of the 30 Local Government Areas in the State. The results are being challenged in the following Local Government Areas – 1. Aiyedade Local Government Area 2. Atakumosa East Local Government Area 3. Boripe Local Government Area 4. Ede North Local Government Area 5. Ede South Local Government Area 6. Ejigbo Local Government Area 7. Ifelodun Local Government Area 8. Ilesha East Local Government Area 9. Ilesha West Local Government Area 10. Irepodun Local Government Area 11. Irewole Local Government Area 12. Iwo Local Government Area 13. Obokun Local Government Area 14. Ola-Oluwa Local Government Area 15. Olorunda Local Government Area 16. Oriade Local Government Area 17. Osogbo Local Government Area The grounds for this petition as stated in paragraph 20 of the petition are – “i. The 1st Respondent was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and did not score ¼ (One-quarter) of the lawful votes cast in at least 20 of the 30 Local Government Areas of Osun State and therefore did not meet the requirements of the law to be returned as the winner of the election; ii. The Election of the 1st Respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt practices and electoral malpractices perpetrated by the members and agents of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the places challenged in this petition. iii. The Election of the 1st Respondent is invalid by reason of substantial non-compliance with the provisions of Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the Manual for Election Officials 2014, the Guidelines issued for the conduct of the election and the law in the conduct of the election”. The Petitioners are therefore seeking from this Tribunal the prayers contained in paragraph 59 of their petition. These are – i. Whereof the Petitioners pray that it be determined and declared that the 1st Respondent, Ogbeni Rauf Adesoji Aregbesola was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the Osun State Governorship election held on the 9th of August, 2014 and therefore his election is null and void. ii. That it be declared that SENATOR IYIOLA OMISORE was duly elected and ought to have been returned as duly elected Governor of Osun State having scored the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election held on the 9th August, 2014 and satisfied the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Electoral Act, 2010 (As Amended) to be so declared. iii. In addition, that SENATOR IYIOLA OMISORE be declared as the winner of the Osun State Governorship election held on the 9th of August, 2014, based on the results obtained at the physical recount and re-examination by and before the Tribunal or otherwise of the votes from the affected or aforementioned Local Governments, Wards, Units and/or Centres. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE; iv. That the Osun State Governorship election held on 9th August, 2014 having been vitiated by substantial non-compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements which has substantially affected the validity of the election in the Units and Wards of the Local Government Areas being challenged be declared nullified or cancelled and the 3rd Respondent be ordered and or directed to conduct fresh elections for office of the Governor of Osun State in the affected areas. v. And cost of the Petition. In response to the petition, all the three sets of Respondents joined issues with the Petitioners by filing their respective replies incorporating objections to the competence of the petition. The 1st Respondent filed his reply on 25th September, 2014. The 2nd Respondents’ reply was filed on 20th September, 2014 while that of the 3rd Respondent was filed on 19th September, 2014. In further response to the replies files by the respective Respondents, the Petitioners filed replies pursuant to the provision of paragraph 16(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act (as amended). The Petitioners’ reply to the 1st Respondent’s reply was filed on 14th October, 2014; reply to the 2nd Respondent’s reply was filed on 14th October, 2014; whilst the reply to the 3rd Respondent’s reply was also filed on 14th October, 2010. It is also important to add here that the 1st and 3rd Respondents in addition to the aforementioned replies all filed interlocutory applications challenging the competence and indeed jurisdiction of the
tribunal to entertain the extant petition. For purposes of clarity, the applications are identified clearly as follows: 1. The motion filed by 1st Respondent dated 16th October, 2014 challenges the locus standi of the Petitioners to present this petition. 2. The motion dated 21st October, 2014 also filed by the 1st Respondent seeks an order of court striking out the petitioners’ reply to 1st Respondent’s reply, having been filed out of time, thus invariably affecting the petitioners’ application for the pre-trial session. The motion urges the dismissal of the petition in its entirety as having been abandoned. 3. The motion filed by 3rd Respondent on 29th October, 2014 raises a similar issue covered by (2) above concerning the petitioners’ reply to the 3rd Respondent’s reply. 4. The second motion on behalf of the 3rd Respondent seeks for an order of court striking out certain paragraphs of the petition. Pre-hearing sessions were then held in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 18 of the 1st Schedule at which all the parties, as represented by their respective learned counsel fully participated. Indeed at the commencement of the pre-hearing session, the tribunal was called upon to determine whether these objections should be heard and determined first or be taken along with the substantive petition. The tribunal in a considered ruling dated 4th November, 2014 ordered that the four (4) motions pending shall in the overall interest of justice be taken along with the petition having carefully considered the peculiar circumstances of the extant petition including the constraint of time. At the end of the session, this tribunal on 6th November, 2014 issued a pre-hearing report which encompassed all matters agreed to by all parties with respect to the trial of the petition. From the issues filed by all the counsel as those that have arisen for determination in this petition, we discerned 3 issues as those arising for determination in this petition. These are – “1. Whether or not this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. 2. Whether the Governorship election conducted in Osun State on the 9th day of August 2014 was vitiated by reasons of corrupt practices, irregularities and substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the INEC Manuals as well as the Guidelines for the conduct of election. 3. Whether the 1st Respondent was validly returned as the candidate, who polled the majority of the lawful votes cast at the Governorship election conducted by the 3rd Respondent in Osun State on the 9th day of August, 2014.” All the counsel adopted these issues in their respective final addresses as those calling for determination in this petition. On 23/1/2015 when the case came up, learned counsel on either side adopted their respective written final addresses. They further made oral summations of their respective contentions and urged upon this Tribunal, in turn, either to dismiss or uphold the petition. In proceeding to determine these broad issues, we have had a good privilege of detailed and impressive written and oral final submissions of the respective learned senior counsel on all contending sides, and we shall endeavour to refer to their submissions as we consider needful in the course of this judgment. We shall hereunder deal with these issues. ISSUE 1 Whether or not this tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It is important to at the onset reiterate that the above omnibus or umbrella issue is a product of the various motions and objections challenging the competence of the petition which the tribunal deferred to consider together with the substantive petition. The objections bother variously on the locus standi of the petitioners, complaints on the validity of certain paragraphs of the petition and the alleged failure to file petitioners’ replies within time which invariably affected the pre-trial session and which allegedly undermined the competence of the petition itself. We therefore consider it imperative to start with a consideration of these various outstanding motions/ objections. As stated earlier, the 1st Respondent by his motion dated 16th October, 2014 challenged the locus standi of the petitioners to present this petition. The 1st Respondent similarly raised this point of objection in his reply. The grounds of the application as contained on the motion paper are as follows: i. The Petitioners have no locus standi to present this Petition not having shown in the Petition that they have the right to present the petition. ii. Flowing from paragraph (i) above, the Petitioners also have no locus standi to present this petition. iii. The Petitioners did not meet all the conditions precedent to the presentation of the petition. iv. In the foregoing premises, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the same should be dismissed or struck out. In their address on the point, it was submitted that for a suit to be capable of being entertained by a court, the court must possess requisite jurisdiction and that in determining the question of jurisdiction, the court usually considers the well known conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962)2 SCNLR 341 and that one of such elements is the fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of that jurisdiction and that the matter must have been initiated by the due process of law. It was contented that the petitioners have here failed to fulfill the condition precedent to the exercise
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 of the jurisdiction by this tribunal in that they neglected and/or failed to state in their petition that they have a right to present the said petition as clearly provided for by paragraph 4(1) (b) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 and that the failure to state the right to present the petition makes the petition liable to be struck out. The case of Ezeke V. Dede (1999)5 N.W.L.R (pt.601)80 at 91 of E-F was referred to. It was also submitted that the failure to state this right to present the petition bothers on the locus standi of the petitioners to present the petition which is a jurisdictional issue touching on the competence of the tribunal or court to adjudicate on the issue. The cases of Egolum V. Obasanjo (1999)7 N.W.L.R (pt.611)355 at 390; Ehinlanwo V. Mimiko (2013)LPELR-20321 and Effiong V. Ikpeme (1999)6 N.W.L.R (pt.606)260 at 271 were cited. It was again submitted that the consequence of noncompliance with the provision of paragraph 4(1) supra is that the petition is liable to be struck out under paragraph 4(9) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended. It was further submitted that though the word “may” appears in paragraph 4(9) suggestive that the tribunal has a discretion to determine whether to strike out the petition or not for failure to comply with paragraph 4(1), it was contented that where the petition can no longer be amended to include what is missing, it would accord with justice to strike out the petition. It was also the contention of 1st Respondent that the intention of the legislature here is to construe the word “may” in its mandatory effect and that where the word is used in relation to object of exercise of a power which is to effectuate a legal right, the word ought to be construed as compulsory or imposing an obligatory duty. The cases of Mokelu V. Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing (1976)LPELR-1904 (SC) and Adegbenro V. Akintilo(2009)LPELR-4423(CA) were cited. It was finally contented that the failure to comply with the provision of paragraph 4(1)(b) is fatal and that where a statute has prescribed the mode of doing a particular thing, that mode must be adopted and not varied. The case of Ojukwu V. Yaradua (2009)5 EPR 792 at 795 was cited. The court was urged to strike out the petition. In their written submissions in response dated 22nd October, 2014 and filed same date, the petitioners contend that the objection lacks merit and that they have disclosed their locus standi to present and maintain the petition having duly satisfied the provision of paragraph 4(1)(b) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act (as amended). It was submitted that in this case, the petition which is the document that guides the tribunal in determining jurisdiction is clear as to who the petitioners are and that this satisfied the provision of Section 137 of the Act. It was submitted that paragraph 2 of the petition states clearly that the 1st Petitioner was a candidate and sponsored by the 2nd Petitioner in the gubernatorial election held on 9th August, 2014. Further that by paragraphs 11 and 12 of the petition, the 1st Petitioner stated that he has the right to be returned at the said election having polled the highest number of lawful votes and ought to be returned as opposed to the 1st Respondent who was wrongly returned. It was then submitted that these paragraphs adequately satisfied the provision of paragraph 4(1)(b) (supra). It was further submitted that the use of the word “may” in paragraph 4(9) on the effect of failure to comply with paragraph 4(1) (b) empowers or gives a discretion to the tribunal to exercise in the matter. That in law, the word “may” is generally construed as permissive and not mandatory and does not foist on a party a legal duty which must be performed or which if not performed at the pain of punishment. The cases Ohanaka V. Achugwo (1998)9 N.W.L.R (pt.564)37 and Oko V. Igweshi (1997)4 N.W.L.R (pt.497)46 were cited. It was then contented that even if assuming but without conceding that paragraph 4(1)(b) was not complied with, that by virtue of paragraph 4(9), such noncompliance can be treated as an irregularity which does not affect the competence of the petition. It was finally submitted that the petitioners have the requisite locus standi to maintain the petition and that the objection be accordingly dismissed. In a reply on points of law dated 24th October, 2014, the 1st Respondent contends that the Petitioners did not clearly comprehend the provisions of the Act and that in the extant case, the petitioners did not comply with the mandatory requirement of specifying the right of a petitioner to present the petition. It was further submitted that the reference by petitioners to paragraphs 2 and 11 of the petition only shows that there was compliance with paragraph 4(1) (d) of the First Schedule to the Act but not paragraph 4(1) (b) which requires a petitioner to specify the right he has to present a petition. Now it is trite principle of general application that the question of locus standi of a plaintiff or petitioner as the case may be is a crucial matter touching on the competence and the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the suit or petition. The Court can only exercise jurisdiction over a suit when the Plaintiff has standing to sue. Where a Plaintiff lacks locus standi, the Court will equally lack the jurisdiction to entertain the matter notwithstanding that the claim is within the jurisdiction of the Court. In the case of Green V. Green (1987)3 N.W.L.R (pt.61)480 at 500, the Supreme Court (per Oputa, JSC of blessed memory) put the law succinctly in the following terms: “If a Plaintiff is incompetent to bring the action, the Court as well will not be competent to hear an incompetent Plaintiff for then the action would not have been brought upon fulfillment of a condition precedent to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction.” The term locus standi denotes legal capacity to institute proceedings in a court of law for redress or assertion of a right enforceable at law. See Attorney General, Kaduna State V. Hassan (1985)2 N.W.L.R (pt.8)453 at 496. It is often used interchangeably with terms like “standing” or “title to sue.” The fundamental aspect of locus standi is that it focuses on the party seeking legal redress in a Court, and not on the issues he presents to the Court for adjudication. See Adesanya V. President of Nigeria (1981)5 SC 112; (1981)2 N.C.L.R 358. In determining whether a Plaintiff has locus standi, it is the cause of action that has to be examined. See Buraimoh Oloriode & Ors V. Oyebi & Ors (1984)5 SC 1 at 28. A cause of action is the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. It is in effect the fact or combination of facts giving rise to the right to sue, and consists of two elements, viz: (i) the wrongful act of the Defendant which gives the Plaintiff his cause of complaint, and (ii) the consequent damage. See Ibrahim V. Osim (1988)3 N.W.L.R (pt.82)257; Thomas V. Olufosoye (1986) N.W.L.R (pt.18)669. When a court is considering an objection to the locus standi of a Plaintiff to maintain an action, the following have been distilled from a long line of cases as guiding principles: (a) the Plaintiff must show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed; (b) the fact that a person may not succeed in an action does not have anything to do with whether or not a person has standing to sue; (c) whether a person’s civil rights and obligations have been affected depends on the particular facts of the case; and (d) the Courts should not give an unduly restrictive interpretation to the expression locus standi. See Fawehinmi V. Akilu&Anor (1987)4 N.W.LR (pt.69)797; Nnadi V. Okoro (1998)1 N.W.L.R (pt.535)573 at 600; Attorney General, Kaduna State V. Hassan (1985)2 N.W.L.R (pt.8)483. Now in resolving this critical issue of locus standi and bearing in mind the peculiarity of election matters, it is the petition itself and the applicable legislation or Electoral Act which governs the entire election that we must resort to in order to ascertain whether the petitioners have disclosed sufficient interest to invest them with locus standi. Now as pointed out by learned counsel to the petitioners, Section 137(1) of the Electoral Act stipulates clearly who can present an election petition as follows: (a) A candidate in the election (b) A political party which participated in the election. To this end, the Petitioners averred in their petition as follows: 1. This is the petition of Senator Iyiola Omisore and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) whose names are herein subscribed and hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners. 2. The 1st Petitioner, Senator Iyiola Omisore, voted at the election for the office of Governor of Osun State in the Governorship Election held on 9th August, 2014 and was a candidate for the office of Governor in the said election on the platform of the 2nd Petitioner and
25 3.
states that he has the right to be returned as elected. The 2nd Petitioner is one of the registered political parties in Nigeria that fielded candidates to contest in the election for office of Governor of Osun State held on 9th August, 2014.
Paragraph 4(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 then proceeds to stipulate as follows: “An election petition under this Act shall: (a) Specify the parties interested in the election petition. (b) Specify the right of the Petitioner to present the election petition (c) State the holding of the election, the scores of the candidates and the person returned as the winner of the election; and (d) State clearly the facts of the election petition and the ground or grounds on which the petition is based and the relief sought by the Petitioner.” It is also apt to state here the basic principle of interpretation that the provisions of a statute are to be construed as a whole and not in bits and pieces in order to achieve the desired goal of the legislation. For us, it appears clear that to consummate a person’s right to present a petition, it is a legal imperative that he should cumulatively comply with not only the provision of Section 137 but also paragraph 4(1) (supra). In Effiong V. Ikpeme (supra) the Court of Appeal considering a similar provision held as follows: “There is no doubt or dispute that Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 5 as stated above is very fundamental. It prescribes what a petition shall contain to constitute a valid petition. It enjoins the Petitioner to specify those interested in the petition; to show the right of the Petitioner to present the petition; to state the holding of the election; the scores of the candidates: the person returned as winner of the election, and to state clearly the ground or grounds on which the petition is based. These are clear statutory requirements which the Petitioners must comply with. They are conditions precedent to proper and valid presentation of a petition. None compliance with the statutory provisions renders the petition a nullity. See Ben Obi Nwabueze &Ors Okoye (1988)4 N.W.L.R (pt.91)664 of 668-669; Ezeobi V. Nzeka (1989)1 N.W.L.R (pt.98)478 at 487.” In the extant objection, the narrow question is whether there has been requisite compliance with paragraph 4(1) (b) which provides that the petitioner should “specify the right of the Petitioner to present the election petition.”A logical question that arises is what does the above provision in paragraph 4(1) (b) connote or mean? The above provision as can be deciphered from the various pronouncements of their respected Lordships of the Supreme Court in Egolum V. Obasanjo (supra) where a similar provision was considered and pronounced upon would mean no more than a party or petitioner stating clearly and definitely the capacity in which he relies on to bring the petition. To paraphrase some of the noble law lords, to “specify” means to explain clearly, to mention specifically, to state in full and explicit terms, to particularize and explain in detail. The whole essence of this provision in our opinion is simply to put the adversary on notice on all material facts which denotes the capacity in which the party relies on to present his petition. The key question for us is whether by this petition, the petitioners have crossed the threshold required by paragraph 4(1) (b)?. In this respect, we have carefully read the entirety of the contents of the petition, and while it cannot escape the accusation of perhaps inelegance, we cannot justify the submission that the petitioners have not supplied with sufficient clarity and particularity the right to present the extant petition. In the extant petition, both 1st and 2nd Petitioners have stated clearly the capacities on which the extant petition is predicated. The 1st petitioner was a candidate for the Governorship Election held in Osun on 9th August, 2014 on the platform of 2nd Petitioner. See Paragraphs 1-4 of the Petition. On the facts as disclosed in the petition, it is apparent that the petitioners actually contested the election. For a person to actually contest the election, the presumption is that he met the necessary required criteria and was duly cleared by INEC to contest. It is not in dispute that after the elections conducted by INEC in which the petitioners fully participated, results were duly declared pronouncing 1st Respondent as the duly elected Governor of Osun State. The Petitioners then went ahead to make various allegations with respect to the conduct of the elections and the award of votes upon which they predicated the final reliefs sought in the petition. We are of the view here that there is sufficient supply of the necessary facts of the right of the Petitioners to present the extant petition. We have carefully read the Supreme Court case of Egolum V. Obasanjo (supra) relied on by Respondents. While we find the decision valuable in the construction of the import of Paragraph 4(1) (b), we are however of the view that it is not helpful or apposite to the case of the Respondents and is distinguishable. In that case, the petitioner was not even a candidate in the presidential election. He however filed the petition claiming to have a right to contest under the then applicable provision of Section 50(1) of Decree No.6 of 1990. It may perhaps be necessary to state that this provision has since been repealed and does not appear in the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended). Having not been a candidate and having not shown that he participated in the presidential elections under any platform, he however sought extensive reliefs including the cancellation of the elections as void and that it be determined that the winner of the said presidential elections was not duly elected or returned and that he petitioner was duly elected and ought to have been returned. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, it was incumbent on the Petitioner/Appellant to state in full and explicit terms his right to present the election petition by complying not only with Section 50(1) but also Paragraph 5(1) (b) of the Schedule to the Decree as it would be unsatisfactory to locate the locus standi of a petitioner to question an election petition by merely inserting in the petition that “a person has a right to contest at the election “without supplying the necessary facts on which the locus standi can be located. We have similarly read the case of Effiong V. Ikpeme (supra) which is similarly valuable but clearly not availing in the extant case. That case never dealt specifically with the application of Paragraph 4(1) (b) or a similar provision. The complaint was specifically targeted at non-compliance with paragraph 5(1) (a) and (c) which is in pari-materia with Paragraph 4(1)(a) and (c) and the application of Section 50(2) of the Schedule to the Decree on the principle of waiver and acquiescence. Indeed Obadina J.C.A stated as follows in capturing the pith of the issue: “A cursory look at the petition presented by the 1st Respondent before the tribunal at pages 25 of the record of proceedings clearly shows that the petition does not specify the parties interested in the election petition and does not state the holding of the election, the scores of the candidate and the person returned as the winner of the election. In other words, the petition has failed woefully to comply with the mandatory provisions of paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to Decree No.36 of 1998. It is therefore void.” This case is therefore unavailing. In the final analysis, we are of the view that the petition in this case is sufficient enough and comprehensive and has not run foul of the provision of Paragraph 4(1)b of the Schedule. The whole essence of pleadings is simply to ascertain with certainty the various matters in dispute between parties. It defines the issues in controversy and indeed narrows the scope of controversy between parties thereby preventing a surprise been sprung on either party. See Odogwu V. Odogwu (1990)4 N.W.L.R (pt.143)224 at 234; Egolom V. Obasanjo (supra).The extant petition has sufficiently crossed this threshold. Having held that the locus of the Petitioners have been precisely and sufficiently disclosed, we do not consider it necessary in the circumstances to consider the application of paragraph 4(9) of the Schedule and the construction to be placed on the word “may” used in the said provision. It has become academic in the circumstances. We consider it necessary to now take the application by 3rd Respondent seeking to strike out certain paragraphs of the petition before considering the applications relating to the propriety of the replies allegedly filed by the petitioners out of time and the application for pre-hearing session.
26 In the extant application under consideration, the 3rd Respondent sought for the following reliefs together with the grounds as follows: 1. An order pursuant to Sections 6(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria granting leave to the 3rd Respondent to file and/or move this application before the pre-hearing session. 2. An order pursuant to Sections 6(6) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Order 13 Rules 4(4) & (5) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 and Paragraph 4(1)(d) & (9) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), striking out paragraphs 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Petition for being imprecise and vague as the Polling Units affected by the alleged anomalies were not specifically mentioned or identified. 3. An order pursuant to Sections 6(6)(b) and 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) striking out paragraphs 30, 34, 35 and 37 for making criminal allegations against persons who are not parties to the petition. 4. An order pursuant to Sections 6(6)(b) and 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) striking out paragraphs 8, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 on the ground that the facts pleaded therein are pre-election matters. 5. And for such order or other orders as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The grounds of the objections are as follows: (i) Paragraphs 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Petition are imprecise and vague as the Polling Units, Wards and Local Government affected by the alleged anomalies were not specifically mentioned or identified. (ii) Paragraphs 30, 34, 35 and 37 of the Petition make criminal allegations against persons who are not parties to the petition. (iii) Paragraphs 8, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 pleaded facts which are relating to and/or connected with pre-election matters.” The application was supported by a 13 paragraphs affidavit and a written address in which three issues were raised for determination as follows: 1. Whether paragraphs 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the petition are not vague, imprecise, not clearly stated, lacking in accessory particulars, and therefore liable to be strike out. 2. Whether paragraphs 30, 34, 35 and 37 of the petition, which contain allegation of criminality against named and unnamed persons who are not parties to this petition, are not liable to be struck out. 3. Whether paragraphs 8, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the Petition which involve matters which occurred before the conduct of the election are not pre-election matters not cognizable in an Election Petition and therefore liable to be struck out. On issue 1, learned senior counsel for the 3rd Respondent contends that the above paragraphs 26, 27, 34-38 are vague, imprecise and that the necessary particulars that would enable the adversary know the case he would meet were not supplied or stated. That in the extant situation, the petitioners have alleged irregularities in some polling units, wards and local governments without specifying or mentioning the affected units, wards and local governments. It was contented that this failure to clearly particularize violated the provisions of Order 13 Rule 4(4) of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules and Paragraph 4(1)d of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act (as amended) which makes the said offending paragraphs liable to be struck out. The cases of Ojong V. Duke (2003)14 N.W.L.R (pt.841)581 and Offornah V. Ajaegbo (2000)1 N.W.L.R (pt.641)498 were referred to. On issue II, it was the contention of learned senior counsel that the paragraphs subject of complaint made copious allegations of criminality against named and unnamed persons without joining them to the petition to enable them defend themselves and be heard on the allegations made out against them. This failure to join these persons it was contented violated the provision of Section 36(1) of the Constitution and consequently makes the offending paragraphs incompetent and also liable to be struck out. The case of Egolum V. Obasanjo (1999)7 N.W.L.R (pt.611)335 was cited. On Issue III, it was the contention of learned senior counsel for the 3rd Respondent that the paragraphs in issue touch on the state of the register of voters and also actions taken thereon, before the conduct of the election which are all pre-election matters as they preceded the holding of the general election and are not cognizable in an election petition. The provisions of Sections 9, 10, 15,19 and 21 of the Electoral Act 2010 were referred to. It was contended that these issues raised by these paragraphs are clearly pre-election matters which can only be heard by a regular court while post-election matters are to be heard by election tribunals. The cases of Amaechi V. INEC (2007)18 N.W.L.R (pt.1065)170 at 190 and Ibrahim V. INEC (1999)8 N.W.L.R (pt.614)344 were cited. The court was urged to strike out these offending paragraphs. In response, the petitioners filed an 11 paragraphs counter-affidavit together with a written address in which the three issues raised by the 3rd Respondent were adopted as the issues to be considered. On issue 1, it was the contention of learned senior counsel for the Petitioners that the paragraphs complained of are neither vague nor imprecise and that the extant complaint is borne out of lack of proper appreciation of the case made out by the petitioners. It was submitted that the wards and units in the 17 local governments areas under challenge as stated in paragraphs 26, 27, 34-38 of the petition are fully tied to all the other paragraphs of the petition where the necessary particulars of the units and wards of all the local governments under challenge were fully and clearly stated and to which all the respondents have filed their replies and joined issues. The court was urged to resolve issue 1 against 3rd Respondent. On issue II, it was contended that the contention of the 3rd respondent is misconceived in that it is no longer the law that where allegations of criminality are made against named and unnamed persons who are not named in the petition, that the petition be struck out. The current position, it is submitted, is that it is not necessary to join Electoral officers as parties to an election petition where the Electoral Commission is itself a party. The cases of INEC V. A.C (2009) AII F.W.L.R (pt.480)793; Oke V. INEC &Ors (2008)LPELR-8619 were cited. It was further submitted that reading through the paragraphs complained of, there are variously directed against 1st and 2nd Respondents on one hand, and against 3rd Respondent or their agents on the other hand and who need not be joined or be specifically mentioned. The cases of Dina V. Daniel &Ors (2009)LPELR-4040 and INEC &Ors V. Ejezie & Ors (CA/E/EPT/43/2008)at 86 were cited. On issue 3, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the issues in the paragraphs complained of which occurred before the conduct of the election are not pre-election matters as the averments raised dealt with the effect of the voters register and or the effects of the acts of the 3rd Respondent on the election conducted on 9th August, 2014 and which the tribunal could properly entertain. Now without making light the objections of learned senior counsel to the 3rd Respondent on this point and the authorities cited, we hold the view that at this stage of the proceedings, particularly in view of the contested assertions at plenary hearing, what is of utmost importance to this tribunal and which is the fundamental issue which critically remains to be resolved is whether or not from the evidence already led on record, the petitioners have succeeded in proving the allegations of electoral malpractices contained in their petition against the Respondents or established a nexus between the named and unnamed alleged perpetrators of the criminal activities and the 1st Respondent who was returned as the winner of the election, as the law requires them to do in order to succeed. In the context of the streamlined issues on the pleadings and the contested assertions at trial, the issue with respect to the extant objection appear now largely academic with only peripheral significance
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 if any at all. In Overseas Construction Ltd V. Creek Enterprises (Nig) Ltd & Anor (1985)3 N.W.L.R (pt13)407 at 418, the Supreme Court instructively stated as follows: “By and large, every disputed question of fact is an issue. But in every case there is always the crucial and central issue which if decided in favour of the plaintiff will in itself give him the right to the relief he claims subject of course to some considerations arising from other subsidiary issues. If however the main issue is decided in favour of the defendant, then the plaintiff’s case collapses and the defendant wins…” In our view the question of the propriety or otherwise of certain few paragraphs of the petition is clearly not decisive in the context of the far reaching complaints made in the other paragraphs of the petition. The foregoing notwithstanding, we intend to however out of abundance of caution now proceed to briefly give our views. With respect to the point of objection that certain paragraphs of the petition are vague, we are of the considered opinion that the said paragraphs read along with the other paragraphs of the petition sufficiently meet the required degree of pleading to give the Respondents sufficient notice of what is being pleaded. Where therefore certain paragraphs of a pleading as in this case define certain issues or facts in general terms and thereafter other paragraphs take those allegations one after the other to proffer explanation with particularity and sufficient clarity, all the facts contained in the entirety of the pleadings or petition must be taken together as providing the necessary particulars on which the petition is predicated. How the petition is formulated may be a question of style or choice but we cannot see how it is objectionable so long as the issues in controversy have been properly defined or streamlined and nobody is taken by surprise. In this case, all the Respondents in their respective pleadings have variously joined issues on the allegations covered by these disputed paragraphs and contested same at plenary hearing to detract from the validity of the allegation made that the paragraphs are vague and imprecise. We therefore cannot locate how Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act was breached. Issue 1 is thus resolved against 3rd Respondent. Issue II relates to whether paragraphs 30, 34, 35 and 37 which is said to contain allegations of criminality against named and unnamed persons who are not parties to the petition and thus liable to be struck out. Now these paragraphs of the petition complained of in material content alleged varying criminal electoral offences ranging from massive manipulation of the voters registration inclusive of alleged multiple registration of supporters of 1st and 2nd Respondents, voting by unregistered and unqualified persons and diversion of ballot papers by a named agent of 3rd Respondent and unnamed members and agents of 1st and 2nd Respondents. Upon a proper examination of the said paragraphs, we find that these paragraphs cannot be treated in isolation or independent of other paragraphs which they are tied to; we also note that in some of these paragraphs, allegations of crime were lumped with those that allege civil malpractices with respect to the election being challenged. Therefore, to accede to the objection of the 3rd Respondent may engender the risk of striking out some paragraphs of the petition which can only truly have any meaning when read together with other paragraphs and also striking out some paragraphs in which allegations other than those bordering on crime alone were made. We do not also consider it apposite at this stage of the proceedings to venture into mutilating the pleadings in order to sever those aspects that deal with criminal allegations from those that allege electoral civil wrongs. This is more so that evidence is already on record and we are nonetheless mindful of the position of law with respect to the standard of proof required in civil cases generally and where also allegations of crime are in issue in civil cases. See Sections 134 and 135 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended). At this stage of the proceedings and as stated earlier, this is not such a critical issue in the context of the real issue which remains to be resolved or determined. See Oke V. INEC &Ors (supra). We have however carefully read the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act in relation to the issue of joining named and unnamed persons as parties to an action and in our opinion, certain fundamental questions arise, to wit- whether in an election petition, a Petitioner can successfully prove allegations of electoral malpractices that bother on criminality as provided in Chapter VII (Sections 117-132) of the Electoral Act against persons not joined as parties to the petition; when the Act itself, vide Section 137 (2) and (3), and paragraph 49 of the First Schedule, has prescribed and limited those who can be sued as Respondents to an election petition? The question goes further, on the other hand, whether, where the Petitioner proceeded to join the said named persons, such persons would have been proper parties to the petition, within the contemplation of the provision of Section 137 (3) (a) and (b) of the Electoral Act? This tribunal is of the opinion that the intendment of the provision of Section 149 of the Electoral Act would have been rendered dormant, ineffective and unachievable if the Petitioner is precluded from laying before the tribunal, allegations bordering on criminality involving persons who were not joined as parties to the petition, just on the ground that they will not be afforded the opportunity to defend such allegations. Section 149 of the Act provides thus: “The commission shall consider any recommendation made to it by a tribunal with respect to the prosecution by it of any person for an offence disclosed in any election petition.” It therefore remains to be seen, under what circumstances a tribunal can come to a conclusion that an offence has been disclosed in any election petition against any person and thus appropriately recommend such a person to the Commission for prosecution, when such paragraphs in the petition where such crimes were disclosed are invariably not allowed to stand. In the present circumstances, and notwithstanding the foregoing comments, the course this tribunal shall take, in order not to sacrifice substantial justice on the altar of technicalities, is to proceed in the course of this judgment, to properly examine and analyze the evidence of the Petitioners’ witnesses to see if they have been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt, the allegations of crime made against the named and unnamed persons in the petition. We shall therefore refrain from striking out those paragraphs of the petition as urged on us by the 3rdRespondent’s learned senior counsel. With respect to issue 3 and the point of objection that paragraphs 8, 26, 28, 29, 30-33 relate to preelection matters, we have also here carefully read these paragraphs and we note upon a proper examination that some of the paragraphs have no nexus with pre-election matters, while in some, we find allegations relating to pre-election matters lumped with post-election matters. Crucially we also find that on the record, evidence have been led on some of these contested assertions. As stated earlier with respect to some of the other objections, it would not be tidy and perhaps even cause some prejudice to seek to strike out these paragraphs or to attempt to mutilate or sever those aspects of some of the paragraphs that deal with pre-election matters and those that deal with post election matters. Here too, we are of the view that the fair approach is to proceed to critically examine and analyze the evidence on record and to then determine whether the petitioners have crossed or met the threshold of the allegations made. We therefore also refrain from striking out these paragraphs. The application by 3rd Respondent accordingly fails. We now come to the last set of Applications by 1st and 3rd Respondents which in substance contains the same prayers. To avoid unnecessary duplication, we shall in this judgment harmonize the essence of the two applications and the arguments proffered by both set of Respondents and the response by Petitioners. Now the reliefs sought by 1st Respondent on the application dated 21st October, 2014 and the grounds are as follows: 1. An order of this Honourable Tribunal striking out the Petitioners’ Reply to the 1st Respondent’s Reply the former having been filed out of the time prescribed by the Rules of this Honourable Tribunal; 2. An order of this Honourable Tribunal deeming the Petition as abandoned for the Petitioners’ failure to apply for the issuance of Notice of Pre-hearing session after the close of pleadings;
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 3.
An order of this Honourable Tribunal dismissing the Petition for failure of the Petitioners to apply for issuance of notice of pre-hearing session before the expiration of the time prescribed by the rules of this Honourable Tribunal. And for such further or other order(s) as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
The grounds upon which the application is sought are as follows: 1. The Petitioners have five days from the date of service of the 1st Respondent’s Reply within which to file their own Reply. 2. The Petitioners filed their Reply to the 1st Respondent’s Reply to the Petition out of time and thereby making the said Reply of the Petitioners incompetent. 3. Pleadings having been effectively closed with the filing and service of the 1st Respondent’s Reply which was served on the Petitioners on the same day the Replies of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were served on the Petitioners, the Petitioners have 7 days thereafter to apply for issuance of pre-hearing notices by this Honourable Tribunal. 4. The Petitioners did not make the required application within the time stipulated by the Rules of the Honourable Tribunal the consequence of which entitles the Respondents or any of them to apply for the dismissal of the Petition. 5. The Petitioners’ failure to apply for issuance of Pre-hearing Session is deemed as abandonment of the Petition. 6. The Petitioners’ failure stated in paragraphs 2-5 in these grounds robs this tribunal of further exercise of jurisdiction to continue the hearing of this petition.” The application is supported by a 14 paragraphs affidavit and a written address in which 3 issues were raised as arising for determination. The Petitioners in opposition filed a 10 paragraphs counteraffidavit with 3 annexures marked as Exhibits A, B, C together with a written address in compliance with the rules wherein 2 issues were raised as arising for determination. On the part of the 3rd Respondent, their application seeking the same reliefs as above is supported by an affidavit of 19 paragraphs. A written address was filed in support in compliance with the applicable rules in which 2 issues were raised as arising for determination. The Petitioners here also filed a 10 paragraphs counter affidavit with 3 annexures marked as Exhibits A, B, C. A written address was also filed in support. In the written addresses of both set of Respondents, two critical issues in substance were addressed as follows: 1. Whether the Petitioners Reply dated 13th October, 2014 but filed on 14th October, 2014 is competent before the Honourable Tribunal. 2. Whether the Petitioners have not abandoned their petition having failed to apply for the issuance of notice of prehearing in form TF007 within the time stipulated by the law making the petition liable to being dismissed by the tribunal. Now the substance of the submissions by both learned senior counsel for 1st and 3rd Respondents can be summarized succinctly as follows: On issue 1, it was contended that the petitioners’ replies to the 1st and 3rd Respondents’ respective replies were filed out of time and are therefore incompetent. That by paragraph 16(1) and (2) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, the Petitioners in this petition have 5 days within which to file any reply to the replies of the Respondents. That in this case, the replies of Respondents was served on the Petitioners on 9th October, 2014 but that the Petitioners purportedly filed a reply to each of the replies by Respondents dated 13th October, 2014 on 14th October, 2014 outside the 5 days provided for clearly by the rules. The Respondents submitted that by the rules of computation of time in election matters, the 9th October, 2014 when the Respondents replies were served on the Petitioners is to be included in the computation of time within which the Petitioners are expected to file their replies to the Respondents’ replies. The cases of Alataha V. Asin (1999)5 N.W.L.R (pt.601)32; Ogbebor V. Danjuma (2003)15 N.W.L.R (pt.843)403; Ikharaile V. Okoh (2009)12 N.W.L.R (pt.1154)1; Ajayi V. Owolabi (2009)LPELR-3672 and Nwoye V. Ikechukwu (2011)LPELR 9195, were cited. It was further submitted that in law where a statute or legislation provides for a particular method of performing a duty regulated by the statute, that method and no other method must have to be adopted. The case of Nwankwo V. Yaradua (2010)12 N.W.L.R (pt.1209)518 was cited. The Respondents further contended relying on paragraph 16(2) supra that the time for filing a reply cannot be extended thereby making the Petitioners’ replies to the Respondents’ replies not only incompetent but outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and not cognizable in an election petition and accordingly liable to be struck out or discountenanced. On issue (2), it was submitted by Respondents that by virtue of Paragraph 18(1) of the 1st schedule of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the Petitioners were duty bound to apply for the issuance of pre-hearing notices by the tribunal within 7 days after the filing and service of the Respondents’ replies on them or 7 days after the filing and service of the Petitioners’ reply. It was contended flowing from issue (1) that the Petitioners’ replies filed on 14th October, 2014 are incompetent having been filed out of time. That the legal effect here is that the pleadings in this petition are deemed closed on the date of service of the Respondents replies on the Petitioners which is 9th October, 2014 and that the obligation to apply for issuance of Pre-hearing Notice in Form TF007 crystallized on that day. This duty imposed on the Petitioners, it was further submitted, is mandatory by virtue of paragraph 18(4) of the First Schedule in that where there is a failure to apply for the issuance of pre-hearing notices, the petition is liable to be dismissed as abandoned and no application for extension of time shall be entertained. The cases of Enwezor V. INEC (2009)8 N.W.L.R (pt.1143)223 at 236; Okereke V. Yaradua (2008)12 N.W.L.R (pt.1100)95 were cited. That by the record of court, the 7 days the Petitioners had to apply for issuance of Form TF007 started on 10th October, 2014 after service of their respective replies on the Petitioners and that time to do so ended on 16th October, 2014. Consequently, the 7 days limit to apply for the issuance of Form TF007 had lapsed and that same cannot be extended. The petition it was contended is thus deemed as abandoned and liable to be dismissed. In response, the Petitioners submitted that the contention that they filed their replies outside the 5 days as stipulated in the First Schedule of the Electoral Act is misconceived. That it is trite law that where the Electoral Act fails to address issues before the tribunal, that recourse can be had by the tribunal to the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules and the Interpretation Act. The cases of Adefemi V. Abegunde (2004) 15 N.W.L.R (pt.895)1 and Etsakor V. Christopher (2014)14 N.W.L.R (pt.1426)73 were cited. That in this case, there is a vacuum in the interpretation of five(5) days and therefore recourse should be had to Section 15(4) and (5) of the Interpretation Act which is a tool of legal interpretation that aids interpretation where there is a vacuum or lacuna in any legislation. That by these provisions Sunday and a public holiday will be left out in the computation of a period that does not exceed 6 days. It was further submitted that in this case, the Petitioners were served with the Respondents’ replies on 9th October, 2014 and that they had 5 days to file their replies and that by virtue of Section 15 of the Interpretation Act, Sunday shall be left out in computing the 5 days within which they were to file their reply which clearly meant that the replies of the Petitioner were filed properly and within time on 14th October, 2014 after service on them of Respondents’ replies on 9th October, 2014 as provided by Paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule (supra). The decision of the Court Appeal in Ekuk V. Ikon&Ors (2011) LPELR-4045(CA) which is said to be on all fours with the extant case was referred to. On issue II, the Petitioners submitted that they duly and properly applied for issuance of Notice of pre-hearing. That the Respondents’ replies were served on them on 9th October, 2014. That their respective replies were filed on 14th October and served on Respondents on 15th October, 2014 which is the date pleadings are deemed to have closed and that they properly applied for issuance of Pre-hearing Notice on 20th October, 2014 and Forms TF007 and TF 008 were issued on 21st October, 2014 and served same date which it was submitted complies with paragraph 18(1) of the First
27 Schedule to the Electoral Act. In their replies on points of law, the Respondents submitted that there is absolutely no lacuna in the provisions of the Electoral Act which is absolute and comprehensive in itself and therefore neither the Federal High Court Rules nor the Interpretation Act has any application in election matters which are sui generis. The cases of Dr (Sir) Uche Ezeliora & Anor V. Tony One Week Muonagor & Ors (2011) LPELR-9208; A.C.N V. Murtala Nyako & Ors SC/409/2012 delivered on 5th November, 2012, Ikhariale V. Okoh (2009)12 N.W.L.R (pt.1154)1, Adaramola V. Aribisola (2009)LPELR-8515 were referred to. With respect to the apparent conflict between the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Etuk V. Ikon (supra) and Dr (Sir) Uche Ezeliora & Anor V. Tony One Week Muonagor & Ors (supra), the respondents contend that the decision of Ezeliora V. Muonagor was delivered on 1st November, 2011 while that of Etuk was on 13th October, 2011. The later decision of Ezeliora, it was submitted, ought to be applied in the circumstances. We have here carefully considered the arguments on both sides of the aisle. In our considered opinion, the two applications by 1st and 3rd Respondents can be determined upon the following issues: 1. Whether the Petitioners’ replies dated 13th October, 2014 but filed on 14th October, 2014 are competent before the Honourable Tribunal. 2. Whether the Petitioners have not abandoned their petition having failed to apply for the issuance of notice of prehearing in form TF007 within the time stipulated by the law making the petition liable to being dismissed by the tribunal. We shall take the two issues together. Issue 1 deals with the competence of the replies filed by the Petitioners to the replies of Respondents. In resolving this issue, it is critical to properly situate the facts relating to the filing of the court processes as this would then provide the basis for analyzing and applying the provisions of the law. On the materials before the tribunal, these are common grounds, to wit: 1. The Petitioners’ petition is dated 28th August, 2014 and filed same date in the registry of tribunal. 2. The replies of 1st and 3rd Respondents were filed on 25th September, 2014 and 19th September, 2014, respectively. 3. By proof or affidavit of service filed by the bailiff of tribunal dated 10th October, 2014, the reply of 1st Respondent was served on counsel for the Petitioners on 9th October, 2014. 4. Equally by proof or affidavit of service filed by the bailiff of the tribunal, the reply of 3rd Respondent was served on counsel for the Petitioners also on 9th October, 2014. 5. The Petitioners’ replies to both 1st and 3rd Respondents’ replies were filed on 14th October, 2014. 6. By Exhibit “A” attached to the counter-affidavit of Petitioners, the Petitioners applied for the issuance of pre-hearing notices on 20th October, 2014. Now in determining this issue, our first task is to set out the relevant provisions of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act (as amended). Paragraph 16(1) and (2) of the First Schedule provides thus: “(16)(1): If a person in his reply to the election petition raises new issues of facts in defence of this case which the petition has not dealt with, the Petitioner shall be entitled to file in the Registry, within five(5) days from the receipt of the Respondent’s reply, a Petitioner’s reply in answer to the new issues of fact, so however that: (a) The Petitioner shall not at this stage be entitled to bring in new facts, grounds or prayers tending to amend or add to the contents of the petition filed by him and (b) The Petitioner’s reply does not run counter to the provisions of subparagraph (1) of paragraph 14 of this Schedule. (2) The time limited by subparagraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be extended.” By the above clear provision, where a Petitioner elects to respond to new issues of fact raised in a Respondent’s reply, the Petitioner is expected to file this reply within five (5) days from the receipt of the respondent’s reply. The key question here is what does the sentence or phrase “…within five(5) days from receipt of Respondents reply…” really connote? We shall here prefer to take our bearing on the pronouncements of our superior courts on what the words “within and “from” really import in the context of interpreting provisions relating to computation of time with particular reference to election matters which are sui-generis or in a class of their own. In Ajayi V. Owolabi (2009)LPELR-3672 (CA) at Pages 31-32 paragraphs D-B, the Court of Appeal stated the law thus: “The operative words in Section 141 of the Electoral Act are no doubt “within” and “from”. “Within” is a preposition used as a function word to indicate an enclosure or circumstance in the limits of; not outside the limits of something; or not go beyond the limitation of time. See Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary 1991 Edition and Chambers 21st Century Dictionary Revised Edition. Black’s Law Dictionary with Pronunciation 6th Edition defines “within” when used relative to time as “before the expiration of”, “not beyond”, “not exceeding” and “not later than”. “From” on the other hand is a function word to indicate a starting point as: a starting point in measuring or reckoning or in a statement of limits. By their simple grammatical meanings therefore, these words connote and convey the meaning that the thirty days prescribed for the presentation of an Election Petition begins to count from the date of the declaration of the results. Thus, a prospective petitioner can only present his petition during the continuance of the thirty days commencing from the date the election results were declared.” In Ogbebor V. Danjuma (2003)15 N.W.L.R (pt.843)403 at 425; the Court of Appeal while construing the provision of Section 132 which contains the expression “shall be presented within (30) thirty days” stated instructively as follows: “When used relative to time, the word “within” has been defined variously as meaning any time, before; at or before; at the end of; before the expiration of; not beyond; not exceeding; and not later than. See Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. In other words, an election petition must be presented any time before the expiration of 30 days, or more concisely put, not later than 30 days from the date the result of the election is declared.” In Ikharaiale V. Okoh (2009)12 N.W.L.R (pt.1154)1 at 37 paragraphs C-E, the Court of Appeal stated what the import of the word “from” connotes while construing the provision of Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2006 as follows: “Based on the above and the essence of time in the disposal of electoral matters, I have come to the conclusion that the use of the word “from” in Section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006 means from the day and includes part thereof, the day the result of the election was declared. The 30 days of period stipulated in Section 141 of the Electoral Act started from 21st of April, 2007 on which the result was declared without prejudice to the time the result was actually declared in so far as it was declared within the 24 hours of the day in question. In the context of Section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006 the word “within” complements the purport of the word “from” in the said section of the Act. The word “within” means that an election petition arising from the election to the Esan Central Federal Constituency must be presented any time between the 21st day of April, 2007 and 20th day of May, 2007, 30 days from 21st April, 2007 on which the result was declared and inclusive of both dates.” The above decisions are instructive with respect to the import of the words “from” and “within” which also appear in paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act. By parity of reasoning, we are in no doubt that the use of the words “within 5 days from the service of the Respondents reply” must mean that the 9th October, 2014 when the Respondents’ replies were served on the Petitioners is clearly meant to be included in the computation of the 5 days period within which the Petitioners are expected to file their replies to the Respondents’ replies. In Ikoro V. Izunaso (2008)LPELR-43-2(CA) at Pages 25-26, the Court of Appeal interpreted a
28 similar provision as paragraph 16(1) above and held thus: “What is to be noted here is that everywhere a Respondent’s reply was filed within the time provided in paragraphs 10(2) and 12(1), until it was served on and received by the Petitioners, the 5 days would not start to run for the filing of the Petitioners’ Reply. Time can and would only start to run from the date of receipt of the Respondents’ Reply by the Petitioner as clearly stated in the paragraph. From the above provisions of all the paragraphs, which appear to be mandatory by the constant, consistent and persistent use of the word “shall” in all of them; pleadings would come to an end and deem closed after 5 days of the receipt of the Respondents’ reply by the Petitioner whether or not the Petitioner’s reply was filed. Being Mandatory, the paragraphs do not contemplate any non-compliance or breach of their provisions and unless otherwise ordered by the lower Tribunal the consequences of such non-compliance or breach thereof may be serious and fatal to the case of the party in breach.” Now by simple calculation of time by days, the five (5) days “within” which the Petitioners had from receipt of Respondents’ replies to file their replies commenced on 9th October, 2014 and ended on 13th October, 2014. Now this 13th October, 2014 clearly fell on a Monday and this leads to the interesting issue raised by Petitioners which is whether in calculating the 5 days within which the replies ought to be filed, Sunday which in the extant case fell within this 5 days period ought to be inclusive or excluded in the computation of days. The petitioners contend that the 13th October, 2014 being a Sunday ought to be excluded because there is a vacuum in the provisions of the Electoral Act (2010) as amended with respect to computation of time within which Petitioners have to file their replies to the Respondents’ replies thus necessitating the need to import or apply the provisions of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2009 and the Interpretation Act, Cap 123 LFN 2004. For the Respondents, the recourse to these external aids are inapplicable to the clear provisions on computation of time for filing of the replies in the extant case. In resolving this issue, we must state that there are indeed a few decisions of the Court of Appeal where recourse was had to these so called external aids with respect to computation of time. It is however equally important to state that even in those few decisions, the court still made it clear and this appears to us consistent with the tenor of all other decisions by the same court and the Apex court that recourse to these external aids cannot be availing where there is indeed a clear contrary intention in the enactment been construed. See Ajayi V. Owolabi (supra). We shall now refer to some of the decisions of the Court of Appeal on this issue. In Ikharaiale V. Okoh (2009)12 N.W.L.R (pt.1145)1 at 34, the Court of Appeal in considering the application of any extraneous aid to the interpretation of time threshold limitation provisions instructively stated as follows: “The provision of the Interpretation Act does not necessarily apply in all cases of construction of Acts of the National Assembly or other enactments. Its application is subject to two limitations one in-built in the Act itself and the other based on case law. The self-restraint in the application of the Act, including Section 15(2) (a) is contained in Section 1 thereof which states that the Act is not applicable…in so far as the contrary intention appears in this Act or the enactment in question.” In Ajayi V. Owolabi (supra) the Court of Appeal referred to the dictum of Nweze J.C.A in Adaramola V. Aribisala (2009)LPELR-8515 (CA) on the application of these external aids which we find instructive as follows: “My noble Lord, Nweze, JCA, in his very comprehensive exposition of the law in the very recent decision of this Court in Adaramola V. Aribisala (supra), succinctly adduced at least five reasons why Section 141 is self-sufficient in determining the question of computation of time. They are: 1. By paragraph 50 of the Election Act, the invocation of the Federal High Court rules is made subject to the express provisions of the Act itself. Thus it is the provision of the Act on limitation that will be taken into account. 2. The provision of Section 141 of the Electoral Act is clear and unambiguous, therefore exterminating the need of any external or interpretative aids. See AG Ondo State V. AG Ekiti State (2001)10 SCNJ 117. 3. Whereas the provision of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules is a general provision on time limitation, Section 141 is a specific provision on the time for presenting an election petition. Therefore, the latin maxim general ibus special iaderogant, (special provisions derogate from general provisions), applies to obviate the need for recourse to the said rules. See Kraus Thompson Organization V. NIPPS (2004)17 N.W.L.R (pt.901)44 at 65 and Schroder V. Major (1989)2 SCNJ 210. 4. The provisions of the rules are inconsistent with the requirement of the Electoral Act. For whereas the rule “excludes the day or the date of the happening of the event,” Section 141 stipulates that an election petition “shall be presented within thirty 30 days from the date the result of the election is declared.” In the face of this inconsistency, the applicable enactment should be the provisions of the Act. see Yusuf . Obasanjo (2003)50 W.R.N 1 at 20 per Tobi, JSC. 5. Order XII Rule 1 of the Federal High Court rules is a contingent prescription whose relevance in the computation of time for filing election petitions must be viewed from the prism of the dynamics that dictated the elevation of election petitions to sui-generis proceedings. In other words, as Acholonu, JCA (as he then was), noted in Balogun V. Odumosu (1999)2 NWLR (pt. 592)590 at 597, the provision was meant to do away with delay and waste of time and endeavours to restrict the time meant for the doing of a particular act within a time-frame.” Similarly in Dr (Sir) Uche Ezeliora & Anor V. Tony One Week Muanagor &Ors (2011)LPELR9208(CA), the Court of Appeal was unequivocal on the position that the Federal High Court Rules and indeed any other interpretative aid is inapplicable to the clear provision of paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule which is the extant provision being considered in this case. We shall return to this case later on. Also in David Umaru V. Aliyu (2009)LPELR-5052(CA) the full court of the Court of Appeal while construing the import of Section 141 of the Act held that the section is plain, precise and unambiguous, and must therefore be construed accordingly without the need to resort to the Interpretation Act or the Civil Procedure Rules in the interpretation of the section. However in the case of Edozie O. Aroh V. Odedo & Ors (2011)LPELR 9202 (CA), the Court of Appeal noted the decision particularly the dictum of Nweze J.C.A in Adaramola V. Aribisala (Supra) but relying on Adefemi V. Abegunde (supra) was clear in its position that the Interpretation Act was applicable to time computation for the filing of an election petition under the 2010 Electoral Act particularly when the last day of the period for filing of an election petition fell on a Sunday or public holiday, then the period will be taken as continuing till the next day following which is not a public holiday. The court held thus: “…I must therefore emphasize here that the provisions of the Interpretation Act applies to all statutes and enactments except a contrary intention is expressly shown in such enactments or in the Interpretation Act itself. There is no such exclusionary provision in the legislations under consideration in this case…” In this case, the Court of Appeal specifically excluded Sunday which happened to be the last day for the filing of a petition in that case in its computation of time and in arriving at its decision that the petition in that case was properly filed. Now in Adefemi V. Abegunde (2004)15 N.W.L.R (pt.895)1 relied on by the Court of Appeal in Aroh V. Odedo (supra), the issue arose as to the applicability of Section 15(4) and (5) of the Interpretation Act to the computation of time for filing briefs in an election matter. The court of Appeal per Onoghen J.C.A (as he then was) held that the Interpretation Act was applicable in the computation of time. His respected Lordship held at Page 21 as follows:
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 “I have gone through the Electoral Act 2002 and the First Schedule thereto and the Practice Direction No.2 of 2003 that was made there under and have seen no provision whatsoever which stipulates that in Interpreting the provisions of the said Act or rules made there under, the provisions of the Interpretation Act shall not apply. I am of the firm view that only a clear provisions to that effect will render the Interpretation Act, particularly Section 15(4) and (5) thereof in applicable.” Similarly in Etuk V. Ikon & Ors (2011)LPELR-4045 (CA) the Court of Appeal while construing the import of paragraph 16(1) relied on these external aids to interpretation in specifically excluding the date of service of a reply in its computation of time. The court held as follows: “The tribunal found that 1st Respondents reply was served on the Petitioner on 29th June, 2011. Computation will commence from 30th June, 2011 and expire on 4th July, 2011. The Petitioner filed a Reply to the 1st Respondents reply on 4th July, 2011. I hold that the Petitioners reply was filed within time.” As we have already alluded too, even where the Court of Appeal resorted to these external aids, the consensus of judicial opinion is that it must be in situations where a contrary intention cannot be deciphered from the enactment. We have here carefully read the provisions of the Electoral Act and we note that paragraph 54 of the First Schedule of the Act which provides for the application of the Rules of Court commences with the phrase “subject to the express provisions of the Act…”In law, whenever the expression “subject to” is used at the commencement of a statute, it is an expression of limitation. It implies that what the section or subsection is subject to shall govern, control and prevail over what follows in that section or subsection. See Odjegba & Ors V. Odjegba (2004)2 N.W.L.R (pt.858)566 at 582; Alh. Muhammed D. Yusuf V. Obasanjo (2003)4 N.W.L.R (pt.847)554. What this simply means is that the provision of Paragraph 54 which is the subject section here is subordinate to the section empowered by reference thereto and which is intended not to be diminished by the subject section. There is therefore clearly not much to urge with respect to applying the ordinary Rules of Court to clear any unambiguous provisions of the Electoral Act under consideration. The Supreme court in its ruling in Prince Abubakar Audu V. Captain Idris Wada &Ors SC 332/ 2012 delivered on 10th September, 2012 held as follows: “It is sufficient to re-iterate that election matters are sui-generis by nature and hence the reason for the special enactment of set of laws regulating its procedure thereto. To urge the court to apply the ordinary rules of court would therefore greatly undermine the special nature of the Electoral Act and the other rules enacted for the purpose thereof.” Now with respect to the Interpretation Act, we are also not in doubt that its application is clearly also circumscribed or limited. Section 1 of the Act provides that the Act shall apply to the provisions of any enactment except in so far as the contrary intention appears in this Act or the enactment in question. Where therefore the principal enactment is clear or where a clear contrary intention can be evinced, the Interpretation Act may have no application. We have carefully read Paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule and we are in no doubt that the use of the words “from” and “within” utilized by the framers of the said paragraph as we have shown earlier in this judgment is clear in its import with respect to when computation of 5 days commences as can clearly be seen by the preponderance of decisions of our superior courts which we have referred to on the issue. The narrow issue to address now is what happens when a Sunday or public holiday falls within the sphere or confines of the 5 days period?. In the circumstances our duty is to construe the provision in line with the settled duty or obligation of court in construing statutes. The law is settled that in the construction of Acts of parliament, the rule of construction is that they should be construed according to the intent of the parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves, alone, do in such cases declare the intention of the law giver. See Shell Petroleum Development Company (Nig) Ltd V. F.B.I.R (1996)8 N.W.L.R (pt.466)256 at 286. Indeed in AG Ondo State V. A.G. Ekiti State (2001)17 N.W.L.R (pt.743) 706, the Supreme Court stated as follows: “ It is certainly a cardinal principle of interpretation that where in their ordinary meaning, the provisions of an enactment are clear and unambiguous, effect must be given to them without resorting to any aid, internal or external. It is the duty of the court to interprete the words of the law makers as used.” Guided by the above, we have again carefully read paragraph 16(1) which clearly states that the Petitioner has within 5 days from the receipt of respondent’s reply to file his reply and also paragraph 16(2) which provides in mandatory terms that the time limited by sub-paragraph (1) of the paragraph shall not be extended and here we consider our primary duty is to give effect to the words as used. Paragraph 16(1) and (2) appear to us plain and clear and admits of no ambiguity and must therefore be given its ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. We had earlier dealt with the import of “within” and “from” used in paragraph 16(1) and we held that computation of time to file petitioners’ replies is inclusive of the day of service of Respondents’ replies which is 9th October, 2014. By simple calculation, the 5 days period within which to file the Petitioners’ reply from 9th October, 2014 if given its literal connotation will end on Monday, the 13th October, 2014. The intention of the legislature by the use of the word “shall” in the provision appears to us to emphasize the clarity or comprehensiveness of the paragraph with respect to the 5 days and no more. Paragraph 16(2) appear to further accentuate this position when it states in mandatory terms that the time limited “shall” not be extended. There is no clear contrary intention by the legislature as to exclude Sunday in the computation of days and we cannot lessen the threshold or be seen to import our own words to defeat the plain meaning of the enactment. This appears to us to be based on the peculiar characteristic nature and uniqueness of election petition which is sui-generis and in a class of its own and therefore not susceptible to application of the usual rules applicable to civil matters in court. In David Umaru V. Aliyu (supra) the Court of Appeal held instructively on the special and different nature of election petition as follows: “The jurisdiction of an election tribunal to deal with election petitions is of a very special nature different from that in ordinary civil cases. The procedure is largely governed by a law specifically made to regulate the proceedings. That is why the nature of election petition is unique or sui-generis and that is why any interpretation that is unique to itself is preferred distinct from the general principles of law relied upon by the learned senior counsel in the interpretation of Section 141 of the Electoral Act… It is because of its uniqueness or suigeneris nature that any slightest default in complying with a procedural step which otherwise could either be cured or waived in ordinary civil proceedings could result in fatal consequences to the petition. It is therefore not a function of the court to sympathize with a party in the interpretation of a statute merely because the language of the statute is harsh or will cause hardship… Once the meaning is clear, the courts are to give effect to it. The courts are not to defeat the plain meaning of an enactment by an introduction of their own words into the enactment.” In the light of the above authorities on the principles of interpretation of statutes, we hold the view that the words used in paragraph 16(1) and (2) are clear and unambiguous and as such must be given their literal and ordinary meaning, this being an election matter which is sui-generis without recourse to the Interpretation Act or the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules. We find support for this in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dr (Sir) Uche Ezeliora & Anor V. Tony One Week Muanagor (supra) where the Court of Appeal clearly dealt with the provision of paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act and the law Lords held as follows: “The Appellants have contended in their Brief of Argument to the effect that since the Electoral Act did not provide for how the computation of time for the filing of their Petitioners’ Reply to the Reply of the first set of Respondents should be done, recourse should be made to Order 48(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules. I do not think that anything could be farther from the truth than the contention of the Appellants. This is against the backdrop of the interpretation of the words “within” and “from” as used in Paragraph 16(1)
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 of the First Schedule by this Court on numerous occasions as can be seen from the cases hereinbefore cited. All the cases in my considered view eloquently go to show that when the words “within” and “from” are used in the provision of a statute in relation to an act that has been performed, the court in giving a literal and ordinary meaning to the provision must compute the time limited for the doing of the act inclusive of the date that the act was done. In other words, the words “within” and “from” by their respective ordinary meanings have unequivocally indicated the point in time computation of time should start and end. All that I am saying is that the use of the words “within” and “from” in the provision of Paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule have unequivocally fixed the computation of the five days the Appellants had to file their Petitioners’ Reply to the Reply of the first set of Respondents, to commence on the very date the Appellants were served with the Reply of the said 1st set of Respondents. Nothing in my considered view could be clearer. Therefore recourse to the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules as propounded by the Appellants for the purpose of computing the time within which they were to file their Petitioners’ Reply, does not arise and is definitely uncalled for in the face of the clear and unambiguous provision of Paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule. In other words the provision of Paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule not being in any manner unclear or ambiguous definitely required no resort to the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules as the Appellants have contended, or indeed any other interpretative aid.” Giving clarity or insight to how this computation of days should be done, the dicta of Lokulo-Sodipe J.C.A in the said decision is apposite as follows: “It is not in dispute that the Reply of the 1st set of Respondents to the petition was served on the Appellants on 25th August, 2011. It is also not in dispute that the Appellants’ Reply to the Reply of the 1st set of Respondents was filed on 30th July, 2011. Having regard to the settled interpretation to be accorded the words “within” and “from” as used in the Paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule that clothes the Appellant with the right to file the Petitioners’ Reply in question, they (i.e Appellants) had five days inclusive of the date of the service of the Reply of the 1st set of Respondents on them within which to file their Petitioners’ Reply. By simply arithmetic it is therefore obvious that the latest time they had to file their Petitioners’ Reply lapsed on 29th July, 2011 as found by the Tribunal. The Tribunal in my view was very correct when it did not apply the Order 48(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules in computing the time within which the Appellants should have filed their Petitioners’ Reply in the face of the service upon them of the Reply of the 1st set of Respondents on 25th July, 2011.” We also find added support in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.C.N V. REAR ADM.MURTALA NYAKO in Suit No. SC.409/2012 delivered on 5th November 2012 where the same arguments canvassed before us with respect to exclusion of a Sunday or public holiday in the computation of 5 days to file a brief of argument and the application of Section 15(4) and (5) of the Interpretation Act was addressed and settled. The Court stated thus: “…It is the contention of learned senior counsel for applicants that applicants who were served with appellants brief on 12th October,2012 filed their respondent brief on 17th October 2012 and that the filing was within the 5 days allowed to file the respondents brief by the provisions of paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction 2011 and Section 15(4) and (5) of the Interpretation Act which provide that where time to do anything is stated to be less than Six days, the public holidays which include Sunday shall not be included in the counting; that since the five days allowed respondent to file brief included a Sunday, the filing on 17th October 2012 was within time and urged the court to so hold….It should be stated from the onset that election matters are suis generis and as such the rules of interpretation as contained in the interpretation Act may not apply in election related matters. In the instant case paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction provides as follows: “The respondent shall file in the court his own brief of argument within 5 days of service of appellants brief” I hold the considered view that the above provision is mandatory particularly as the word “shall” is used therein. This is in line with the earlier decision of this court in Audu V. Wada, supra which held that time provided in the Practice Direction cannot be extended. To me the decision in that case covers the facts of this case irrespective of the fact that Audu’s case involved an originating process which is not the case here. What matters is the principle that the time so fixed in that practice Direction to do whatever act cannot be extended as this court has no discretion to exercise in the matter. In conclusion, I hold that the 4th and 5th respondents brief filed on 17th October 2012 was filed out of time and that by the provisions of paragraph 6 in the practice Direction 2011 this Court has no discretion to exercise in favour of applicants…” Guided by the above and the earlier authorities referred to, we hold that since it is common ground that the replies of the Respondents to the petition was served on 9th October, 2014, while the replies of Petitioners to the replies of Respondents were filed on 14th October, 2014, by simple arithmetic, the time Petitioners had to file their Petitioners’ replies clearly had lapsed by Monday 13th October, 2014. Before finally concluding on this issue, it is important to state that we have carefully read the decision in Etuk V. Ikon (supra) relied on by the Petitioners and the dicta of TUR J.C.A where his Lordship excluded the date of service when computing time within which a Petitioner was to file his reply within the contemplation of paragraph 16(1). This decision with profound respect appear to conflict with several decisions of the Court of Appeal we have referred to concerning the computation of time particularly where the words “within” and “from” are used in an enactment including the later case of Ezeliora V. Tony One Week (supra). The Apex Court in ANPP V. Goni (2012)7 N.W.L.R (pt.1298)147 at 190 while construing the provision of Section 285(6) of the Constitution which contains the limitation expression “from the date of filing of the petition” held that the mode of computation in such circumstances must include the date of the event. The court held thus: “The operative words are “from the date of filing of the petition.” By these words employed in Section 285(6) of the Constitution, an Election Petition Tribunal has 180 days to hear and deliver its judgment and the period of 180 days is calculated from the date the petition is filed in court.” See also Ugba V. Suswan (2013)4 N.W.L.R (pt.1345)427 at 457. In the circumstances and at the risk of sounding prolix, we hold that the Petitioners clearly had up to 13th October, 2014 to file their replies to Respondents’ replies in the face of the clear service upon them on 9th October, 2014. Having filed their replies on 14th October, 2014, the Petitioners clearly fell foul of paragraph 16(1) and (2). See Nwoye V. Ikechukwu (2011) LPELR-9195 (CA). The law is settled that where a statute lays down a procedure for doing anything, no other method is to be employed in doing the thing. In other words, where a statute or legislation provides for a particular method of performing a duty regulated by statute, that method and no other must have to be adopted. See Nwankwo V. Yaradua (2010)12 N.W.L.R (pt.1209)518. We consider it appropriate to refer here to the decision in Balogun V. Odumosu (1999)2 N.W.L.R (pt.592)590 where the Court of Appeal harped on the time imperative of election matters as follows: “The issue of time to complete filing of all processes relating to hearing and determination of an election petition was uppermost in the mind of the legislature. The enactment stretches itself further afield to do away with tardiness and waste of time and endeavours to constrict the time of doing a particular act within a time framework. In other words, it is the intention of the legislature that parties stick strictly to the time stated in the decree. The court will not aid anyone who decides to sleep only to wake up when it is too late.” We now take issue (2) relating to the question of whether the petitioners have not abandoned their petition having failed to apply for the issuance of notice of pre-hearing in Form TF007 within the time stipulated by law making the petition liable to being dismissed by the tribunal. We must also at the onset confess that we had considerable difficulties in arriving at what we consider to be the correct
29 st
import of the provisions of the 1 schedule with respect to the effect of failure to apply for the issuance of a pre-hearing notice in the light of the various decisions of our superior courts which we shall soon refer to cited by both contending parties to support their points on the issue. It is a matter the tribunal gave utmost consideration and circumspection. In resolving this issue, we take our bearing from Paragraph 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) which provides for when a party is to apply for pre-hearing session/ notice as follows: “Within 7 days after the filing and service of the Petitioner’s Reply on the Respondent or 7 days after the filing and service of the Respondent’s reply, as the case may be, the Petitioner shall apply for the issuance of pre-hearing notice as in Form TF007". The word “or” appears in the above provision. In law, where the word “or” appears, it is a disjunctive participle used to express an alternative or to give a choice among two or more things. See Abia State University V. Anyaibe (1996)3 N.W.L.R (pt.439)646 at 661; S.B.N Ltd V. Starite Ind. Overseas Corp (2001)1 N.W.L.R (pt.693)194 at 211. The implication of the above is simply that a petitioner is duty bound to apply for the issuance of prehearing notice within 7 days after the filing and service of the Petitioners’ reply on the respondents OR 7 days after the filing and service of the respondents’ reply as the case may be. From the above and at the risk of prolixity but for purposes of clarity, the Petitioners clearly have two disjunctive availing options as to when to apply for the issuance of a pre-hearing notice as the case may be; to wit: 1. Within 7 days after the filing and service of the Petitioners’ reply on the Respondents OR, 2. 7 days after the filing and service of the Respondents’ reply. It appears to us that the former or first option would apply where a proper and or competent Petitioners’ reply is filed and served as contemplated by the Act. This must be so in our considered opinion because there is no binding obligation on the Petitioner(s) to file a reply. Where one is properly filed, pleadings would then be deemed to have closed and then within 7 days after the filing and service of the Petitioners reply, the application for the issuance of the notice must be made. The second option is where there is no Petitioners’ reply, then pleadings would be deemed to have closed after the Respondents have filed and served the Respondents’ reply on the Petitioner. In this case having found that the Petitioners did not file their reply to the Respondents’ replies within 5 days from the date of service, the implication is that there is no proper or competent reply with the logical consequence that the first option under paragraph 18(1) is not available to the Petitioners. The legal effect of the above is that the second option covered by paragraph 18(1) is the availing and applicable option in the circumstances. Pleadings in this case will therefore be deemed to have effectively closed on the date of service of the Respondents’ replies on the Petitioners which is 9th October, 2014. Now with respect to when computation of time is to begin, the dynamics changes because here the operative words in paragraph 18(1) are “7 days after the filing and service.” The words “within and “from” are absent here. The consensus of judicial opinion appear to be that where the word “after” is used by drafters in computation of time, the day of the happening of the event is excluded in computing time which in the extant case is “7 days after the service of the Respondents Reply.” In Chief Joshua C. Dariye V. P.D.P (2011)LPELR-9334 (CA) the Court of Appeal while construing the provision of Section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution in which a Petitioner is required to present his petition “within 21 days after the date of the declaration of the elections “stated as follows: “Further reference is made to the plain and grammatical meaning of the word “After” in the Oxford English Dictionary which describes the meaning of the word as “in the time following an event or another period of time.” The plain and natural meaning of the word “After” in Section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) admits of no ambiguity. It simply means that the 21 days within which an election petition shall be filed shall begin to run after the date of the declaration of the results of the election. It is obviously the manifest intention of the legislature to exclude the date of the declaration of the result in computing the 21 days within which a person may present a petition by the use of the word “AFTER…” In line with the above, pleadings is deemed to have closed on 9th October, 2014 when the Respondents served their replies on petitioners. The 7 days Petitioners have to apply for issuance of Form TF007 commenced on 10th October, 2014 and by simply calculation, the time ended on 16th October, 2014. This duty to apply for the issuance of a pre-hearing notice is mandatory because by virtue of Paragraph 18(4) of the First Schedule of the Act, where either of the Petitioner or respondent fails to bring such application, the tribunal shall dismiss the petition as abandoned and no application for extension of time to take that step shall be filed or entertained. In this case and on the record, the Petitioners applied for issuance of Form TF007 on 20th October, 2014 which clearly is outside the 7 days provided for by law. The Respondents have here by motion pursuant to Paragraph 18(3) applied for the dismissal of the petition. The question now is what is the effect of such failure to apply for the issuance of the pre-hearing session notice in compliance with the law? As stated earlier, this matter has agitated our minds but here to, we prefer to take our bearing by relying on the authoritative pronouncements by our superior Courts on the issue. We start with some of the authorities relied on by Applicants. In A.C.N V. Nomiye (2011)LPELR-3590 (CA)34, the Court of Appeal dealt with a situation where no application for the issuance of a pre-hearing notice was made at all as contemplated by the rules and specifically considered the import of Paragraph 18 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and held as follows: “The application for issuance of pre-hearing notice (in whatever form) must be made within seven days after the filing and service of the Petitioner’s reply on the respondent or seven days after the filing and service of the Respondent’s reply as the case may be. Failure to comply within the time frame is fatal to the petition. Time cannot be extended and the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the petition as abandoned. Similarly in Nwoye V. Ikechukwu (2011)LPELR-9195(CA), the Court of Appeal pronounced on the effect of failure of the Petitioner to apply for the issuance of the notice of pre-hearing session in the following terms: “By the aforementioned provisions, a petitioner is mandatorily expected to apply for prehearing notice within seven days upon the settlement of pleadings. Upon the failure of the Petitioner to apply, the Respondent may apply for pre-hearing or the dismissal of the petition. See Paragraph 18(3) earlier reproduced above. The Court may also dismiss the petition as an abandoned petition, see Paragraph 18(4) above.” On the arguments relating to sacrificing of the substance of a case on the altar of technicalities, the Court of Appeal in A.C.N V. Nwoye (supra) stated that paragraph 18(1) is clear and unambiguous and that the provision cannot be jettisoned on the altar of adherence to substantial justice or undue technicalities. The court held as follows: “On the contention of the appellants that the Tribunal erred in law in refusing to apply order 51 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules and the decisions of the Supreme Court on the need not to sacrifice substantial justice on the altar of undue technicalities, it is necessary to point out that Paragraph 18 of the First Schedule is a typical example of one of the features in the law governing election petitions that make them sui-generis. Time is of the essence. While it is necessary that cases be determined on their merits, provisions in the Electoral Law which terminate cases in limine are there for the purpose of keeping litigants and their lawyers alert and to avoid unnecessary delays. The tribunal committed no error of law in holding that it is only where there is a lacuna in the rules that the courts may fall back on the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules. There is no such lacuna in Paragraph 18 of the First Schedule. On the contrary its provisions are completely exhaustive and covered the field adequately obviating the need to fall back on the Federal High Court Rules.” We have also read with care the decision of the Apex Court in Okereke V. Yaradua (2008) 12 N.W.L.R (pt 1100) 95 where the Supreme Court dealt with amongst others the competence or propriety
30 of taking motions outside of pre-hearing session as was undertaken by the Court of Appeal and the ancillary issue of the effect of failure to apply for pre hearing and specifically construed the provision of paragraph3(1) of the Practice Direction which is in pari materia with paragraph 18(1) of the 1st schedule under consideration. The court held that the Court of Appeal erred in taking the applications outside of the pre hearing session and that the failure to comply with the provision of paragraph 3(1) was fatal and that the tribunal is empowered to treat the petition as abandoned and to dismiss same. The Court also emphasized on the fundamental nature of pre hearing sessions and the need to comply strictly with the provisions of the law on it. We perhaps may at this point refer to their pronouncements. The respected Lordship Hon Justice I.T Muhammad J.S.C who wrote the lead judgment stated as follows: “…Secondly, sub-paragraph 4 of paragraph 3 as quoted above makes it mandatory that where neither the petitioner nor Respondent files an application for a pre hearing session, the tribunal or court is under a duty to dismiss the petition as abandoned and no application for extension of time to take that step shall be filed or entertained. Now, although the stipulation under sub paragraph 4 of paragraph 3 of the practice Direction appears to me harsh on the petitioner by making an order of dismissal of the petition which forecloses any chance for him to represent the petition, it still had to be complied with by the tribunal or Court as such steps are a condition precedent to the hearing of any matter in relation to the petition pending before the tribunal or Court. Non compliance thereof will strip the tribunal or court with jurisdiction as one of the factors which confer jurisdiction on court is not complied with. See Madukolu V.Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All N.L.R 589…” His Lordship Hon Justice OnnoghenJ.S.C also added as follows: “…However, paragraph 3(4) supra, gives power to the lower Court where the petitioner and respondent fail to bring an application for pre hearing session as in the instant case , to dismiss the petition as abandoned petition and that no application for extension of time to take that step i.e apply for pre hearing session shall be filed or entertained. That is the law , though it may sound harsh. It should however be borne in mind that the provisions apply to election matters in which time is of essence…” The clear effect of the above decisions is that where there is failure to apply for the issuance of a pre hearing notice as contemplated by law, it would amount to an abandonment of the petition and making it liable to be dismissed. On the other side of the aisle, the Petitioners/Respondents have referred us to recent decisions of the Supreme Court in ABUBAKAR V.NASAMU (2012) 17 N.W.L.R (Pt.1330) 523 and SAEED V. YAKOWA (2013) ALL F.W.L.R (Pt. 692)1650 at 1686 and contended that these decisions have completely altered the prevailing view with respect to the interpretation of the relevant provision of paragraph 18 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act. Now we must warn ourselves as we examine the above decisions, to tread carefully bearing in mind that these are all decisions of our superior courts including the Apex Court which is binding except same can be distinguished. The principle of stare decisis is sacrosanct. This, we are acutely aware of. We are equally aware that any pronouncement coming from the Apex Court even if not directly in issue cannot be treated perfunctorily by the lower Court as these pronouncement sometimes gives an insight or indication as to how such matters may be treated where the issue arise before the Court. In Abubakar V. Nasamu(supra), the main issue that arose had to do with the proper mode of bringing about a pre hearing session within the confines of paragraph 18(1) of the 1st schedule. The question was whether it has to be by way of a motion or whether a letter as utilized in the case would suffice. Strictly speaking therefore, the facts of the extant petition can be distinguished from that of Abubakar V. Nasamu in that the issue here is not that of mode utilized but that there was no application for the issuance within the time provided for by the 1st Schedule. In determining the appeal, the Apex Court however construed the provisions of paragraphs 18(1), (2), (3), (4), 47(1) and (2) and also 53(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act which are in issue in the extant petition and we cannot but be guided by the principles enunciated and as can clearly be discerned by the reasoning in their pronouncements. Yes facts of cases may differ, but the principle appears to us to be the most critical of all factors. On the fundamental question of whether failure to even comply with paragraph 18(1) of the 1st schedule affects the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal to entertain the petition, His Lordship Hon Justice Tabai J.S.C who wrote the lead judgment instructively held as follows “…Before I conclude, I would like to comment briefly on a submission of learned senior counsel for the 1st – 3rd Respondents on jurisdiction. At paragraph 5.5 of the 1st – 3rd Respondents’ brief, he submitted:“It is trite that where the law lays down a procedure for doing a thing, non-compliance with that procedure robs the Court of jurisdiction. It is submitted that the failure of 1st , 2nd and 3rd Appellants to adhere to the provisions of paragraph 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) is fundamental and fatal to the petition; it is not a mere irregularity which Court can condone.” I have already held that there was no non-compliance with the provisions of paragraph 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act. Assuming, for the purpose of argument, that there was such noncompliance, would it affect the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the petition? I would answer this question in the negative. Jurisdiction is a creation of the Constitution and statute, and the settled principle of law is that it is the claim or petition that determines its competence. The claim or petition must come within the ambit of the law that has conferred the jurisdiction. In this case, there is no challenge of the competence of the petition (sic) to entertain the petition. The challenge here is noncompliance with paragraph 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act. Where a Plaintiff in procedural steps necessary for the successful prosecution of the claim or petition, his act or omission constituting such failure or default does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. It only constitutes a failure to prosecute the claim and which failure attracts a dismissal. In view of the foregoing, I hold, with respect that the argument of learned senior counsel for the 1st – 3rd Respondents is untenable…” In his supporting decision Hon Justice Chukwuma – Eneh J.S.C stated unequivocally that failure to comply with the provision of paragraph 18(1) will not amount to a fundamental defect leading to a dismissal of the petition in the light of the saving provision of paragraph 53(1) of the 1st schedule. His Lordship stated thus: “…I also hold that not having come by paragraph 18(1) will not amount to fundamental defect leading to the dismissal of petitions as this one. This cannot be so as gathered from the intendment of the lawmaker as has emerged from construing the provisions of paragraph 53(1) which shows that such irregularity is curable. It reads: “(1) Non-compliance with any of the provisions of this Schedule, or with a rule of Practice for the time being operative, except otherwise stated or implied, shall not render any proceeding void, unless the Tribunal or Court so directs, but the proceeding may be set aside wholly or in part as irregular or amended, or otherwise dealt with in such a manner and on such terms as the Tribunal or Court may deem fit and just.” The foregoing provisions of paragraph 53(1) are plain and clear, and without any ambiguity and have to be applied literarily. I support the view that paragraph 53(1) has introduced a caveat to this case even though an election matter. One should not follow in this case the Schedule blindly even though it will bring the case to an end where justice has not been done. See Abubakar v. YarAdua (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt.1078) 465 at 511 paragraphs B-E. Furthermore, it contemplates that Rules of Procedure are not by themselves the end but the means of achieving the end. I must say even though the provisions of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 are now of the status of statutory provisions, they are still, in the main, concerned with procedural matters aimed at smoothening out the process of determining election matters and not to hinder or impede their due administration. They have not by that baptism, so to speak, ceased to be tools or handmaids for the Courts to use in the expeditious hearing and doing justice in election matters. The Courts, I dare say, should not timorously succumb to technical objections as the instant one with respect that are fanciful and
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 lacking in focus and even then deliberately designed to stultify the processes of moving the cases forward in the interest of justice. A simple process as contemplated as per paragraph 18(1) which has been made to facilitate very expeditious hearing of election matters has now been turned into a process for a quick kill of election matters albeit with respect by unwholesome practices and so run out of time the lives of the election petitions as they are time-limited by the Act, most of the time to the prejudice of the Petitioners; clearly in a manner not in consonance with the object of the Act nor within the intendment of the lawmaker and thus deny doing substantial justice, particularly so where it matters most, that is to say, in dealing with election petition matters. The polity’s confidence in our system of adjudication is thereby greatly eroded to our chagrin. And so, doing substantial justice shall always be the watch word of our Courts in election matters…” Now in the case of Saeed V. Yakowa (supra) the objection relating to failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph 18(1) was raised for the first time at the Court of Appeal by the Respondents. This was clearly after it had participated in the pre hearing and filed its own issues for determination. In this case the challenge was made before the Respondents took any steps. We also agree here that while the facts are distinguishable, the principle with respect to the correct import and application of the 1st schedule is one that cannot be ignored by the tribunal. In this respect, we shall quote inextenso the holding of the Court per Tabai J.S.C on the correct approach by tribunals where there is failure to comply with the mandatory provision of paragraph 18(1) of the schedule as follows: “……This issue was raised at the Court below and in its judgment at pages 2853 – 2854 the Court relying on Onyedebelu v. Nwaneri (2005) 1 LRECN 207 at 212 found as follows: “It is crystal clear that the failure of the Appellants in this appeal to comply with the mandatory and obligatory provisions of paragraph 18 sub-paragraph (I) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) which is a condition precedent to the entertainment of or adjudication of the said petition ought to have rendered the said determination of the petition by the Tribunal invalid. The trial Tribunal should have dismissed the petition pursuant to paragraph 18(4) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).” I wish to state with respect that, the above approach of the Court below is far too restrictive and technical. The First Schedule to the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) represents the Rules of procedure for election petitions. And as Rules of Court they do not confer jurisdiction: Ogunremi & Ors v. Dada & Ors (1962) NSCC 419 at 422, reported as Dada v. Ogunremi (1962) 2 SCNLR 417. It follows therefore that a Petitioner’s breach of any of the provisions of the 1st Schedule does not affect the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or Court to entertain or adjudicate on the petition. Rather such a breach, if substantial, can only amount to the Petitioner’s failure to prosecute the petition with the consequence of its dismissal. It is also clear from the reproduced portion of the judgment of the Court below that it invoked the provisions of paragraph 18(I) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act without taking into cognizance the saving provisions of paragraph 53(1)(2) and (4) of the same schedule. Paragraph 53(1)(2) and (4) provide: “53 (1) Non-compliance with any of the provisions of this schedule, or with a rule of practice for the time being operative, except otherwise stated or implied, shall not render any proceeding void, unless the Tribunal or Court so directs, but the proceeding may be set aside wholly or in part as irregular, or amended, or otherwise dealt with in such a manner and on such terms as the Tribunal or Court may deem fit and just. (2) An application to set aside an election petition or a proceeding resulting there from for irregularity or for being a nullity, shall not be allowed unless within a reasonable time and when the party making the application has not taken any fresh step in the proceedings after knowledge of the defect. (4) An election petition shall not be defeated by an objection as to form if it is possible at the time the objection is raised to remedy the defect either by way of amendment or as may be directed by the Tribunal or Court.” Rules of procedure are made to enhance and facilitate the due administration of justice and are therefore meant to be obeyed: G.M.O. Nworah& Sons Co. Ltd v. AfamAkputa (2010) All FWLR (Pt.524) 86, (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1200) 443 at 473; Anyah v. A.N.N. Ltd (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.247) 319; Ajayi v. Omorogbe (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.301) 512. The current and prevailing principle in the administration of justice however is that where in the beginning or in the course of the proceedings, a party commits an omission or mistake in the laid down practice and procedure, it can be regarded as an irregularity which the Tribunal or Court can and should rectify or even ignore so long as it is satisfied that the omission or mistake occasions or is incapable of occasioning any injustice to the other party. This is the principle deliberately engrafted by the Legislature into paragraph 53(1),(2) and (4) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). I wish to emphasize again that the approach of the Court of Appeal was too restrictive and technical, capable of undermining the very ends of justice for which the rules of procedure in the schedule were made. In the circumstances of this case, the Court below had a duty to read the provisions of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) holistically, and construe same widely and generously to give effect to its manifest intention. And the manifest intention of the provisions of the First Schedule is for the Tribunal or Court to do substantial justice and not technical justice…” We shall be guided by the above clear pronouncements. In our considered opinion, reading carefully these recent decisions by the Apex Court, there appears to be a decisive shift in the dynamics relating to the import and correct application of the provision of Paragraph 18(1) of the 1st schedule. The current and purposive approach would be that in invoking paragraph 18, the tribunal must do so liberally taking into cognizance the active saving provisions of paragraph 53 which is part and parcel of the Act so that the manifest intention of the provisions of the 1st schedule which is to allow the tribunal to do substantial justice as opposed to technical justice will be achieved. We have again read the earlier authorities which adopted the rather strict application of paragraph 18(1) and we note respectfully that in none of those cases was the effect of the saving provision of paragraph 53 on paragraph 18(1) considered. It is our hope that because of the rather fluid position on the issue at the moment, our superior Courts will make a definitive pronouncement on the issue in due course. In the mean time we wish to reiterate the very delicate nature of election matters and the sometimes uncontained passion it generates among members of the public. The barometer as far as the public is concerned is whether justice has been done to the parties and whatever the imperfections in the system, there is no better way to achieve this noble goal than to allow parties to fully ventilate their grievances in court without undue regard to technicalities or procedural rules. See Abubakar V.Nasamu (supra); Abubakar V.Yaradua(2008)4N.W.L.R (PT 1078)465 at 511 In the extant petition, the narrow complaint is that of failure to apply within time as provided for by paragraph 18(1) of the 1st schedule. We accordingly prefer to err on the side of caution and relying on the saving provisions of paragraph 53 allow the petition to be determined on its merits in the overall interest of justice. The application to dismiss the petition accordingly fails. We shall now proceed to consider the substance of the petition and the issues arising there from. ISSUE 2: Whether the Governorship election conducted in Osun State on 9th day of August 2014 was vitiated by reasons of corrupt practices, irregularities and substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the INEC Manual as well as the Guidelines for the conduct of Election. The grounds for this petition had earlier been stated. The Local Government Areas affected have also been stated. In proof of this petition, the Petitioners called 43 out of the 615 listed witnesses in the petition, these include 2 expert witnesses. These witnesses are numbered PW1 – PW43. The Petitioners have also placed before the Tribunal several documents. In defence, the Respondents
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
31 st
called witnesses and also placed documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The 1 Respondent called 19 witnesses but tendered no documents except those tendered through the Petitioners witnesses under cross-examination. The witnesses of the 1st Respondent are numbered RW 1 – RW 19. The 2nd Respondent called 8 witnesses, numbered RW 20 – RW 27. The 3rd Respondent called no oral evidence but tendered from the bar 3 documents which are Exhibits 395, 396 and 397. Before going into the consideration of the alleged malpractices and irregularities in the individual polling units and wards within the Local Government Areas under contention, we wish to deal with some complaints that are common throughout the various polling units and wards under consideration. Such complaints include, though not limited to – (i) Non or improper accreditation. (ii) Non stamping of duplicate copies of forms EC 8A. (iii) Unregistered and ineligible people being allowed to vote. (iv) Multiple voting. (v) Intimidation, harassment and inducement of voters. It is pertinent to state here, the general legal principle that in election petitions, as indeed in all civil cases the burden of proof lies on the party asserting and who would loose if no evidence were to be called at all on either side. See the case of Awuse v. Odili (2005) All FWLR (Pt.261) 248. The Petitioners therefore have the burden of proving these allegations. It is the contention of the Petitioners that in all the polling units in the various wards in the Local Government Areas in issue, there was either no accreditation or improper accreditation of voters before the commencement of election. That this is in violation of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the Manual for Election Officials 2014, made pursuant to the Electoral Act. Having alleged non accreditation or improper accreditation, the burden is on the Petitioners to proof their assertion. We have carefully gone through the various depositions of the Petitioners’ witnesses; none of them has stated what the proper procedure for accreditation is. They have also not stated the procedure adopted by the 3rd Respondent which they allege is improper. All they allege is improper accreditation. Page 63 of the Manual for Election Officials, 2014 defines Accreditation as – “ The process of verifying the eligibility of a prospective voter before voting commences.” It is to be stated that this Manual is in evidence as Exhibit 186. The definition of accreditation is further stated in chapter 3 of the Manual as a – “— process of ascertaining that a voter’s name is in a register of voters in a particular polling unit where he/she registered for election, before voting commences on election day.” Simply put therefore accreditation is a process of ascertaining that an individual votes at a polling unit in which he/she was registered. It follows that a registered voter does not have the right to walk into any polling unit and insist on voting in that unit. To do so is an offence under the Electoral Act. The Manual has stipulated the accreditation procedure. It provides that as the voter presents himself/ herself, the Assistant Presiding Officer (APO) shall: i) Request for the voter’s card. ii) Examine the voter’s card to ascertain that the photo on the voter’s card is that of the voter and that the polling unit details are correct for that polling unit. iii) Check the register of voters to confirm that the voter’s name, photo and Voter Identification Number (VIN) as contained on the voter’s card is in the register of voters. iv) Check the cuticle of the voter’s left finger to ascertain that he/she has not been accredited earlier in another polling unit. v) Tick to the left side of the name of the voter in the register of voters. vi) Apply indelible ink to the cuticle of the appropriate finger on the left hand. vii) Issue the voter with signed accreditation number tag with voter’s serial number in the register written on the tag. viii) The Presiding Officer shall request accredited voter to remain within the polling zone for the commencement of voting. What procedure was adopted by the 3rd Respondent on the election day? As stated earlier none of the Petitioners’ witnesses in his evidence in chief stated the procedure adopted by the 3rd Respondent on that day. All they allege simply is improper accreditation. However in response to questions under cross-examination, they laid down the accreditation procedure adopted by the 3rd Respondent on the election day. Their respective evidence is that on arrival of officers of the 3rd Respondent at the polling unit, they pasted the voters’ register for the unit on a wall and asked everybody to check for his/her name on the list and also note the serial number against his/her name. If an individual finds his/her name on the displayed list and it gets to his/her turn to be accredited, the officer of the 3rd Respondent would then demand and collect his/her voters card, cross check his/her name in the voters’ register with them, if found, the name would be ticked and ink would be applied to the thumb of the individual, who would then be asked to come back at 12 noon when voting would commence. Respondents’ witnesses also confirm that this was the procedure of accreditation adopted by the 3rd Respondent. Petitioners’ witnesses further confirm that everybody who came to vote went through this process. Clearly, we do not see any substantial difference in the procedure adopted by the 3rd Respondent and that provided in the Manual. The 3rd Respondent substantially complied with provisions of the Manual. We do not therefore agree with Petitioners that there was no proper accreditation. As rightly submitted by the Respondents, all the certified true copies of the voters registers tendered by the Petitioners show that they were appropriately ticked. Under crossexamination by the Petitioners and the Respondents, the witnesses who were shown the register of voters confirmed that their names were ticked. But even assuming for the purpose of argument that the procedure adopted by the 3rd Respondent is improper, the Petitioners have not shown that that “improper procedure” affected only those who came to vote for them. The evidence of their witnesses is that everybody went through the same procedure. We do not therefore see how, even if there was improper accreditation, it has adversely affected them or the outcome of the election. Closely related to this issue is the assertion by the Petitioners that unaccredited people were allowed to vote while those accredited were prevented from voting. They have however not adduced any evidence in proof of these assertions. Nobody came to this Tribunal to testify that he/she was prevented or chased away by the Respondents or their agents from voting, having been accredited. The Petitioners did not mention a single individual who was allowed to vote without having been accredited. Even if the Petitioners were able to show that unaccredited people were allowed to vote, they still have the burden of proving that such persons voted for the 1st and 2nd Respondents. They also have the further burden of proving that all the accredited voters who were prevented from voting would have voted for them, and if they had been allowed to vote, that would have substantially changed the end result. They have not shown how many of their supporters were refused accreditation or chased away after accreditation and prevented from voting. Nobody came to testify that he/she was refused accreditation. Another common complaint from the Petitioners is the non stamping of duplicate copies of forms EC 8A. This is in apparent reliance on section 74 of the Electoral Act (2010) as amended. The Petitioners have tendered duplicate copies of these forms which were given to their agents at the polling units upon the conclusion of election. Our attention has not been drawn to any legal requirement that these duplicate copies must also be stamped. What has however emerged from the testimony of the witnesses of the Respondents is that the agents signed on the original copy of form EC 8A which is white in colour. It is this original that bears the official stamp of the 3rd Respondent. We confirm from the duplicate copies of forms EC 8A tendered by the Petitioners that their agents did not sign directly on these duplicate copies; their signatures thereon appear as carbon copies. We entirely agree with the testimony of the Respondents that the stamp is not likely to be visible on the duplicate or carbon copies. We confirm this fact from the certified true copies of these same forms EC 8A tendered by the Petitioners. These certified true copies made from the original all bear
rd
the official stamp of the 3 Respondent. While we agree with the Petitioners that some of these duplicate copies of form EC 8A carry the official stamp of the 3rd Respondent, those stamps were put directly on those duplicates. The scenario created is that while some presiding officers stamped both the original and the duplicate copies, most simply stamped only the original copy. And in any case, how has the non stamping affected the results of the election, or how has it affected only the Petitioners. If the contention of the Petitioners is that the unstamped forms EC 8A should be discountenanced, then they too would be affected by the cancellation of such results. The Petitioners have also alleged multiple voting. Multiple voting can arise where one voter has voted for more than one candidate at the election or where a voter votes more than once for a candidate at an election. Clearly therefore multiple voting can only be proved by the examination of the ballot papers used and determining that several ballot papers were thumb printed by one individual. Pius Adeyemi Bakare – PW38 is a technology expert, data analyst etc who was engaged by the Petitioners to do a forensic analysis of the materials used for the election. His scope of assignment as testified to by him included the scanning of the ballot papers, examining and comparing impressions from the ballot papers in order to ascertain if the ballot papers and other forms used for the election were properly used in accordance with the Act and the Manual. We understand this scope of work as including the identification of multiple voting. He did not testify that he discovered any multiple voting in the ballot papers he examined or scanned. He conceded under cross-examination that “my report does not talk about finger prints.” Without analyzing the finger prints on the ballot papers used, there cannot be proof of multiple voting. The pleading in paragraph 36g to the effect that – “ Illicit and multiple fingered and finger-printed ballot papers in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents were deposited in the ballot boxes at the polling units and wards challenged contrary to the prescribed mode of marking the ballot papers by thumb print” has not been proved. His testimony does not also establish the fact that he observed over voting in any polling unit after examining all the materials used for the election as given to the Petitioners by the 3rd Respondent. The various bags containing the ballot papers used for the election on 9/8/14 in the 17 Local Government Areas in contention and which PW 38 said he examined are before the Tribunal as Exhibits 364 – 380. No attempt was made by the Petitioners to physically demonstrate before the Tribunal the multiple voting. It is clear from prayer iii of paragraph 59 of the petition that the Petitioners intended that the Tribunal should do the physical recounting of these ballot papers. We also thought that they were being tendered for that purpose. However after tendering them, the Tribunal was not moved to do the physical recounting and verification of the results. Apart from the confirmation of PW38 that they were the ballot papers he examined, the only other use made of the ballot papers by the Petitioners was in the cross-examination of Respondents’ witnesses, where they were shown ballot papers from their Local Governments and asked if they were the type used on the election day. They all answered in the affirmative. We really do not therefore appreciate the purpose for which the said ballot papers were tendered. The Petitioners have alleged intimidation, harassment and inducement of voters in almost all the polling units in contention. No evidence has however been led in proof of these assertions. Not a single witness has testified before the Tribunal that he/she was unable to vote due to harassment or intimidation by the Respondents or their agents. It is the averment of the Petitioners in paragraph 24 of their petition that on the day of election, the 1st Respondent sponsored on air an election advertisement of public campaign canvassing for votes on the state owned radio station, Osun State Broadcasting Corporation (OSBC). This led the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) to impose a fine on the Radio Station. They pleaded the audio tape of the recording. No such tape is before the Tribunal. No evidence from anybody who heard the broadcast. Clearly the Petitioners have abandoned this pleading. Similarly not proved is the allegation of the Petitioners in paragraph 36j. That the 3rd Respondent recruited staff and members of Osun Youth Empowerment Scheme (OYES), who were loyal to the 1st and 2nd Respondents as ad hoc members supposedly to be members of the National Youth Service Corps. It is the evidence of PW1 – Prince Bola Ajao who is the acting secretary and publicity secretary of the 2nd Petitioner and who represented the 2nd Petitioner throughout the proceedings in this petition that the 3rd Respondent, despite the protest letter written by the Petitioners, went ahead to use OYES corps cadets and non NYSC persons as ad hoc staff in the conduct of the said election. The list of ad hoc personnel deployed for the 2014 Governorship election is before the Tribunal as Exhibit 361, while the list of NYSC members used for the said election is before the Tribunal as Exhibit 361B. Both Exhibits were tendered by the Petitioners. They did not however identify the OYES members used as ad hoc staff. Nobody has been mentioned as an OYES member recruited by the 3rd Respondent as an ad hoc staff on the day of the election. On the other hand the Respondents, particularly the 1st Respondent, called witnesses who are members of OYES but acted as their agents on the day of election. These are RW14 and RW15, who were both polling agents at their respective units for the 1st Respondent. RW2 – who is a member, Customary Court in Osogbo testified that he did not see any OYES member at his polling unit 006 ward 3 of Olorunda Local Government. None of the witnesses for the Respondents was contradicted on their testimonies that OYES members did not participate as ad hoc staff for the 3rd Respondent. The Petitioners have in paragraph 37 of their petition pleaded that some named members of the 2nd Respondent were arrested on the election day with ballot papers. No evidence of such an arrest has however been led and no police report to that effect is before the Tribunal. It is the evidence of PW1 in paragraph 6 of his sworn deposition that he attended the stakeholders meeting with officials of the 3rd Respondent on 4/8/14 at which the Resident Electoral Commissioner informed them that 972, 614 Permanent Voters Card (PVC) have been issued to voters in the State out of the total eligible registered voters stated to be 1,406, 1471 leaving a balance of 433, 533 PVCS to be collected by the owners. He further testified in paragraph 37 that – “ 37. — based on the briefing of the INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner for Osun State of 4th August, 2014, where it was stated that 433, 533 of the 972, 614 permanent voters cards issued to voters in Osun State had not been collected as at 4th August, 2014, the number of total votes claimed to have been returned from the areas under challenge in this petition is not realistic.” The totality of the evidence of PW1 in paragraphs 6 and 37 of his deposition is that out of the 1,406, 147 registered voters, 972, 614 collected their PVC leaving 433, 533 PVC uncollected. It therefore means that as at 4th August 2014, which was the deadline for the collection of PVC, there were 972, 614 eligible voters with PVC to vote in the election. In paragraph 14 of the petition and paragraph 17 of the deposition of PW1, the scores for each candidate that participated at the election as announced by the 3rd Respondent have been stated. It is not the contention of the Petitioners that the total scores by all the candidates when added together exceed the number of voters who collected their PVC, that is 972, 614. It is only in such a situation that the Petitioners can allege that the total votes claimed to have been returned is unrealistic. This would have also established a clear case of over voting and the Petitioners would have then made a case for the cancellation of the entire result. Having not shown that the votes scored by all the candidates exceeded the number of eligible voters, they cannot assert, as they have done that the total votes returned in the areas under challenge are unrealistic. It is the further testimony of PW1 in paragraph 8 of his deposition that at the said meeting, representatives of the political parties were given copies of the hard disk containing the register of voters in Osun State. He said he has reviewed the said voters’ register given to the 2nd Petitioner and he “observed that several under aged persons were shown as registered voters.” Interestingly he did not even mention one such under aged person in his deposition, despite the materials at his disposal at the time he was making his statement. Under cross-examination by counsel to the 3rd Respondent, PW1 conceded that voters did not come to him to tell him their age before voting. The Petitioners have also not proved their allegation of voting by under aged persons. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that the assertion of the Petitioners that there was mass
32 movement of unregistered persons into Osun State and who indeed voted in the election is borne out by the fact that there was mass movement of people out of Osun State on Sunday 10th August, 2014 and Monday 11th August 2014 after the conclusion of the election. That this mass movement was facilitated by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. PW1 says he personally witnessed this and he knows that “but for the involvement of these unregistered voters who were brought by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and actually voted even though wrongfully, it was not possible or practicable to return the quantum of votes returned from the affected units in the wards of the Local Government Areas under challenge.” It is an undisputed fact that election took place in all the 30 Local Government Areas in the State on 9th August 2014. If the 1st and 2nd Respondents have imported voters as alleged by the Petitioners, why would they distribute these “imported” voters in only 17 out of the 30 Local Government Areas? As stated earlier, PW1 testified that before the election, the 3rd Respondent gave them a hard disk containing the list of all registered voters. Prior to this, and during the registration exercise, they had complained about the registration exercise conducted by the then 3rd Respondent’s Resident Electoral Commissioner for the State, Ambassador Rufus Oluwatoyin Akeju. Notwithstanding their complaint, the REC handled the registration exercise and he massively manipulated it in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The issue of the voters registration exercise, being a pre-election matter, does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Petitioners had a right to have challenged the said registration in Court. Having not done that, this Tribunal is bound by the register of voters used by the 3rd Respondent on the day of the election. The fact of massive movement of people out of the State after the election is not conclusive of the fact that those persons were “imported” into the State to vote for the 1st and 2nd Respondents. We take judicial notice of the fact that indigenes of Osun State who live outside the State have the right to register in the State and also come to the State during the voting period and leave the State after voting. The Petitioners having not shown that all those “imported” persons who voted did not have their names on the voters register, which we hold was the authentic register made for the purpose of the election, have failed to prove their assertion that unregistered and ineligible voters were allowed to vote, and indeed voted for the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The Respondents objected to almost all the documents sought to be tendered by the Petitioners as Exhibits. The documents tendered by the Petitioners include certified true copies of documents, particularly Forms EC 8A series, EC 8B series, EC 8C series, EC 8E series, EC 25B series and some voters’ registers. The Respondents are objecting to the admissibility of these certified true copies which were tendered from the bar on several grounds. Firstly that the purported certification on the documents does not satisfy the requirements of section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011. They relied on the cases of Justus Nwabuoku & Ors v. Francis Onwordi & Ors (2006) 8 – 9 SCM 247; (2006) 5 SC (Pt.III) 3 and Belgore v. Ahmed (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt.1355) 60 at 124. Secondly that several of the voters’ registers have several pencil inscriptions thereon making them no longer to be certified true copies. In response the Petitioners are urging on the Tribunal to overrule these objections and admit in evidence these certified true copies as they have complied with sections 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act. Further that the Respondents having consented to the tendering of these documents from the bar during the pre-trial session, are estopped from objecting to their admissibility as Exhibits, relying on the case of Longe v. First Bank PLC (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt.967) 280. The Respondents in reply contend that the case of Longe (supra), which was upturned by the Supreme Court, is no longer binding on this Tribunal. Further that the pre-hearing report cannot impose an obligation to consent to the tendering of documents on any party. Relying on the case of Okulade vs. Alade (1976) 1 All NLR 67 at 62 (sic). They submit that the Tribunal can expunge from its records any Exhibit admitted where such is inadmissible in law even if there was no objection to its admissibility. In the course of the pre-trial session, counsel on behalf of the 3rd Respondent informed the Tribunal that “documents certified by the 3rd Respondent can be tendered by consent.” In its prehearing report, the Tribunal stated that “Certified True Copies of documents will be admitted in evidence as Exhibits without objection.” With due respect to Petitioners’ counsel, this does not prevent the Respondents from raising any objecting to the admissibility of documents, which, according to them, cannot in law, be referred to as certified true copies. Section 104(I) of the Evidence Act provides:“(I) Every public officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees prescribed in that respect, together with a certificate written at the foot of such a copy that it is a true copy of such document or part of it as the case may be.” The Respondents have emphasized the phrase “certificate written.” We understand them as contending that such a certificate should be written in long hand. We have seen the certification done on the Exhibits in question. As rightly submitted by the Petitioners, the 3rd Respondent has not denied doing the certification. The 3rd Respondent has also not denied being in custody of the documents from which the certified copies were made. It is therefore the appropriate authority to do the certification. See section 104(3) of the Evidence Act. Section 104(2) of this Act provides:“(2) The certificate mentioned in sub-section(I) of this section shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.” We have seen the certification done by the 3rd Respondent. We do not appreciate the contention of the Respondents that it does not comply with section 104 of the Act. It is not their contention that the certificate has not been signed or dated. It is also not their complaint that the name and title of the certifying officer has not been disclosed. Their only complaint is that these details should have been written in long hand instead of a stamp impression. We find substantial compliance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. And in any case, the law imposes a duty on the 3rd Respondent to do the certification. The Petitioners have no control over the 3rd Respondent and cannot dictate to him how he should carry out his lawful duties. If therefore the 3rd Respondent does not do his duties in strict compliance with law, should Petitioners be held responsible? Considering the quantity of documents involved in election petitions, it is not feasible or reasonable to contend that writings on them should be done in long hand. As for the pencil inscriptions on the said documents, it is clear that they were made after the certification. The Petitioners have not called on us to consider the pencil inscriptions and we do not see how they have reduced the probative value of the documents. On the whole, we overrule the objections raised in respect of the Certified True Copies of documents which are in evidence as Exhibits. We hereby admit them as Exhibits and we shall consider them in the determination of this petition. For avoidance of doubt, the documents that fall into this category are Exhibits 1 – 185 (which comprise of Forms EC 8A, EC 8B, EC 8C, EC 8E, EC 40A, EC 40B, EC 40C and EC 25B). Exhibits 249 – 341 (CTCs of Voters Registers). We also note that the Respondents also tendered some similarly certified true copies of the voters registers through the witnesses of the Petitioners under cross-examination. See Exhibits 242 and 248 all tendered by 2nd Respondent in the cross-examination of PW14 and PW20 respectively. On Exhibit 236, CTC of a Court order made on 28/3/2011, the objection is on the ground that it is not relevant and was neither pleaded nor listed. While we agree that it has not been listed, we do not agree that it has not been pleaded. It is pleaded in paragraph 29 of the petition. We therefore overrule the objection. The Petitioners also tendered duplicate copies of forms EC 8A, which are in evidence as Exhibits 188 – 204. Duplicate copies of forms EC 8B, Exhibits 205 – 219. Duplicate copies of forms EC 8C, Exhibits 220 – 232. Duplicate copies of form EC 8D Exhibit 233. The grounds of objection raised by the Respondents to the admissibility of these documents tendered through PW1 are that PW1 is not their maker, and he did not mention them in his sworn deposition. That the documents were neither pleaded nor listed in line with paragraph 41(3) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010. They rely on the cases of Flash Fixed Odds Ltd v. Akatugba (2001) 1 NWLR (PT. 717) 46 at 63; Gregory v. The State (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt.561) 210 at 258 and Okorafia v. Agwu (2012) 1 NWLR (Pt.1282) 425 at 452 – 453 paragraphs H – B. The Respondents are also contending that these duplicate copies ought to be certified. We agree with the Petitioners that these documents have been pleaded. See items 1 – 4 on pages 178 – 179 of the petition and item 30 on page 181 of the petition. See also the case of Ojegbe v. Omatsone (1999) 3 LRECN 126 at 135. While we agree with
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 the Respondents that PW1 did not specifically testify that he got results from their agents after the election, his deposition in paragraph 23 is that he got “reports” from the agents. In his evidence before the Tribunal, he said, “— I received results from our agents on the field —”. The counsel then proceeded to tender these results through PW1. Petitioners’ counsel has drawn our attention to the definition of “report” contained in the 6th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary. We agree with the Petitioners that these reports can be in the form of results. It is not the evidence of PW1 that these reports were oral. And even if we hold that these duplicate copies were not referred to by PW1 in his deposition and therefore not admissible through him and expunge them from the evidence, we do not see how this will be fatal to Petitioners’ case in view of the fact that the certified true copies of these same results are already in evidence. We entirely also agree with the Petitioners that these duplicate copies, are primary evidence which do not need certification. See section 86(4) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of Obun v. Ebu (2006) All FWLR (Pt.327) 419 at 455. We therefore overrule these objections and shall consider these documents where appropriate, in the determination of this petition. The Respondents are also urging on the Tribunal not to rely on the letter dated 14/8/14 admitted as Exhibit 234. It is a letter written and signed by PW1 to C.O.P of Osun State. Their objection is that it is not listed. On 17/11/14 when the Petitioners’ counsel sought to tender the said letter through PW1, its maker, counsel to the 1st Respondent objected to its admissibility as “it is a strange document because it is not one of the listed documents.” Counsel to the 2nd Respondent said he had no objection to its admissibility but will address the Tribunal at a later stage on its worthlessness. Counsel to the 3rd Respondent, while objecting to its admissibility, conceded that though it has been pleaded it is not listed relying on paragraph 4(5)(c) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act. Petitioners’ counsel drew our attention to item 46 on page 182 where they listed “other documents relevant to the petition.” We hold that this does not amount to listing the document as contemplated by paragraph 4(5)(c) of the 1st Schedule. The document having however been pleaded, we shall admit it in evidence as the Respondents have not been taken unaware of its existence. Exhibit 235 is a document dated 4/8/14 tendered through PW1. It is a letter written to the 3rd Respondent by the 2nd Petitioner protesting the use of OYES cadets as ad hoc staff for the election. It is listed as item 42 on page 182 of the petition. Although PW1 did not make specific mention of this letter in his deposition, he made mention of a letter written to the 3rd Respondent on 1/8/14 protesting the use of OYES cadets as ad hoc staff. See paragraphs 9 – 11 of his deposition. We therefore hold, relying on the case of Monier Construction Co. Ltd. v. Azubuike (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.136) 24, that facts referring to the document have been pleaded. PW1, as the acting secretary of the 2nd Petitioner is a proper person through whom the document can be tendered. We overrule the objections. Exhibit 243 is a report produced by PW15. The Respondents in urging the Tribunal not to rely on this report are submitting that being a computer generated document, it must comply with section 84 of the Evidence Act to be admissible in evidence. We note that when Petitioners’ counsel sought to tender this report, counsel to both 1st and 2nd Respondents did not raise any objection to its admissibility. The above objection was raised by counsel to the 3rd Respondent who also relied on the case of Kubor v. Dickson (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt.1345) 534. He reiterated this objection in his final address. In this category also is a report made by PW38 and which is before the Tribunal as Exhibit 342. This time around, counsel to both 1st and 2nd Respondents objected to its admissibility relying on Section 84 of the Evidence Act. Counsel to the 1st Respondent relied on the case of Kubor v. Dickson (supra), while counsel for the 2nd Respondent relied on Akeredolu v. Mimiko (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt.1338) 225. On behalf of the 3rd Respondent, counsel adopted the submissions of counsel to 1st and 2nd Respondents. He also relied on the book “The Law of Computer Generated Evidence in Nigeria “by Avari Publication at pages 66 – 70. In response, Petitioners’ counsel contends that the Respondents are misapplying the provisions of Section 84. That the report is not a product of information stored in a computer in its retrieval form. That the computer was simply used to type the report. He distinguished the case of Kubor (supra), where the documents were down loaded from the internet. That the book relied upon by counsel to 3rd Respondent is not relevant. Petitioners’ counsel has urged on the Tribunal to overrule these objections as the report is not an e-document stored in a computer. The summary of the evidence of PW15 and PW38 is that they analyzed the electoral materials used in the conduct of the Governorship election on 9/8/14 by the 3rd Respondent in producing their reports. We have carefully read the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, with due respect to the Respondents, we do not agree with them that these reports are the type of computer generated documents envisaged by Section 84. To hold otherwise would mean that any document typed on a computer becomes a computer generated document. These would include all the processes filed in this petition. We do not think this is the intention of the draftsmen of Section 84 of the Evidence Act. We have read the case of Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume v. FRN unreported decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 17/12/13 in Appeal No. CA/A/78/CR/2013 and CA/A/78A/CR/2013, referred to by the Respondents. It is to the effect that the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence must be complied with. But as stated earlier, we do not think the intendment of that law is that every document typed using a computer becomes a computer generated document. We are therefore in agreement with the Petitioners and hold that these reports do not fall into Section 84 of the Evidence Act. We shall therefore not discountenance Exhibits 243 and 342 in the determination of this petition. Exhibits 364 – 380 are sacks said to contain ballot papers. Exhibit 363 is the subpoena issued to the 3rd Respondent to produce all the ballot papers used for the election in the 17 Local Government Areas in contention. Pursuant to this subpoena, the sacks said to contain the ballot papers were produced before the Tribunal. PW38, through whom they were tendered identified the bags as containing the original ballot papers used for the election. His evidence is also that he used these ballot papers in arriving at his report – Exhibit 342. We find no basis for the objection of the Respondents respecting the subpoena. As regards the sacks of ballot papers, they are contending that the contents of the sacks were not shown to them. But if they contain ballot papers, then PW38, not being the maker, is not competent to tender them in evidence. They rely on Famakinwa v. Uni Ibadan (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt.255) 608 at 623 – 625, Belgore v. Ahmed (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt.1355) 60 at 100 and Flash Fixed Odds Ltd v. Akatugba (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.717) 46 at 63. Counsel to the 3rd Respondent relied on Section 83(I)(b) of the Evidence Act and Omega Plc v. O.B.C. Ltd (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt.928) 547 at 583. While conceding that PW38, is not the maker of these documents, the Petitioners nonetheless maintain that he is the proper person to tender them having stated that he inspected and used the said ballot papers. Petitioners’ counsel submits that the case of Belgore v. Ahmed (supra) where bulk documents were dumped is not applicable here. He also relies on the case of Famakinwa (supra) and C.A.N v. Lamido (2012) LPELR 7828. In the course of cross-examination of Respondents’ witnesses, the Petitioners’ counsel made use of some of these documents from various sacks, in relation to the witness being cross-examined. All the witnesses confronted with the documents confirmed that they were the type of ballot papers used for the election on 9/8/14. We also noted that they were in their original form. They do not therefore require certification. These documents were tendered through PW38 because he testified that he made use of them in arriving at his report. They therefore become relevant in the determination of this petition. We discountenance the objections raised by the Respondents and shall refer to these Exhibits in the determination of this petition. Closely related to the issue of the reports produced by PW15 and PW38 is whether they are expert witnesses as they are referred to by the Petitioners. It is the submission of the Respondents that these witnesses are not expert witnesses having regard to the nature of evidence offered which is neither scientific nor technical. That they merely presented what they considered to be their findings upon examination of the electoral materials. They relied on cases of ANPP v. Usman (2008) NWLR (Pt.1100) 1 at 67 – 68; Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd v. Oroko (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt.159) 693 and AttorneyGeneral v. Abubakar (2007) All FWLR (Pt.375) 405. Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides:“68. When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, customary law or custom, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinion upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, customary law or
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 custom, or science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, are admissible. (2) Persons so specially skilled as mentioned in subsection (I) of this section are called experts.” The Supreme Court in the case of A – G v. Abubakar (supra) held that:“The opinion of an expert is always necessary where he (the expert) can furnish the Court with scientific or other information of a technical nature that is very much or even likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of the judge. But, expert evidence on matters which reasonably fall within the knowledge and experience of the judge or a Tribunal may not be called.” In ANPP v. Usman (supra), the Court held that:“—Statistical analysis does not fall within the items contemplated under section 57(I) of the Evidence Act.” (Now section 68(I) of the Act). Under cross-examination, PW15 testified that his report is as “a result of the analysis of the results in all the Local Governments.” In response to a question by counsel to 3rd Respondent he said, “The data analysis I did is based on the election materials used for the 9/8/14 election.” PW35 also confirmed under cross-examination that his assignment was to examine and inspect materials for all the polling units to ascertain whether there are irregularities, non-compliance with the Manual and the Electoral Act. He concedes that “any literate person can look at a document and bring out facts.” We have found no scientific or technical information contained in the reports submitted by PW15 and PW38. While they may be experts in their respective fields, no such expertise is exhibited in these reports. They simply looked at the electoral materials and brought out facts there from. Their reports and themselves would therefore be treated not as expert evidence/witnesses. The Respondents have urged the Tribunal to consider PW15 and PW38 as interested persons since they were paid to issue the reports in issue. They rely on Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act and the case of Akeredolu v. Mimiko (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt.1388) 402 at 465, where the Supreme Court held that it is unsafe to rely on the report put in by an expert for a fee. Both PW15 and 38 agreed that they were paid for the work by the 2nd Petitioner. The above notwithstanding, we shall still look into these reports handle them with caution and decide whether they have added any value to the Petitioners’ case, even if we are to rely on them. We also consider it expedient to address the submissions made in the Petitioners’ final address with respect to the failure of the 3rd Respondent to call or lead viva-voce or oral evidence to support their pleadings. It was contended that this failure meant that the 3rd Respondent has abandoned its pleadings and that in law where a party fails to call any evidence to support its case or neglects to lead rebuttal evidence, that a Court is entitled to resolve matters in controversy against that party unless there are valid reasons to the contrary. The cases of F.C.D.A. v. Naiba (1990) 5 SCNJ 186, Honika Sawmill (Nig) Ltd v. Mary Okojie Hoff (1994) 2 SCNJ 86 and Alhaji Muhammadu M. Dingyadi & Anor. V. Aliyu Magatakarda Wamako & Ors. (2008) LPELR 4041 were cited. In response, the 3rd Respondent contends that the Petitioners cannot rely on the perceived weakness in the case made out by the 3rd Respondent but must succeed on the strength of their own case as made out in Court particularly when the reliefs they are seeking are declaratory reliefs. They contend that the Petitioners having failed woefully to prove the allegations as contained in the petition, the 3rd Respondent had no obligation in law to call witnesses if there is nothing on record to warrant the calling of witnesses especially as in this case, they had cross-examined witnesses called by the Petitioners and 1st and 2nd Respondents and tendered some documents which go to substantiate its pleadings. We were urged to treat the submissions of Petitioners on the issue as misconceived. The issue here is one to be resolved within a very narrow legal compass which is simply to properly situate who has the burden of proof in the context of the extant electoral dispute. In resolving this issue, our first port of call must necessarily be Sections 131(I), (2) and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011 which stipulate as follows:“131 (I) Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. 132. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side” The above provisions appear to us clear and self explanatory – the Court of Appeal in C.P.C. & Anor. V. INEC & Ors (2011) LPELR – 9085 (CA)1, per Akaahs J.C.A. (as he then was) clearly identified the Petitioner as the one who would fail if no evidence were given at all from either side when it held that:“In an election petition, it is the Petitioner who will fail if no evidence at all were given on either side as there is a presumption of regularity of an official act.” In Buhari v. INEC (2008) 19 N.W.L.R. (Pt.1120) 246 at 350 paragraph E, the Supreme Court Per Tobi J.S.C. enunciated and restated the time honoured legal principle on the fixation of the burden of proof in election petitions on the Petitioner who is duty bound to prove the affirmative contents of his allegations as it is he who would loose if no evidence is elicited to establish the grounds upon which his petition is predicated. Flowing from the above, it is indisputably clear, that as this petition is grounded on corrupt practices, electoral malpractices and non – compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the onus is squarely on the Petitioners to prove same. The stance or disposition of 3rd Respondent in not calling oral viva voce evidence, in our considered opinion will only matter to the extent that the Petitioners have crossed the first and critical threshold of placing material facts or evidence to sustain the allegations made. Where the Petitioners adduce such evidence, to creditably establish the allegations, then the burden shifts on the other party against whom judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced. See section 133(2) of the Evidence Act. Where however such threshold is not met or crossed by a Petitioner, to discharge the burden of proof, a burden so placed by law, the stance or disposition of the Respondent would in such circumstances lack any utility value in the context of proof of the contested assertions. In Awuse v. Odili (2005) All FWLR (Pt.261) 248 at 316, it was held as follows:“It is elementary principle of law that the burden is on him who asserts to adduce evidence in proof of that assertion. In the instant case, the Petitioners at the Tribunal had the onerous duty of proving his petition and such reliance could not be made on the weakness of the case of defence. . .” So be it in this case. Whether or not the Petitioners have succeeded in this regard is what is now to be determined presently. Having dealt with the preliminary issues, we shall proceed to the consideration of issue 2. In the consideration of this issue, we intend to deal with the 17 Local Government Areas in contention individually, in the order they are listed in paragraph 22 of the petition. 1. AIYEDAADE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA In Aiyedaade Local Government, the petitioners by their pleadings in paragraph 39 on pages 20-26 of their petition clearly limited their complaint or challenge to the conduct of the elections in respect of only 3 Wards and the following specific polling units/stations or points as follows: 1. OTUN BALOGUN WARD 02 (Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006 and 007) 2. OLUFI WARD 03 (Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, and 007) 3. OTUN OLUFI WARD 04 (Units 001, 004, 005, 006, 008, 009, 010 and 011) The units complained above cumulatively amount to 22 units out of a total of 132 in the Local Government. The implication of this precisely defined or streamlined position is that the Petitioners are necessarily
33 deemed to be satisfied with the results as declared by the 3rd Respondent with respect to the other polling units or points not challenged in the petition and as such have not joined issues with the Respondents with respect thereto. This tribunal will therefore not concern itself with such polling units with respect to which parties did not join issues on the pleadings in the evaluation of evidence led on record. Now the substance of the complaints by Petitioners with respect to this Local Government consist of widerange allegations of absence of accreditation of voters, unlawful and arbitrary allocation of votes, inflation of votes, intimidation and harassment of voters, non-stamping of result sheets and the general complaint of alteration and manipulation of voters register. The question is, to what extent have the petitioners been able to establish these defined allegations within the ambit of the required standards set by law? Now the only evidence given in respect of this Local Government is of that of PW33 and PW36. PW33 served as Ward Supervisor/Collation Agent for P.D.P in Ward 4 while PW36 served as polling Agent for P.D.P at Unit 001of Olufi Ward 003. No witness was however called to give evidence with respect to the allegations made with respect to OTUN BALOGUN Ward 02 which covered Pages 20 to 22 of the Petition. The effect of this in law is that the averments or allegations with respect to Otun Balogun Ward 02 are not backed up by credible evidence and is deemed as abandoned. See Uwegba V. A.G Bendel State (1988)1 N.W.L.R (pt.16)363. In Arabambi V. Advance Beverages Ind. Ltd (2005)19 N.W.L.R (pt.959)1 at 25, the Supreme Court made the position clear in the following terms: “The law is clear and settled that pleading is not synonymous with evidence and so cannot be construed as such in the determination of the merit or otherwise of a case. A party who seeks judgment in his favour is required by law to produce adequate credible evidence in support of his pleadings, and where there is none then the averments in the pleading are deemed abandoned.” Guided by the above, we accordingly shall discountenance the averments with respect to Otun Balagun Ward 02. Now as stated earlier PW33, served as Ward Supervisor/Collation Agent for Ward 04. His evidence is a mere repetition of the facts pleaded in paragraph 39(a) to (h) of the Petition. We immediately address the point raised by learned counsel to the 3rd Respondent with respect to the apparent conflict in the ward PW33 comes from. It is correct that in his oral evidence, PW33 said he was from ward 04 of Aiyedaade Local Government, but paragraph 2 of his witness deposition reads that he is from ward 3. We do not consider this conflict as material and one to waste energy on. It is at best a mere typographical error because even the heading of the witness deposition is clear in its import and it refers to ward 04. His evidence is similarly clear to the effect that he voted in unit 004 and was the Ward Supervisor and Collation Agent for the said ward. The error in our opinion will have no bearing on our evaluation of his evidence which we shall now proceed to do. As stated earlier, his evidence is a mere repetition of the pleadings with respect to ward 4. Now going through the pleadings at pages 24 to 26 of the petition (paragraphs a-h) vis-à-vis the evidence of this witness, it is clear that PW33 did not give evidence with respect to the allegations of unjustifiable disenfranchisement, voting by unqualified voters and the complaint of lack of proper accreditation. In law in the absence of evidence to support these pleadings, they are deemed as abandoned. Now with respect to other aspects of his evidence, while answering questions under cross-examination, PW33 stated that there are 14 units in the ward he supervised and that they had agents in all these units who reported to him on the conduct of the elections in those respective units. He further stated that apart from what he observed as he visited the units, the basis of his evidence is predicated on the “reports” of the agents they had in each of the units. He also stated under cross-examination that he neither saw the counting or collation of votes in any of the units including the unit where he voted. The effect of the evidence of this witness is that his evidence is essentially not in respect to what he saw or personally witnessed. There is absolutely no indication in his evidence and this he admitted under cross examination as to the aspect of his evidence which he personally witnessed and the other aspect which he was told or did not witness. This clearly is fatal to the case of petitioners. See Gundiri V. Nyako (2014)2 N.W.L.R(pt 1391)211 at 244 a-b. There is no duty or obligation on court to sort out what aspect of the evidence he witnessed and that which he did not witness. The implication of this as rightly submitted by all counsel for the Respondents is that the entirety of the evidence of PW33 with respect to Otun Olufi Ward 04 under consideration amount to hearsay evidence by virtue of Sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended). As such, the gamut of the evidence of this PW33 is worthless for the purpose of these proceedings, in so far as they relate to facts in issue which did not proceed from his personal knowledge. This tribunal cannot ascribe any probative value to such evidence. See Jolayemi V. Alaoye (2004)12 N.W.L.R (pt.887)322; Awuse V. Odili (supra); Gundiri v.Nyako (supra). Now, even with respect to areas that can be said he witnessed, PW33 under cross-examination, stated that he does not know the names of the agents he claimed inflated and arbitrarily allotted votes to 1st and 2nd Respondents and that indeed he does not even know what the original released results were and what they were inflated to. In addition, he did not even witness the counting and collation of votes in his own unit or any unit which completely detracts from the credibility of these allegations made with respect to Ward 4. Indeed if he was not at any unit when votes were collated and counted, what then is the basis for his assertion or evidence that votes were arbitrarily allocated and that Forms EC8A for certain units were not stamped in his ward. Now despite this very serious allegation of arbitrary allocation of votes, PW33 under cross-examination conceded that he signed the summary of result sheet, Exhibit 163(d2) and also that their party agents signed the result sheets which they brought to him. He stated that the agents signed the result sheet so that they can get the duplicate copy to show their supervisor. This candid admission of signing of the result sheets gravely compromises the allegation of arbitrary allocation of votes. In law where a polling agent signs the result sheet of an election voluntarily on the instruction of his political party, that action authenticates the validity of the result sheet. That is so because a polling agent is presumed at law to understand what he appends his signature to. In this case PW33 and all their polling agents signed the election result sheets on the instruction of their party. They cannot not now turn around to deny or question the contents of the result sheet. See Gundiri V. Nyako (2014)2 N.W.L.R (pt.1391)211 at 245 to 246H-B. Furthermore there was even no demonstration by petitioners to establish the allegations that certain Forms EC8A were not stamped at all. The law is settled that where a trial is conducted on the basis of pleadings as in this case, all relevant allegations in the pleadings must be proved by credible evidence and such evidence must be in line with the pleading. In other words, the petitioners here must prove their case as pleaded and must prove the truth of the contents of the paragraphs of the pleadings. Where this is not done as here, the assertions made therein remain mere allegations without proof. See Alamieyeseighe V Igoniwari (No.2) (2007)7 N.W.L.R (pt.1034)524. Similarly the allegations of widespread intimidation, harassment and molestation of agents of Petitioners beyond speculative posturing were not in any manner creditably established by PW33. The evidence of PW33 clearly lacks value and proves nothing. PW36 on the other hand served as polling agent specifically for Unit 001, Gbongan Unit of Olufi Ward 03. No witness was called with respect to the allegations made in the remaining 6 units of the ward to wit: units 001, 002, 004, 005, 006 and 007. The effect of these as already alluded to earlier on in law is that averments in pleadings upon which no evidence is adduced are deemed as abandoned. By this token we accordingly discountenance the pleadings with respect to these units. Furthermore, we have carefully read the pleadings with respect to Olufi Ward 03 and in particular paragraphs (a) to (i) of the petition on pages 22 to 24 and we are in no doubt that the substance of the evidence of PW36 bears no relevance with the complaints made in unit 001 where he was an agent. In paragraphs (a) and (f) of the petition, the allegations pleaded with respect to unit 001 are that no election was conducted in the unit and there was widespread intimidation and harassment of the supporters of P.D.P by agents of 1st and 2nd Respondents. His evidence clearly went beyond the confines of his pleadings. He added amongst others that there was accreditation of unregistered persons; that there was open campaign by A.P.C members and distribution of food, money and drinks to induce people to vote for A.P.C; that after voting, figures were inflated and arbitrarily allocated to A.P.C. All these
34 facts were clearly not pleaded. The effect of this is that the evidence of this witness with respect to unpleaded facts goes to no issue. The law is sacrosanct that evidence led on any matter not pleaded goes to no issue. See Amadi V. Nwosu (1992)6 SCNJ 59. Now with respect to the aspect of his evidence duly pleaded, we clearly do not find this witness credible or reliable. Under cross-examination, he admitted that he does not even know the names of the A.P.C members who he claimed campaigned openly and distributed money, food and drinks to induce voters. He similarly admitted that he did not in his evidence give the names of P.D.P members allegedly harassed and does not also have the voters cards of P.D.P members allegedly scared away from voting. We really wonder in the face of these assertions which negatively undermine the evidence of PW36, how the petitioners expects the tribunal to accorded any weight to the allegations of harassment and intimidation of voters by agents of Respondents. He further stated under cross-examination that he did not sign the result sheet in his ward and that he does not even know the result of the election since he was allegedly “chased away.” Yet this witness made the rather outlandish claims that after voting, figures were inflated and arbitrarily allocated. Interestingly on Exhibit 188(7), the name of the P.D.P agent is one Bolarinwa Ebenezer and not PW36 whose name is Rasaki Olawuni. When confronted with this exhibit, he conveniently said that he could not see properly and that his eyes are not clear, but he was able to read the name of the unit on the exhibit because according to him, it was in capital letters. We won’t bother ourselves with whether PW36 really has real or imagined challenges with his sight. What however is clear is that he cannot by his oral evidence controvert the clear contents of the certified true copy of Exhibit 188(7) which shows unequivocally that PW36 was not the party agent for unit 001 but one Bolanriwa Ebenezer. See Sections 128 and 147 of the Evidence Act. Since he is not Bolanriwa Ebenezer, the party agent as can clearly be discerned in Exhibit 188, and in the absence of any explanation of the precise role of PW36 in the election, we have no difficulty on this and other grounds in discountenancing his evidence as tenuous, untenable and extremely unreliable. It is also relevant and perhaps pertinent to at this stage make a general pronouncement with respect to the evidence of PW1, the state secretary of P.D.P whose deposition appear to be a mere repetition of the substance of the petition as it affects the entirety of 17 Local Government complained of. However in his witness deposition and also under cross-examination, he conceded that there are 30 Local Governments in Osun State with 332 wards and 3010 units but that he was at his unit 9 of ward 8 Ifelodun Local Government all through the day of the election and that movement was restricted until the close of polling and counting of votes. He also further admitted that all the evidence he had given with respect to what happened in all the other Local Governments or other places on election date were based on phone calls and reports he received from his party agents who were in these 3,010 units. In other wards too, his entire evidence including those with respect to Aiyedaade under consideration amount to hearsay and lacks probative value in the circumstances. This position holds true for almost all the other Local Governments to be subsequently treated except unit 9 of ward 8 Ifelodun where he was based. It is true that PW 1 tendered in evidence some documents to wit : Duplicate Copies of forms EC8AsExhibits 188 to 204; forms EC8Bs-Exhibits 205 to 209;forms EC8Cs-Exhibits 221 to 232; form EC8DExhibit 233; Copies of letters by Petitioners to Commissioner of Police Osun state and to INECExhibits 234 and 235 and finally C.T.C of a Court Order-Exhibit 236. Learned counsel to the petitioners has in his final address provided some charts and then went ahead to make a robust analysis and evaluation of some of these documents as providing the required or necessary proof of the allegations made in the petition. We were referred to the cases of ONUIGWE V.EMELUMBA (2008) 9 N.W.L.R (pt 1092)371; JOLASUN V.BAMGBOYE(2010)18 N.W.L.R (pt 1225)285 and INEC V. OSHIOMOLE (2009)4 N.W.L.R (pt 1132) 607 on the importance of documentary evidence as the most reliable piece of evidence. We must state clearly that generally the established position of the law is that documentary evidence is the best evidence. There is however a caveat on the authorities which is that there must be evidence of the purport for which the documents were admitted in supporting the issue canvassed in a party’s case otherwise the document though in evidence would lack the credibility to be accorded any probative value. See Nwole V. Iwuagwu (2006)All F.W.L.R (pt 316)325; Esiogu V. Onyeaguocha (2006) All F.W.L.R (pt 317)467. In this case the above mentioned documents may have been put in through PW1 but the key question here is where is the oral evidence of witnesses which provides the vital nexus or connection between the two. As we have conclusively shown by the evidence of the two witnesses for this local Government, there is a complete absence of critical evidence or a demonstration of same before us in proof of the allegations made. This holds true for most of the local Governments to be treated subsequently. The duty or obligation to tie documents to facts or evidence or admitted facts is one to be done in open court and not a matter for counsel’s address. It is equally not the function of the Court or tribunal to by its own ingenuity or exercise to imagine or speculate or work out the mathematics of arriving at an answer on an issue which only evidence elicited and tested at trial can offer. See Haruna V. Modibbo (2006)2 EPR 664 at 706. In NwoleV.Iwuagwu (supra), the Court of Appeal per Aderemi J.C.A (as he then was) stated thus: “ A party is under obligation to tie his document to fact or evidence or admitted facts in open court and not through counsels address written or oral. This is because it is not the duty of a court or tribunal to embark upon cloistered justice by making inquiry into the case outside the court, not even by examination of documents which were in evidence when the documents have not been examined in open court, nor brought out and exposed in court or were not things that at least must have been noticed in open court”. The Apex court made the position clear in C.P.C & Anor V. INEC &Ors (2012) 12 SCN (pt 3) 225 at 245-246 in the following terms: “I find it extremely difficult to consider another channel than what the Court of Appeal did after it reviewed the findings of the Tribunal and what was available to Court. This is because I have the unease that learned counsel for the Appellants just as he did at the two Courts below is inviting this Court to promote or elevate submission of counsel to the status of evidence. Under what law or authority such would be made possible I still cannot find. The Tribunal and followed by the Court below was right when it refused the invitation of counsel to utilize his charts and analysis from his written address and did the proper thing to look at the evidence on ground. It was then the trial Tribunal was in a position to see that the Appellants merely dumped the documents and evidence so called without a nexus either with the necessary witnesses or to the complaints. Therefore, when Appellants failed to do what they ought in proof of their assertions and complaints by way of the legally provided methods and rather depended on the counsel’s address, they laid their flanks open and unprotected and really had no anchor. The trial Tribunal had no fault in what it did and the Court of Appeal carries out its review and evaluation duly properly and as prescribed for it. See: Orlu v. Gogo –Abite (2010) 1 (Pt.II) 56; Irogbara v. Ufomelu (2009) 5-6 SC (Pt.1) 83; (2009) 6 SCM, 107.” It may also be necessary to state again at this point that his evidence with respect to the various allegations of use of 2 or 3 voters register at the elections; the registration of under-aged voters and multiple registrations, voting by unregistered voters, recruitment of OYES members and nonmembers of N.Y.S.C as ad-hoc staff of 3rd Respondent; public campaign on election day through on air election advertisement at Osun State Broadcasting Corporation (OSBC) by 1st Respondent clearly were all merely speculative observations bereft of any iota of evidence. There was absolutely no demonstration of any sort to prove these allegations by PW1 with respect to Aiyedaade Local Government and indeed all the contested Local Governments and this in our opinion is fatal. In conclusion, what we find here is that the evidence led by the Petitioners completely lacks any degree of cogency to support the widespread allegations made with respect to the wards and units in Aiyedaade Local Government Area, where the outcome of the Governorship Election has been questioned. We so hold.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 2. ATAKUMOSA EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA. The petitioners by their pleading in paragraph 40 at pages 26 to 29 of the petition made varying allegations in this Local Government with respect to 6 wards, to wit; Igangan Ward 02 (polling units 001, 002, 003, 005 and 006); Ipole Ward 03 (polling units 001, 002, 004, 005 and 006); Iperindo Ward 04 (polling units 002, 006); Aiyegunle Ward 06 (polling units 001 and 004); Forest Reserve Ward 07 (polling Unit 001); Forest Reserve II Ward 08 (polling unit 001). The total number of units complained of are 17 units. The substance of the complaints here too is that the election was characterized by electoral malpractices in these various units as contained in the petition. Now to support these contested assertions, the only evidence given on the side of the petitioners with respect to the conduct of the election in Atakumosa East Local Government is that of PW41. He deposed to a very brief 6 paragraphs witness deposition. He stated that he was the P.D.P polling agent for Igangan Unit of 001 of ward 2 and that he was at the unit from the beginning until the conclusion of the election wherein he made observations which he forwarded to his Ward Supervisor. Some of these observations were that there was no proper accreditation of voters, non-use of voters register, non-stamping of Form EC8A and the arbitrary allocation of votes by INEC officials to A.P.C. Now no magnifying glass is required to see that the evidence of PW41 is unit specific i.e unit 001. The legal implication here is that the various allegations made with respect to the other 16 units in the 6 wards are deemed as abandoned without much ado. Similarly we also note that this witness did not at all give evidence or allude in any respect to the allegation of intimidation and harassment of voters; the use of unqualified persons to vote and the disenfranchisement of eligible voters; the inducement of voters with money by members of 1st and 2nd Respondents all pleaded in paragraph 40 of the petition. These allegations are also deemed as abandoned. There is here an abysmal failure to prove the various constituent allegations made with respect to this Local Government. The principle is settled and perhaps need repeating that averments of facts in pleadings or a petition is no evidence and has never been construed as such. Where this is not done, it amounts to a failure of proof. See Yusuf V. Oyetunde (1998)12 N.W.L.R (pt.579)483; Olorunfemi V. Asho (2000)1 SC 15. While answering questions under cross-examination, PW41 agreed that he voted for the party of his choice and went through the process of accreditation contrary to his evidence in chief that there was no proper accreditation. He was equally shown Exhibit 260, the voters register which contains his photograph and name and which was also duly ticked or marked to undermine his allegation that voters register was not used in the elections. Also under cross-examination, the Form EC8A, Exhibit 4 was duly stamped with his name and signature on it contrary to the allegation that the document was not stamped. Although this witness claims that he does not know how his name and signature got to Exhibit 4 which we find convenient, we really do not see or accept that this denial can controvert the contents of these exhibits which are certified true copies. There is similarly nothing of value by this witness to support the allegation that votes were arbitrarily allocated. In any event he duly signed the result sheet or Form EC8A (Exhibit 4) and there is nothing before us to compromise the integrity of the said result or exhibit. As earlier alluded to, the law is settled that where a polling agent signs the result sheet of an election result voluntarily as in this case on the instruction of this party, that authenticates the validity of the result sheet. This is so because a polling agent is presumed in law to understand what he appends his signature to. In the circumstances, it is not open to the polling agent to now seek to controvert the contents of the result sheet. See Gundiri V. Nyako (supra). The bottom line is that the evidence of this witness is completely unreliable and lacks any probative value and clearly failed to meet the standard of proof required to support the sort of evidence he purported to give. It may also be relevant to refer to the evidence of RW 12 and RW 22 on the other side of the aisle. The former is an ordinary voter who said he voted freely for the party of his choice in unit 1, ward 2 of this Local Government. The latter was the ward agent in this unit. In their evidence both testified to the orderly conduct of the election in this unit and debunked all the allegations made in this unit by petitioners. Their direct evidence of what transpired in their unit was not in any manner shaken under cross examination. Indeed RW 22, the polling agent for A.P.C confirmed that he signed Exhibit 4, the form EC8A for the unit together with the agent of the petitioners and that same was equally stamped by I.N.E.C. With profound respect, and however the imagination is stretched, we cannot see our way through how the evidence of this sole witness, PW 41 from just one unit can aggregate to evidence or proof of the allegations made in all the contested units in this Local Government. What we find here is a complete absence of evidence of any value to sustain the allegations with respect to the polling units in Atakumosa East Local Government where the outcome of the Governorship Election has been questioned. We so hold. 3. BORIPE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA. With respect to this Local Government, the allegations of the petitioners is at paragraph 41 on pages 29 to 34 of the petition and is in respect of the following 5 Wards, to wit: Oloti Iragbiji Ward 01 (Polling Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 005 and 007); Oja-oba Ward 02 (Polling Units 001 and 002), College/ Egbada Road Ward 03 (Polling Units 001, 002, 003, 005, 006, 009 and 010); Isale Oyo Ward 04 (Polling Units 001, 002, 003, 005 and 006) and Agba Ward 05 (Polling Units 001, 002 and 006). The total number of units challenged in these 5 wards are 24. Here too, only one witness, PW31 was called and he served as Ward Supervisor for Isale Oyo Ward 4 which as shown above has only 5 polling units. The legal effect here too is that since his evidence is similarly ward specific i.e Ward 4, the pleadings with respect to the allegations in the remaining 4 wards with 19 units are deemed as abandoned. We need not cite any authority again. On the other hand, the Respondents called two witnesses RW 8 and RW9 who were voters and voted in units 01 and 02 of Ward 4 in Boripe and who testified to the orderly conduct of elections in these units bereft of the allegations made by Petitioners as they were present at the units all through the period of the election. Their evidence was not in any way or manner controverted under cross examination and as already alluded to, no oral evidence was led by petitioners with respect to these units. Now as stated earlier, this witness PW 31 served as Ward Supervisor for Ward 4 and coordinated the activities of P.D.P agents in the said Ward. He stated in evidence that the information disclosed in his witness deposition is based on the reports he received from his agents who were in-charge of these units and from his personal observation. Now these reports which at least formed part if not all of the basis for his deposition were not produced before the court. The agents who were in-charge of these units PW31 said are all alive except one and none was produced in court to give evidence of what actually transpired in their units. It is perhaps necessary to make the position of the law clear here that the best evidence of what happened at a polling unit during an election is the evidence of the polling agent who was physically present at the polling unit and who saw what transpired there at the election. A recurrent feature of the case of the petitioners in almost all the local governments including Boripe is that the agents who were physically present at the polling units and who are truly in the best position to testify as to what transpired at their respective units during the elections were not called to testify. This failure to call such polling agents will clearly be detrimental to the petitioners case and allows or provides a basis for the tribunal to apply the presumption under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act that had the polling agents been called, their evidence would have been detrimental to the Petitioners case and hence their reason for not allowing them to testify. See Agballah V.Sulliman Chime(2009)1 N.W.L.R (Pt.1122)373 at 433; Gundiri V.Nyako (supra). There is also nothing in the evidence of PW31 indicating what part of the evidence he witnessed and what was based on the reports which clearly makes his evidence unreliable particularly when under cross-examination, he admitted that it was not possible for him to be at each of the 5 units under his jurisdiction from the commencement of the voting on election date to the end in each of these units. The law which we have already alluded to is that probative value cannot be accorded to such evidence.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 We also note that the evidence of PW 31 with respect to arbitrary allocation of votes to 1st and 2nd Respondents by INEC officials, the alleged refusal to allow eligible voters of P.D.P to vote by members of A.P.C and the alleged inducement of voters with money and other material things are clearly at variance with the pleaded facts at Page 33 of the petition with respect to Isale Oyo Ward 04. The evidence of PW31 in that respect bears no relevance to any complaint in the units in Ward 4 where he acted as supervisor; the effect of this is that the evidence of PW31 in that regard goes to no issue. The law as stated earlier is settled that evidence led on any matter not pleaded goes to no issue. See Amadi V. Nwosu (Supra). Even if out of caution, we evaluate his evidence that votes were just credited to the 1st and 2ndRespondents by INEC officials, there was absolutely nothing beyond these empty viva voce testimony to demonstrate before the tribunal how this was done and by whom and how it affected the results in units 001, 002, 003, and 005. In any event under cross-examination PW31 stated that he does not work with INEC and never saw the voters register before the election and so does not know the actual number of registered voters. He also added that he cannot establish that the result sheet reflected the correct number of registered voters. If that is the position of PW31, one then wonders the basis for his assertion that the total number of voters on the register exceeded 750 in units 001 and 005. Further while in one breath, he asserts that votes credited to 1st and 2nd Respondents were awarded (paragraph 4(1) of his deposition), in another breath, he stated that entries in Forms EC8A indeed contained the outcome of the elections at units 001, 002, 003 and 005 but that they were not stamped (see paragraph 4(ii) of his deposition). These clearly inconsistent and contrary assertions by PW31, in our opinion undermine the credibility and veracity of his narrative. We have also looked at the Forms EC8A for units 001, 002, 003 and 005 i.e Exhibits 13, 13C, 13D and 13E and they were all duly stamped. Similarly this witness did not give a name to any one member or members of P.D.P who were eligible voters and who were allegedly not allowed to vote and by whom. Indeed nobody was produced to prove the assertion that he was eligible but was not allowed to vote or that he voted because he was induced with money or other material things. We therefore agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent that the failure to called any of the affected members allows for the application of the presumption under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011. The consequence of this is that the petitioners have failed to prove these allegations. The bottom line here is that with respect to Boripe Local Government, the evidence of PW31 is absolutely not cogent enough to support or sustain the allegations of electoral malpractices, and as a result we find no reason to disturb the result declared with respect to that local Government Area. We so hold. 4. EDE NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA. At pages 34 to 48 paragraph 42 of the petition, the Petitioners made extensive allegations of electoral malpractices in respect of 11 Wards in this Local Government as follows: Olaba/Atapora Ward 1 (Polling Units 1 to 10), Abogunde/Sagba Ward 02 (Polling Units 1 to 22) Ologun/Agbakin Ward 03 (Polling Units 1 to 12), Olusokun Ward 04 (Polling Units 1 to 10), Alusekere Ward 05 (Polling Units 1 to 10), Sabo/Agbongbe 1 Ward 06 (Polling Units 1 to 11), Sabo/Agbongbe 11 Ward 07 (Polling Units 1 to 11), Isibo/Buari-Isola Ward 08 (Polling Units 001 to 003), Apaso Ward 09 (Polling Units 1 to 10), Asunmo Ward 10 (Polling Units 001, 003 and 004) and Bara Ejemu Ward 11 (Polling Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 006 and 007). The net total of the units challenged in this Local Government are 117 units. In proof of these allegations in all these wards and units, the petitioners called only one witness PW35. His evidence is particularly interesting because of its trajectory. In his 9 paragraphs witness deposition, he stated that he is a member of P.D.P and served as the Local Government Collation Agent of the party in Ede North. He then went ahead to beautifully state how he got the information which formed the basis of his entire deposition and this can be summarized succinctly as follows: His deposition was made entirely from reports of P.D.P Ward Collation Agents in the Local Government who were directly responsible to him who in-turn got their information from polling unit agents of the party stationed in each of the units who monitored the elections and were responsible to the ward collation agents. This chain of narrative and the different levels of hearsay evidence without any doubt formed the basis of the evidence of PW35 and cannot be admissible in law to prove the contents of the allegations made in the petition. This witness candidly conceded under cross-examination that what he put in his deposition is what the polling agents told his collation agents who now reported to him. His deposition with respect to the conduct of elections in Ede North is clearly not with respect to what he personally witnessed at the election and accordingly amounts to hearsay evidence and worthless in so far as they do not relate to facts in issue which proceed from his personal knowledge. As we earlier held, we cannot ascribe any probative value to such evidence. See Jolayemi V. Alaoye (supra), Awuse V. Odili (supra). We are here again confronted with a situation where we have before us an elaborate pleading with no scintilla of evidence to support same. It follows that facts pleaded in respect of Ede North must necessarily be discountenanced as no evidence has been led to prove any fact therein. See Arabambi V. Advance Beverages Ind. Ltd (Supra). It may be necessary to state that the Respondents called three witnesses for this local Government, RW 6, RW 7 and RW 18 who were ordinary voters who voted in their respective units and similarly testified directly as to events that transpired in their presence and alluded to the peaceful conduct of the elections free of the allegations made by petitioners in their units. We consider it proper at this stage to note that in the course of cross examining RW 8 and RW18 and indeed some other witnesses of Respondents, the Petitioners Learned Counsel referred them to certain exhibits like the Forms EC8As, The Voters Registers etc, used in the conduct of the election and certain entries contained therein for purpose of showing some discrepancies as they appeared in the documents and perhaps to even question the credibility of such witnesses. The question to ask in this instance is whether such venture is of any real value to the case of Petitioners? We think not, and this is so because in most of the cases the witnesses were not the authors of these documents and therefore the value of their answers in relation to such documents would at best be minimal, if any at all. In some other instances, the witnesses were shown the Voters register, their picture on it and then questioned on either their date of birth or occupation at the time of the registration as appeared on the register without really showing how these acts affected the results of the election in the form EC8A for such units. Except in very few instances were some of the Respondents witnesses were Polling Agents who claimed to have signed the Polling unit resultsForms EC8As, the exercise undertaken by the Petitioners Learned Counsel ,in this respect, has not in our considered view added any serious value to the case of Petitioners. As a result, we find no reason whatsoever to disturb the results declared with respect to Ede North Local Government. We so hold. 5. EDE SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA. Here too, the petitioners made various allegations of Electoral malpractices at paragraph 43, pages 48 to 56 of the petition with respect to 10 wards as follows: Babanla/Agate Ward 01 (Polling Units 001 to 007), Kuye Ward 02 (Polling Units 001 to 003), Jagun/Jagun Ward 03 (Polling Units 001, 003 to 011), Alajue 1 Ward 04 (Polling Units 001 to 011), Alajue II Ward 05 (Polling Units 001, 002, 004, 006, 007 and 008), Olodan Ward 06 (Polling Units 001, 002 and 005), Babasanya Ward 07 (Polling Units 002 and 003), Sekona Ward 08 (Polling Units 001, 003 and 004), Oloki/Akoda Ward 09 (Polling Units 001 and 008) and Logun Ward 10 (Polling Units 001, 002, 004 to 008). The cumulative total of the units challenged are 47 units in this Local Government. In proof of these extensive allegations, the Petitioners here too called only one witness, PW30 who served as a Ward Supervisory/Collation Agent for his party in Kuye Ward 02 of Ede South Local Government which has only 3 polling units. As with most of the Local Governments treated, his evidence is similarly ward specific i.e ward 2. The legal effect here too is that the allegations with respect to the 44 other units of the remaining 9 wards are deemed as abandoned. The Respondents on their part called
35 RW 24 who served as the party agent for unit 4 of Ward 2. He testified to the orderly conduct of elections in his unit free of the allegations made by petitioners and that at end of the election ,he duly signed Exhibit 27C ,the form EC8A and that same was also signed by the agent of petitioners and then duly stamped by INEC. His direct evidence on what he saw at his unit was not shaken under cross examination. For the Petitioners as alluded to already, PW30 served as Ward Supervisor/Ward Collating Agent and in his evidence he stated that his party had polling agents in the units of his ward who reported what was happening in their respective units to him. This in law is hearsay evidence and inadmissible. He also added that he visited some of the units and that those he could not visit physically, he called the agents on phone to get the situation report. Now we note also that going through his deposition, there is absolutely no direction or indication of the aspect of the evidence he witnessed personally and that which was transmitted to him by the agents. There is also nothing in the evidence showing which of the units he visited physically and those he could not go to as alleged. In law as we have severally repeated in this judgment, this type of testimony clearly lacks credibility and ought to be rejected. See Gundiri V. Nyako (Supra) 211 at 240C. We also note that his evidence with respect to distribution of food, drinks and money to influence voters are clearly with respect to matters not pleaded at page 42 of the petition with respect to Kuye Ward 02 and are accordingly discountenanced. Under cross-examination, PW30 conceded that he signed the summary of result of his unit Exhibit 207 and that his party agents all signed the Forms EC8A for the four (4) units in his ward vide Exhibit 192(pages 8 to 11). As stated earlier, the implication or effect of signing these result sheets voluntarily by PW30 and the party agents is to authenticate or validate the results so declared and they cannot be heard to now turn around to deny the contents of the results sheet. See Gundiri V. Nyako (supra). Also under cross-examination, when shown the summary of the result of his unit Exhibit 207, which he duly signed he could not support the allegation of super-imposition; voters exceeding 750 or any evidence of over-voting or indeed demonstrate or support the evidence he led. Indeed when asked what super-imposition meant under cross-examination, his response that it meant “that our complaints were not attended to…” clearly shows that this witness is at best either confused or does not know what he is saying or at worst that he did not prepare the contents of his deposition despite his assertion that he wrote same. As is the case with some of the witnesses earlier evaluated, the evidence of this witness completely lacks probative value and clearly did not meet the threshold of proof required for the serious allegations made in Ede South Local Government. In totality, our finding here is that the Petitioners have again palpably failed to establish the various allegations in this Local Government with respect to the polling units complained of. Consequently, this tribunal sees no justifiable reason to interfere with the result of the Governorship Election as declared by the 3rd Respondent with respect to Ede South Local Government. We so hold. 6. EJIGBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT There are 11 wards in Ejigbo Local Government Area. The Petitioners are however querying the results in only 9 wards of this Local Government. They are not disputing the results in wards 7 and 8. The general complaints in all the units in the wards under contention is that the results on forms EC 8A and EC 8B in all the polling units are irreconcilable and unreliable. That votes were arbitrarily allocated to the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the 3rd Respondents. That in some polling units there was over voting. They allege intimidation, molestation and harassment of their agents. That there was no proper accreditation in the polling units. That the votes credited to the 2nd Respondent were not earned and should be deducted from the votes of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. In proof of these allegations, they have called 3 witnesses. Ajayi Jacob Ige, Raji Kayode and Adebayo Adekoya who testified as PW26 – PW28 respectively. Their written depositions are respectively found in Vol.II of the petition pages 395 – 397, 418 – 419 and 454 – 455. PW26 was the 2nd Petitioner’s ward supervisor for Elejigbo “D’/Ejemu ward 04, PW27 was the ward supervisor for Elejigbo/Ayegbogbo ward 5, while PW28 was the polling agent at Merin Mefon, Ola unit 001 Ola/Aye/Agurodo, ward 06. These witnesses have testified to only what happened in their respective wards. There being no evidence as regards the other 6 wards in the Local Government, also in contention we hold that the pleadings in respect therefore have been abandoned. We shall therefore consider whether the Petitioners have proved their allegations in the 3 wards for which evidence has been called. PW26 identified Exhibit 193, as containing the results he received from his agents at the various polling units after the election. The results from this ward are contained on pages 21 – 28 of Exhibit 193. That is 8 results from the 8 polling units in the ward. Apart from his general complaint that the entries on forms EC 8A and EC 8B in this ward are irreconcilable and unreliable, votes were arbitrarily allocated to 1st and 2nd Respondents, intimidation and harassment of their agent, no proper accreditation and over voting, his specific allegation as regards units 001, 002 and 007 is that forms EC 8A in these units were not stamped. We do not see how this has anything to do with the conduct of the election. At magistrate Court polling unit 003, and Idi-Oro unit 004, he alleges inconsistencies in the collation of results and recording on form EC 8A. No such inconsistencies have however been pointed out in his deposition. Further that in units 004, and 006, the total number of ballot papers used exceeded the total number of ballot papers issued to the polling unit. When confronted with page 24 of Exhibit 193, form EC 8A for unit 004, it became apparent that the total number of ballot paper used did not exceed the total number of ballot papers issued, as testified by him. He was also shown page 26 of Exhibit 193 – form EC 8A for unit 006. It did not also confirm his evidence that the total ballot papers used exceeded the number issued. While he says his name is on Exhibit 168B3 – form EC 8B, he denies the signature thereon. Having not proved the malpractices in this ward, the assertion of PW26 that these acts affected the out-come of the results in his ward cannot be correct. PW27 testified that there was over voting in the polling units in the ward. Asked what he means by over-voting, he said it is where the number of people who voted exceeded the number of people accredited. He was then shown Exhibit 168B4 – form EC 8B for the unit, to point out where over voting occurred. His response – “I cannot see in this document where the number of accredited voters exceeded the votes cast.” No document has been placed before the Tribunal showing that over-voting occurred in that ward. His evidence in paragraph 5h is that at Asalu/Akinde polling unit 003, the summation of the total number of ballot papers used and unused is less than the number of ballot papers issued for the unit. We do not see how this has occasioned any disadvantage to the Petitioners. The issue would have made sense if the sum total of used and unused ballot papers exceeded the number given to the unit. PW27 has also not shown any malpractices which have affected the overall results in his ward. PW28 is from ward 6 of the Local Government and he was a polling agent for the Petitioners. While in his deposition he said he was a polling agent at unit 01, under cross-examination he said he was the polling agent at unit 4 and not unit 01. According to him there was multiple voting, mutilation of ballot papers and voting by proxy. He said despite these irregularities the 2nd Petitioner won in his unit, but the result was cancelled. The result from this unit in form EC 8A is also not before the Tribunal. The fact of the cancellation of the results from this unit is confirmed by Exhibit 168B5 – form EC 8B. While the evidence of this witness from this unit is clearly not material to the Petitioners as it has not added any value to their case, it however confirms the fact that the 3rd Respondent was very diligent in its assignment, and where ever it perceived that election was marred by whatever reason, it cancelled such results. 7. IFELODUN LOCAL GOVERNMENT This Local Government has 9 wards and the Petitioners have pleaded malpractices in the conduct of the election in all the wards in the Local Government. Five witnesses have testified in proof of these alleged malpractices in these wards. These are PW13, PW14, PW16, PW17 and PW29. PW13 – Ganiyu Bashir Akani was the ward collation agent of the 2nd Petitioner at ward 1 collation centre. PW14 – Fashola Adebayo Mukaila was the 2nd Petitioner’s ward collation agent at ward 03. PW16, Adebisi Gbolagabe was the Local Government Collation agent for the Local Government . PW17 – Onedokun Wasil Olaitan
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
36 was the collation agent at ward 04, while PW29 – Lawal Falilu was the polling agent at Ojaoke/Ojaoke unit 004 of ward 1. The sworn deposition of PW13 is on pages 1539 – 1541 of Vol.IV of the petition. His evidence is based on the information he gathered personally and from the reports he received from the agents in the various polling units in the ward. His evidence is that election in the polling units was conducted improperly by the 3rd Respondent and this affected the outcome of the election. While he has testified that there was intimidation and harassment of voters especially PDP supporters’ he did not mention anybody who was so harassed, intimidated and prevented from voting. Nobody has also testified from that ward as having been harassed, intimidated and prevented from voting. He has also not mentioned any eligible voter from his ward that was prevented from voting as testified by him. No unqualified person who was allowed to vote has also been mentioned by him. Under cross-examination he said he does not know the unqualified voters as they came from Lagos. Asked how he knew that they came from Lagos, he said they were speaking “Lagos”. He testified that the entries on forms EC 8A and EC 8B from the polling units in this ward are irreconcilable and unreliable. Exhibit 194 pages 1 – 5 are forms EC 8A for the ward while Exhibit 169 is form EC 8B from the ward. He confirmed that these are the forms EC 8A he received from his agents at the conclusion of the election. While there are 8 units in the ward and he testified that all the agents in the 8 units submitted their results to him, no explanation has been given why only 5 out of the 8 are before the Tribunal. He also confirmed that all the agents signed the results. As at the date he made his deposition on 28/8/14 he had received the results and reports from all the agents within the ward, he was therefore in a position to state the actual number of legitimate votes the 2nd Respondent got from the ward. It is therefore not acceptable for him to simply allege that votes were arbitrarily allocated to the 1st and 2nd Respondents without given details. He testified that there were cases of over-voting in this ward. Under crossexamination, he said he cannot remember cases of over-voting. Over voting is a matter which should be apparent on the documents relied upon by the Petitioners. He said multiple voting is apparent in unit 3 of Exhibit 194. Clearly multiple voting cannot be apparent on a result form like Exhibit 194. He testified that many people voted by proxy. It is however not his evidence that such persons if any, only voted for 1st and 2nd Respondents. According to him, at Okeiroko ST/Baptist Day School, Ikirun, polling unit 001 there are discrepancies in the entries made on form EC 8A. Interestingly this was where he voted. Yet no details of such discrepancies have been pointed out in his statement. As stated earlier, he had access to this form EC 8A as at the time he made his statement. And none has been pointed out to the Tribunal. PW29 was the polling agent at unit 004 of this ward – that is Ajaoke/Ajaoke unit 004. He mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 15 of his deposition some people as those who were freely campaigning and sharing money to voters, and also intimidating PDP voters on election day. Asked if he made a report to that effect to the police, his response was in the negative. These are offences created under the Electoral Act and proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. No witness has testified before the Tribunal that he was induced in any way to vote for a candidate other than that of his/her choice. PW29 testified that he was prevented by INEC Officials from witnessing the accreditation exercise insisting that he brings a letter of introduction from INEC. That he reported this development to his ward collation officer who could not however resolve the matter. PW13 who was his ward collation agent did not however testify of any such incident having been reported to him. While PW29 testified that he was prevented from witnessing the counting process, he admits, under cross-examination to signing form EC 8A which is on page 3 of Exhibit 194. He did not say he was forced or threatened to sign the result. He did not also point out the discrepancies he said there are in the scores in his unit. The evidence of PW14 is found on pages 1569 – 1571 of Vol.IV of the petition. He was the collation agent at ward 03 ie Owode Ikirun ward 003. He testified that he received the results from all the agents in the 9 polling units within the ward and he analyzed all these results before he made his statement. Yet he did not give specific details of where there was over voting, multiple voting, voting by proxy, intimidation, arbitral allocation of votes, disenfranchisement and voting by ineligible voters and so on as testified to by him. His complaints as regards specific units relate mostly to none stamping of form EC 8A. He also testified to discrepancies on entries in form EC 8A in units 002 and 007. The forms EC 8A from this ward are contained on pages 13 – 18 of Exhibit 194. That is only 6 out of the 9 results are before the Tribunal. These are for units 001, 002, 006, 007, 008 and 009. Under cross-examination he was given these forms EC 8A to point out the alleged discrepancies and his response was “I cannot see clear to point out the irreconcilable differences in Exhibit 194. I will need a calculator, glasses and biro to show the discrepancies in the documents.” These are the same results he said he analyzed before making his statement. PW16 was the Local Government collation agent for the 2nd Petitioner on the election day. His evidence is found in Vol.IV pages 1533 – 1538. His evidence is based on personal knowledge and from reports given to him by the agents from the wards and at the polling units. He identified Exhibit 224 as the result given to him by the agents. He also confirms signing it. He voted at unit 006 of ward 01 on the day of the election. He said when he got to the venue he was asked to check his name on the list pasted on the wall. He found his name on the list and so informed INEC Officials and they ticked his name. This is the process of accreditation embarked upon that day as testified to by most of Petitioners’ witnesses. This is contrary to his evidence and that of PW13, who was the ward agent, that there was no proper accreditation in this ward. He has chronicled the alleged malpractices in the various wards within the Local Government. Most of these relate to non stamping of form EC 8A, discrepancies in the entries in form EC 8A, number of voters exceeding 750, irreconcilable and mutilation of figures. He said on the election day, APC members and leaders were moving freely from one polling unit to another campaigning and distributing food, drinks and money to voters on the queue and urging them to vote for APC. It is also his evidence that canopies were mounted in all the polling units in the ward by APC members as a ploy to induce voters. That Petitioners’ agents were harassed and intimidated on the instruction of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. That all their complaints to the security officers were not acted upon. He said although the 2nd Petitioner won the election in 4 out of the 12 wards in the Local Government, he still has problems with all the wards in the Local Government. Of all the 105 polling units in this Local Government, he said he witnessed the voting and counting only in his unit where he voted. Under cross-examination, his testimony is that – “For the accreditation, voting and counting in other units, I was told by the supervisors through handsets.” No such reports are before the Tribunal. His evidence concerning these issues in the various polling units in the wards therefore goes to no issue as they amount to inadmissible hearsay evidence. He was given Exhibit 209, forms EC 8B for the Local Government and asked to point out the discrepancies. His response was – “I cannot find any discrepancy on Exhibit 209, but there are things on it which I do not understand.” He also admits signing Exhibit 224 – form EC 8C for the Local Government. He said Exhibit 224 contains the results he received from the polling agents. It is not his evidence that he was forced to sign Exhibit 224, he cannot therefore seek to controvert the contents. The evidence of PW17 is on pages 1584 – 1586 of Vol.IV of the petition. He was the 2nd Petitioner’s collation agent in ward 04. Pages 19 – 25 of Exhibit 194 are copies of form EC 8A he received from the agents at the polling units in the ward after the election. All were duly signed by the agents. He testified that there was no proper accreditation. This fact did not however prevent him from voting. Although form EC 8B from this ward was signed, he said he was not the person that signed it. According to him he saw the form when he went to the collation centre at 10.30pm on the floor, already signed, and he picked it up. He admits that voting points were created in some units. After a careful review of the totality of the evidence of the 5 witnesses called from this Local Government, we do not find any evidence of non compliance with the relevant Electoral Law and the malpractices as alleged by the Petitioners, were clearly not established. 8.
ILESHA EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT. The Petitioners are complaining about irregularities in all the units of the 11 wards of this Local
Government. They have however called only one witness from this Local Government – Joseph Temitope who testified as PW39. His sworn deposition is found on pages 1259 – 1261 of Vol.IV of the petition. He was the ward supervisor/ward collation agent for the 2nd Petitioner at Ijoka ward 06 on the day of the election. Clearly he can only testify to what happened in his ward. There being no evidence in support of the pleading regarding the remaining 10 wards, they are deemed abandoned. We so hold. PW39, as a ward supervisor said he did not stay long at any one unit within the ward as he was going round attending to complaints from the agents in the unit. At the end of the election he collected the results from the agents. This is Exhibit 195 before the Tribunal. There are 8 units in this ward 06. The complaints in this ward, as others in other Local Government Areas is that entries made in forms EC 8A and EC 8B from the polling units are irreconcilable and unreliable. Eligible voters were unjustifiably disenfranchised while ineligible persons were allowed to vote in the polling units in the ward. Votes were arbitrarily allocated to the 1st and 2nd Respondents by agents of the 3rd Respondent. That there were cases of over-voting in some polling units. There was intimidation, harassment and molestation of Petitioners’ supporters by agents and supporters of the 1st and 2nd Respondents while the security agencies failed to do anything. The witness has in paragraph 7 of his sworn testimony listed the irregularities he discovered “from the reports and election results” he received from the PDP polling agents in his ward. Clearly therefore these alleged irregularities were not personally observed by him. No agent from any of the unit has come to testify before the Tribunal. Meanwhile his evidence is that all of them are alive. While he asserts that all the results in the various forms EC 8A are wrongly entered, he says he cannot produce the authentic result. He could not mention the names of those unregistered voters who voted, as according to him, he does not know them. He did not also examine the voters’ register as to know the registered voters. He could not also, under cross-examination when asked to do so, point out any irreconcilable and conflicting entries in Exhibit 195. The reason according to him is that “the entries thereon are not clear.” It is to be stated that these are the same results which he received from his agents and which formed the basis of his testimony. They suddenly became unclear. On the day of the election, he saw his name on the list pasted on the wall and he voted. He further testified under cross-examination that some PDP supporters were prevented from voting. He says he knows them very well as they all live in the same area and they are still alive. He did not mention any such person in his deposition. No such person has also testified before us. He testified that the total number of rejected votes on form EC 8B for the ward were arbitrarily filled without regard to the actual figures. Asked under cross-examination to state the actual figure, he said he does not know “as it’s a long time ago and I am not a computer.” Why did he not state the numbers in his statement which was made not long after the election and the forms were still at his disposal? He was given Exhibits 195 and 210 which are forms EC 8A and EC 8B respectively for the Local Government and asked to point out the cases of over voting. He was unable to do so. Clearly the evidence of this witness has not proved any of the alleged irregularities in this Local Government. 9. ILESHA WEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT. ILESHA WEST Local Government Area has 10 wards. The Petitioners are challenging the results returned from all the polling units in the 10 wards. They have pleaded the alleged irregularities in all the 10 wards. They have however called only one witness from this Local Government. That is Ajala Adewale Oluseye who testified as PW42. His sworn testimony is on pages 1380 – 1382 of Vol.IV of the petition. He was the ward supervisor/ward collation agent for ward 09 – Ereja ward. There are 10 units in this ward. There being no evidence in respect of the remaining 9 wards in this Local Government, we hold that the complaints therein have been abandoned by the Petitioners. The only result from this ward is that from unit 002 which is page 17 of Exhibit 196. It has been signed by the agent of the Petitioners. The complaint as regards this ward in the petition is that at unit 002 – the number of registered voters exceeded 750 as prescribed by law. That forms EC 8A for units 003, 004, 005, and 008 were not stamped as required by law. These forms are however not before the Tribunal although the witness said he collected them from the agents. The only complaint from this ward before the Tribunal therefore is that concerning unit 002. PW42 testified in paragraph 6a of his sworn deposition that the number of registered voters at this unit exceeded 750. When asked to look at page 17 of Exhibit 196, he said the number of voters recorded therein is 276. This is contrary to his evidence that it exceeded 750. In paragraph 6c he testified that the 1127 votes assigned to the 1st and 2nd Respondents from the ward were not earned but arbitrarily awarded. When asked to state the correct votes scored by these Respondents from the ward he said, “I cannot state the correct scores for 1st and 2nd Respondent because I was chased away and I ran for my life.” Upon further cross-examination he said he used the form EC 8B to write his statement. The said form EC 8B is however not amongst the 4 sheets of forms EC 8B from this Local Government which are before the Tribunal as Exhibit 211. In this Local Government too, the Petitioners have not proved any irregularities or malpractices as alleged. 10. IREPODUN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. In Irepodun Local Government Area, there are 11 wards. Here too the Petitioners are challenging the results from all the polling units in the wards. In proof of the alleged malpractices and irregularities they have called two witnesses from this Local Government. These are Jimoh Afeez Akinkunmi and Azeez Muftau Agboola who testified as PW24 and PW25 respectively. PW24, whose testimony is on pages 81 – 82 of Vol.II of the petition was the ward supervisor/collation agent of the 2nd Petitioner for ward 6, while PW25 says he was the collation officer of the 2nd Petitioner at the Local Government collation centre. Ward 06 is Bara ‘B’ and not Bara ‘A’ as pleaded on page 101 of the petition. This fact is confirmed by item 6 on page 187 of Exhibit 187 – a directory of polling units in the ward. The complaints in this ward as per the pleading on pages 101 – 102 of the petition are – (a) in Olobu Market unit 001 the number of registered voters as contained in form EC 8A exceeds 750. The form EC 8A is not stamped and the mutilated entries thereon are not counter-signed. (b) at Baba Odunayo Unit 005 form EC 8A was not stamped and the entries thereon are irreconcilable. (c) at Akinru I unit 006 and Olanipekun Unit 008 the forms EC 8A are unstamped. (d) entries on form EC 8A for Imam Arohun unit 011 are inaccurate and irreconcilable. PW24 says after the election he collected results of 11 units from his agents. There are however results from only 5 units tendered in evidence as Exhibit 197 pages 42 – 46. The sworn testimony of this witness is not different from the above pleading. He said he voted on the election day in unit 001. His evidence in chief is that the registered voters in his unit exceeded 750. Under cross-examination he says a voting point was created in his unit because the number of registered voters exceeded 300. He was given Exhibit 197 and asked to show the Tribunal the inaccurate and irreconcilable entries therein as testified to by him. His response was – “in unit 11 – Imam Arohun, the total votes recorded is 270, but by my calculation it is supposed to be 275.” He did not state the basis for his calculation. What he has stated however is that he was not at this unit when the votes were counted. He is therefore not in a position to challenge the results as reflected in form EC 8A. The evidence in chief of PW25 is found on pages 91 – 93 of Vol.II of the petition. That his duties as the Local Government collation officer included the receipt of complaints from the wards collation supervisors concerning the electoral forms and the entries made therein and bringing such complaints to the attention of the agents of the 3rd Respondent. That some of the complaints he received were inconsistencies in the electoral forms. That the votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents from all the polling units within the Local Government were obtained in a vitiating manner and circumstances. That in some polling units the votes cast exceeded the number of accredited voters and the number of voters in the register exceeding 750. He also complained that there was distribution of money, food and drinks to the security agents, electorates and INEC Officials. That he brought these complaints to the attention of
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 the 3rd Respondent but he did nothing. He mentioned some of the affected wards in the said Local Government, namely Olubu ‘A’ ward 01; Olubu ‘B’ ward 02, Olubu ‘C’ ward 03 and Olubu ‘D’ ward 04. Under cross-examination, he said he visited only 4 units on the day of election. There are about 127 units in the Local Government. His evidence is therefore basically what was told to him by his ward agents who in turn got such information from the polling agents. He confirmed that at the end of the election, the ward agents submitted written reports to him, which he gave to his lawyer. Out of the 11 wards in the Local Government, he has highlighted only 4. He admits signing Exhibit 225 which is form EC 8C for the Local Government. He also admits that the entries in Exhibit 225 are based on the entries in Exhibit 212 – pages 1 – 10, form EC 8B for the Local Government. He confirms under crossexamination that his evidence that votes credited to 1st and 2nd Respondents in all the polling units are unlawful votes obtained in a vitiating manner is based on information given to him by his agents. Asked to name the electorates that were given food and money in his unit where he voted on the day of the election (unit 005 of ward 05), he says he does not know them. RW13, RW14, RW15, RW17 and RW19 testified at the instance of the 1st Respondent. They were all polling agents of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in their respective units in the ward. RW13 – Akinola Sukurat Bolanle was the polling agent at unit 7 ward 2. RW14 - Ologunde Ademola was the polling agent at unit 12 ward 2, while RW15 – Rasheed Mukaila was the polling agent at unit 3 ward 2. RW17 – Oladeji Mutiu was the agent at unit 002 of ward 1 and RW19 – Atanda Isaac was the polling agent at Open Space Olotin unit 001 of ward 1. All these agents testified that they were at their respective polling units from 7am till when election was concluded. That accreditation commenced at about 8am and all the eligible voters were accredited, and all those who were accredited and waited to vote, were allowed to vote. After voting, the ballot papers were sorted out, counted and the results announced openly. The results were then entered in form EC 8A. It was stamped and signed by the Presiding Officer and each party agent given a copy. They all testified under crossexamination by counsel to the Petitioners that their activities on the day of election were restricted to their polling units. They all testified that election went on smoothly in their respective units and there was no protest from any agent after the results were announced. That all the agents signed on the original copy of form EC 8A. The result for unit 001 of ward 1 is contained on page 1 of Exhibit 197 (duplicate copy of form EC 8A). The certified true copy of the original copy of this result is on page 1 of Exhibit 74. Under cross-examination of RW19, Petitioners counsel made a heavy weather on some cancellations found on these Exhibits. We note that item 8 and s/no.15 on Exhibit 74 were cancelled. We also note that these cancellations were signed. The number of valid votes was changed from 135 to 127. The initial score for PDP was stated to be zero but changed to twenty seven. We find the evidence of these polling agents who remained at their polling units from beginning to conclusion of election, as to the conduct of the election, more reliable than the testimony of the ward agents/supervisors and Local Government collation agents who relied on information given to them by their agents at the polling units. We do not find the alleged malpractices in the election conducted in this Local Government on 9/8/14 proved. 11. IREWOLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. In Irewole, the Petitioners in their pleadings alleged that there are 11 wards and that the election in all the polling units of the 11 wards was marred by substantial non compliance with the Provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the Manual for Election Officials 2014 both of which were observed more in breach by the 3rd Respondent in the conduct of the election. The non compliance was not only substantial but substantially affected the outcome of the Election in all the polling units and the wards challenged such that the results returned there from do not represent the product of any proper election and ought to be disregarded or cancelled. The Petitioners further alleged that the election in all the wards was characterized by Electoral malpractices and that there was intimidation and harassment of voters especially the supporters of the Petitioners. That eligible voters were truly induced with money by members and supporters of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The Petitioners claimed that in all the units, the entries in forms EC 8A and EC 8B of the wards are irreconcilable and unreliable. The Petitioners further alleged that eligible voters were unjustifiably disenfranchised while ineligible persons were allowed to vote in the polling units in the ward. They complained that in polling unit 003, the result of the election was not recorded as required by law and Form EC 8A for the unit was not stamped. There were general allegations of non-recording of results in various units across the Local Government. In proof of all the above, however, the Petitioners called three witnesses, they are the PW18, PW19, and PW20 who were supervisors in wards 1, 5, and 6 respectively. The legal implication of this is that the Petitioners have abandoned their claim in the other wards and units. The PW18 who adopted his statement on oath as his evidence in this petition admitted signing Exhibit 213, the collated result of ward 1. However in his adopted statement at pages 492 - 494 vol.II of the petition, the PW18 stated that the result of the election at St. John Primary School polling unit 001 was not correctly recorded and that the result sheet for that unit was not also stamped. In paragraph 3h, the PW18 also stated that the total number of valid votes recorded in the result sheet was more than the total number of votes cast in unit 002. That the result forms for that unit were not stamped. Paragraphs 3i – p of the PW18 statement under reference complained of non stamping of result sheets and improper recording of valid votes cast. It will be difficult to believe and accept the testimony of the PW18 on non stamping of the result sheets and improper recording of result in the face of Exhibits 85 to 85A – J. Exhibits 85 to 85A –J bear the stamp of Independent Electoral Commission on the face of the documents and there is nothing to indicate improper recording of results. There is also nothing to show arbitrary allocation of votes in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. If there was any, it was incumbent on the PW18 to demonstrate same before the Tribunal. It is very important for the PW18 to have shown before the Tribunal such arbitrary and improper recording of votes cast. This he failed to do. Though the allegations of non stamping and signing of the results by INEC and party agents respectively are very serious which could result in the nullification of election result, as was decided in the case of Ohuabunwa v. Duru (2009) All FWLR, part 450, 651 at 656 ratio 11, it must be proved by credible evidence before the Tribunal by the Petitioners as there is a presumption of correctness of results declared by INEC until it is rebutted. On the allegations of harassment and intimidation as contained in the deposition of the PW18, the law is clear that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as they are like other criminal offences, thus the Court of Appeal Enugu Division in the case of Ogu v. Ekweremadu (2005) All FWLR part 260 page 1, at page 4 ratio 3 held amongst other things as follows:“Under a system of civil law, the burden is on the party alleging the commission of an offence to prove the allegation, by the same token, the standard of proof of election offences like other offences must be beyond reasonable doubt” The cases of Ezike v. Ezeugwu (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.236, 462 and Etuk v. Isemin (1992) NWLR (Pt.236) 402 were cited with approval. Beyond the above, such allegations of intimidation and harassment must also be traced to the Respondents or the Respondents’ agents. In the instant case all the PW18 said was that eligible voters were harassed and intimidated by supporters of the 1st Respondent, but there was no verifiable or credible evidence linking the 1st Respondent with the alleged acts. Allegations of harassment and intimidation in our considered opinion have not been proved. Again the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division in the case of Chime v. Ezea (2009) All FWLR (Pt.470) page 660 at 670 ratio 9 held: “Irregularities at an election which are neither the act of a candidate nor linked to him cannot affect his election. In the instant case, the Respondents before the trial Tribunal complained about irregularities in allotting of votes to the first Appellant and that there were no collation of results in places where there were voting due to non-availability of result sheets. The two hurdles the Respondents were to climb through, adducing cogent evidence were:(1) Whether the irregularities, particularly, allotment of votes have been established. (2) Whether the allotment of votes can be attributable to the Appellants since there was no evidence on record from which irregularity of allotment of votes can be adduced, this was not established by the Respondent against the Appellants in the case”
37 In the case before us, it is our firm view that there was no legally acceptable evidence to hold that the allegations of intimidation and harassment were credibly established against the 1st and 2nd Respondents. In addition to all the above, the PW18 admitted under cross-examination that his claims as in paragraphs 3j – p in his statement on oath are what his agents told him. This amounts to hearsay which is inadmissible and that is why the Court of Appeal in the case of Olafemi v. Ayo (2010) All FWLR (Pt 526) pages 547 at 552 ratio D has this to say: “ Where a witness gives evidence on a vital fact relying on information by another person, the evidence amounts to hearsay and would have no evidence value. The hearsay evidence would not be that of an eye witness. In the instant case, since the 1st Respondent cannot be at all the affected wards at the same time, reports of the criminal acts of the Appellants and the things were passed down to him which reports amount to hearsay evidence —————” The cases of Ajadi v. Ajibola (2004) All FWLR (Pt.220) 1273 and Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt.910) 241 were referred to. PW19 and PW20 similarly adopted their statements on oath as their evidence. They were not party polling agents but ward supervisors in wards 5 and 6 respectively. In his statement which he adopted, the PW19 raised allegations of irreconcilable and unreliable entries in Forms EC 8A and EC 8B for polling units in the ward, that eligible voters were unjustifiably not allowed to vote while ineligible persons were allowed to vote. Again that results were written with votes merely allocated to the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the 3rd Respondent’s agents. There were cases of over voting in the polling units. PW19 claimed that there were wide spread cases of intimidation, molestation, and harassment of the agents and supporters of the Petitioners by the agents and supporters of the 1st and 2nd Respondents while members of the security agents failed to do anything. The PW19 further said that forms EC 8A in units 003, 004, 005 and 008 were not stamped and that in unit 004, the total number of valid votes recorded in the result sheets exceeded the total number of votes cast. PW19 during cross-examination admitted signing the results Exhibit 213. He was also accredited and voted. The entries in Exhibit 89c were not disputed by the PW19 and he also failed to demonstrate before the Tribunal what he claimed to be over voting in unit 004. His allegation of non stamping of forms EC 8A for units 003, 004, 005 and 008 was not established. See Exhibits 89, 89c, 89f and 89G. On the whole it is our view that the PW19 evidence added no value to the Petitioners’ case. As we have said before, the PW20 was a ward supervisor, he also made allegations of unreliable entries in forms EC 8A and EC 8B for the polling units in the ward ie (ward 6). That eligible voters were disallowed to vote while ineligible voters were allowed to vote. That votes were merely allocated to the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the 3rd Respondent’s agents. In paragraph 3b – j of his deposition on oath, he alleged that there were wide spread cases of intimidation, molestation, and harassment of the agents and supporters of the Petitioners by the agents and supporters of the 1st and 2nd Respondents while members of the security agencies failed to do anything. That there was no proper accreditation of voters in the polling units in the ward. PW20 stated that in units 001 and 010, the total number of valid votes recorded in the result sheets exceeded the total number of valid votes cast in the units. PW20 further claimed in paragraph 3i of his deposition that the results as stated in forms EC 8A therein were not stamped. However under cross-examination, the PW20 admitted that he voted on the day of the election at unit 3. That there are 12 units in his ward, but of the 12 units, he identified the results in 10 units which the Petitioners are challenging. PW20 also admitted that on the day of the election, he was going round the various units. PW20 admitted that he instructed all their polling agents to sign the results of the ward due to the threat to their life. A careful consideration of the evidence of the PW20 shows that he voted after due accreditation on the day of the election. He could not however demonstrate to the Tribunal the alleged over voting in the face of Exhibit 248 (the register of voters) for the ward and units and Exhibit 198 which contains entries in respect of unit 003 ward 6. It was also clear that the results were duly stamped as shown in Exhibits 90B, 90C, 90E, 90F, 90H and 90J. Forms EC 8A as it affects polling units 008, 009, 011 and 012 bear the stamp of the presiding officer with his signature. It is clear from all that we have said that the allegations made by PW20 of over voting, molestation of supporters of the Petitioners, and improper accreditation were not proved. 12. IWO LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Out of the 144 polling units in the 15 wards in Iwo Local Government Area, the Petitioners challenged the elections in only 53 polling units. In proof of their allegations, they called only two witnesses; they are the PW21 and PW22. The PW21 was a polling agent for the Petitioners. He was in charge of unit 11. His testimony at pages 1485 to 1486 Vol.IV of the Petitioners petition dwell on the following allegations:Paragraphs – “2, That I know that at my polling unit some voters were denied accreditation, and were not allowed to vote even though they came with their permanent voters card to the unit. 3, I witnessed the election at my unit, money was shared to voters at the queue, open campaign for votes, sharing of food and drink by Mr. Majester and other APC members at the unit. 4, That I know as a fact that Alhaji Dr. Ashifanu came with several women in purdah and these women carried out multiple voting at the unit and the security officers at the unit did not stop them at all and these continued till the end of voting at the unit. In the first instance, sharing of money, food or any other gift during election amount to bribery and if proved amounts to serious electoral malpractices. To establish this, it has to be shown that either the candidate directly induced voters or through his acknowledged agent authorized what was done or subsequently ratified it. See the case of Musa and Ors v. National Electoral Commission and Ors (1989) 1 NSPLR 20 at 36. Again from the PW21’s evidence as reproduced, his claim that some potential voters were denied accreditation was not established before the honourable Tribunal. No witness came before us to say he or she was denied accreditation, or given food and money to cast his or her vote for a particular candidate. Finally, his allegation of multiple voting was also not substantiated. If there was multiple voting as claimed by the PW21, he ought to have demonstrated this before the Tribunal showing very clearly the specific areas of over voting or multiple voting. In fact all the allegations by the PW21 in his adopted statement on pages 1485 – 1486 Vol.IV of the petition were not proved. On PW22, his statement on oath also bothers on non-accreditation of voters, voters register not ticked, threat by a group of people called “Jaishu Tahun” and one Mr. Dauda to kill all PDP supporters and anyone who cast vote for PDP. Irreconcilable entries in forms EC 8A and forms EC 8B in his ward and unit. Inexplicable and non-initialed alterations in forms EC 8B, open campaign during the election and inducement of voters with food and drinks. Some of these allegations of intimidations and threat to life, are criminal in nature. It was expected of the Petitioners or those of his supporters or agents who were so threatened or intimidated to report to the security agencies or a petition sent to the police authority including all the threats and intimidations. There is no proof of any report made to the police. The witness did not show to the Tribunal any altered result that was not initialed nor did he demonstrate before the Tribunal his alleged conflicting entries in forms EC 8A and EC 8B, in any of the units challenged. A mere allegation that strange faces and or persons who were not registered voted is not enough in an election petition. It must be proved by the Petitioners that such unregistered voters voted and that they voted for the Respondents and that the result of the election was affected to their disadvantage. The evidence of the PW22 was short of the above requirement. His evidence in our mind lacks legal value. We observed that the Petitioners did not field witnesses in 91 polling units in the ward. They are considered abandoned. The allegations in this Local Government were similarly not proved. 13.
OBOKUN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. In Obokun Local Government, there are 10 wards and 83 polling units. The allegations of the
38 Petitioners are in respect of 30 polling units in 9 wards. The wards are Ibokun ward 01, polling units 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 007, and 008. Ipetu Ile/Ada Owode ward, 02 polling units 005, 006, and 008. Ila hun/Ikinyinwa ward 03, polling units 002 and 006. Ilase/Idominasi ward 04, polling units 001, 002, 004 and 006. Esa Oke, ward 7 polling units’ 002, 003, 004, 009, 011, 012 and 013. Otan – Ile ward 8, polling units 001 and 005. Esa Odo ward 9, polling unit 006. In proof of the claim in the above wards and units, the Petitioners called two witnesses; they are PW40 and PW43 in respect of wards 7 and 8. The PW40 made a written statement on oath which he adopted as his evidence before this Tribunal during the trial. His testimony as contained in his statement on pages 887 to 889 Vol. III of the petition is not remarkably different from the testimonies of all other witnesses for the Petitioners. It also bothers on improper accreditation, conflicting or irregular and incorrect entries in forms EC 8A and EC 8Bs. He was the PDP ward supervisor and Collation Agent. In spite of all the allegation of electoral malpractices in his deposition which he adopted before us as his evidence in this petition, the PW40 admitted under cross-examination that he voted but after much troubles or difficulties. That there are 13 units in his ward and there were PDP agents in all the units. PW40 identified Exhibit 200, pages 19 – 25 when it was shown to him. They are the results received or collected from all the units in his ward. He admitted signing Exhibit 175 B5, which is form EC 8B. His name is also on the result sheets contrary to his allegation or claim in paragraph 6c of his deposition which he adopted as his evidence in this case. He could not also point out any discrepancies or improper entries in forms EC 8A and EC 8B. PW40 identified his signature on Exhibit 215 (form EC 8A). Further cross-examined, PW40 stated that he cannot tell the number of ballot papers used as he is not a computer wizard; he could not tell the number of valid votes cast for unit 9. He does not know the number of ballot papers rejected. That as a supervisor, he did not remain in a particular place. He was moving around. According to him, he personally witnessed the collation of the result in unit 4 and got the other results from his field agents through forms EC 8A. The evidence of this witness is neither here nor there. We wonder how he has to complain against the result of election in which his party agents were in all the units and signed all the results as could be gleaned from the Exhibits before the Tribunal. He personally voted after accreditation. He signed the results. Nobody who was prevented from accreditation and voting was called to testify. PW40 failed also to demonstrate before the Tribunal any other result that is authentic apart from the CTC of the result tendered by them before the Tribunal. The difficulties or troubles he faced or encountered during accreditation was not established before the Tribunal. His evidence again in our mind does not advance the case of the Petitioners. The PW43 statement can be found at pages 912 to 914 Vol.3 of the petition. He adopted same as his evidence in this case before the Tribunal. He was the collation officer for PDP in ward 8 and voted in unit 002. The PW43 in spite of his allegations and claims in his deposition admitted voting after he checked and found his name in the voters register pasted on the wall in his polling unit. He admitted before the Tribunal he voted for the candidate of his choice. He acknowledged receipt of Exhibit 200 pages 26 – 27, 27 (Form EC 8A). He identified Exhibit 175BC though bearing his signature but denied ever signing same. He admitted that the signatures in his statement on oath and Exhibit 175 BC may be his, but he did not sign Exhibit 175 BC. However, simple but careful comparison of the PW43 signature on Exhibit 175 – BC and his statement shows no remarkable differences. In our view, PW43 signed Exhibit 175 BC despite his denial. Again a careful examination of Exhibit 200 pages 26 – 27 shows the signatures of the parties’ agents including that of the 2nd Petitioner. The denial of the signature by the PW43 at this stage is rather too late. It does not help this case either. Exhibit 215 page 6 bears the name and signature of the PW43. He cannot deny it at this stage. Further, under cross –examination by learned counsel to the 2nd Respondent, the PW43 admitted before the Tribunal, that Exhibit 215 is the collated result for his ward and that in unit 004, A.P.C. scored 100 votes while PDP scored 124 votes and that the PDP won, but they struggled to win that unit. Yet PW43 insisted that the entries in that unit were wrong in that the PDP ought to have earned 300 valid votes and not 124. He however also failed to show the basis for these figures. There was no concrete evidence to show why the correct scores was not entered for PDP. The PW43 maintained that there was no accreditation yet he was accredited and voted for the candidate of his choice. PW43 failed to establish his allegations as contained in his paragraphs 6E, 6J and 6I. The alleged difference in the entries in forms EC 8A and EC 8B were not also established before us. Over voting, intimidation, harassment of voters as claimed by the PW43 in his deposition were also not substantiated by credible evidence. He failed to demonstrate before the Tribunal, how votes in units 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were manipulated in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the 3rd Respondent. All the above notwithstanding, a person who participated in an election by voting after due accreditation and freely moving round the various other units other than the one in which he voted, cannot seriously complain of harassment and intimidation without credible and acceptable evidence. If there were registered voters who were prevented from accreditation and voting, it is left for the Petitioners to call such witnesses. It is also incumbent on the Petitioners who are alleging irreconcilable entries to show and prove same. PW43’s evidence is lacking in legal value, it goes to no issue. The Petitioners have failed to prove their case in respect of Obokun Local Government Area. 14. OLA-OLUWA LOCAL GOVERNMENT. In Ola –Oluwa Local Government, there are 10 wards and 52 polling units. The Petitioners’ allegations are in respect of 22 polling units in the 10 wards – They are :- (1) Telemu ward 1, polling units 003, and 004. Ogbaagba II ward 04, polling unit 001. Ikire Ile/Iwora ward 5 polling units 001 and 002. Isero/Ikonifin ward 06 polling units 004, 005 and 006. Obamoro/Ile Ogo ward 07, polling unit 005. Bode – Osi ward 08 polling unit 002, 004 and 005. Ajagba/Iwooke ward 09 polling units 001 and 003. Asa Ajagunlase ward 010, polling units 003 and 008. In proof of the various allegations of electoral malpractices in their pleadings in pages 133 to 135 of the petition, the Petitioners called only one witness, PW37, who was a ward supervisor in respect of Telemu ward 001. The Petitioners’ complaints range from non stamping of forms EC 8A used in certain units; particularly unit 001 in ward 02, unit 001 in ward 04 and unit 001 in ward 005. They also complained of alterations in ward 06 unit 004, that form EC 8A used in this ward has alterations not counter signed by the appropriate officer. Same complaints in respect of unit 002 ward 08, and unit 001 and 003 in ward 09. Much as these complaints are serious which can alter the results of elections, they must be substantiated by convincing and credible evidence by the party alleging or asserting. As we have observed earlier on, the PW37 was fielded by the Petitioner and he adopted his statement under oath as his evidence in this petition. However under cross-examination by the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent, the PW37 admitted that his complaints relate only to ward 1 unit 003 CDC Primary School Telemu 1. He confirmed the result in form EC 8B and also confirmed his signature in Exhibit 176. The PW37 who said he personally visited the 6 units in his ward maintained that he personally witnessed all the irregularities perpetrated by the Respondents. However, it is clear from Exhibits 201, and 172 that he signed the results. He also failed to show before the Tribunal any result sheet without the official stamp of the officials who conducted the election, neither did he show any altered entry not initialed or counter-signed. Irreconcilable entries as alleged in the pleadings and the witness deposition were not also proved. Apart from all the above, the Petitioners did not call witnesses in respect of the other units. It means they are abandoned. From all we have said, it is obvious that the various malpractices in the election in Ola–Oluwa were not proved. 15.
OLORUNDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT. In Olorunda Local Government, there are 11 wards and 116 polling units. The Petitioners complaints or allegations is in respect of 86 polling units in 11 wards which are as follows: Agowonde ward 01, polling units 001 to 013, Balogun ward 02, polling units 001 – 010, Akogun ward 03 polling units 001, 002, 004, 005, 006, 007 – 010; Atelewo ward 04, (polling unit 001 – 011, Owoope ward 05, polling unit 001 – 010, Owode 1, ward 06, polling units 001 – 009, Owede II ward 07 polling unit 001 – 008. Ayeforo ward 08 polling unit 001 – 012. Oba – Ile ward 09, polling units 001, 008, 009 and 010, Oba – Oke ward
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 010, polling units, 001; 004, 005 and 007, Ilie ward II, polling units 001, 002 006, 008, 009 and 010. In proof of their allegations in the above wards and units in Olorunda Local Government, the Petitioners called 7 witnesses, they are PWs7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 23. In all, only the PW23 was a polling agent. The other 6 witnesses were ward supervisors for wards 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Generally speaking, all the witnesses, i.e. PW7 to PW12 and PW23’s complaints or allegations are quite similar if not the same. They are, that there was no proper accreditation; unqualified and unregistered voters voted. Several registered voters were prevented from voting. That the total votes cast were more than the number of voters accredited. That the security agents did nothing in the face of the brazen electoral malpractices that were going on in their presence. Furthermore that votes were arbitrarily allocated to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. In spite of all these complaints/allegations, all the witnesses herein voted on the day of the election after accreditation, and other than the PW23 who was a polling agent, all others were ward supervisors who collected results from their agents in the various units. All signed the various results they are now disputing and were unable to produce or provide a more authentic result to substantiate their claim. The PW7 under cross-examination identified and confirmed Exhibit 202, i.e form EC 8A, signed by his party agent. He also identified the CTC of form EC 8B which he also personally signed as a supervisor for the 2nd Petitioner. In answer to the question put to him, he said he saw unregistered and unqualified persons thumb printing ballot papers but he does not know who they voted for. In paragraph 12c of his deposition, he said the total number of votes cast were more than the total accredited voters. However this same witness saw Exhibits 202 and 217, and could not identify the over voting as claimed in paragraph 12c of his deposition. He was accredited in his unit where he voted; all that happened in the other units in his ward he was told. It is hearsay and inadmissible. The PW8 who as we said earlier was a supervisor for his ward also admitted that he voted on the day of the election in unit 8, after due accreditation. The units results available for his ward were two which he signed. See Exhibit 217 pages 22 – 23. PW8 was unable to substantiate his claim of fabrication of results in form EC 8A Exhibit 202 nor was he able to prove his allegation of arbitrary allocation of votes to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Also PW9 identified Exhibit 202 and the 9 sheets (results received from his agents) from other units of ward 6. Exhibit 238 written reports he received from his field party agents was tendered through him. He admitted voting in unit 7. PW9 also confirmed during the trial, that Exhibit 202, pages 45 – 53 were duly signed by their party agents. Though unqualified voters voted according to his deposition, he does not know the number of such unqualified voters who voted. The evidence of the PW9 also lacks probative value. We do not see how a witness who went through accreditation, voted and signed the relevant results collated will turn around to question the authenticity and credibility of such result. PW9 was in his unit during the election, again he claimed to move round the 9 units during the election. If he had first hand or direct knowledge of what happened during the election in all the units, then there was no need receiving reports from the agents. He should be able to make report of what he saw in all the units. The reports of the agents are of no moment in this case. On the PW10, he also tendered Exhibit 389, four (4) copies of reports filed by his field agents. These reports lack value and do not help the Petitioners’ case. The PW10 under cross-examination identified Exhibit 202 pages 53 – 61 as the signed results given to him by his agents. He admitted that his name is on Exhibit 217 (form EC 8B) which he also signed. Further cross – examined, he admitted that while in his unit where he voted, he cannot tell what was going on in other units. His allegations of underage voters participating in the election including unregistered voters, were again not proved by any iota of evidence. PW10 evidence in our mind is not credible. PW11 according to him covered the 12 units in ward 8. He confirmed five (5) of his party agents signed Exhibit 202 i.e. form EC 8A and he signed form EC 8B as the collation officer for his party PDP in ward 8. PW11 confirmed the Petitioners had agents in all the units; he said their agent at unit 9 was sent away but did not disclose the name or identity of the person who did. That about 400 people forced him to sign the result in his unit but cannot identify anybody amongst them. The PW11 also failed to sustain his claim of the unqualified, unregistered and under aged persons who voted. He mentioned one Ademola Adesina as their party agent in unit 9, Adeleke Nafiu as their agent in unit 8, but they were not called as witnesses. From all we have said, it is clear that all the allegations by the PW11 are unsubstantiated. The PW12 who was the ward 10 supervisor said he registered in unit 9, and tendered the CTC of the voters register for the 10 units, which is Exhibit 241 in this petition. As a supervisor, he signed Exhibit 213 (form EC 8B) page 9. He collected the results from 11 units. That out of the 11 units, only results from 4 units were tendered. He is surprised. The legal implication of this is clear, the results of the 7 units are abandoned, they are no more in issue in this case. Furthermore, that he signed the results of the 4 units tendered without more, is enough and safe to assert the correctness of the results until it is proved otherwise. There is nothing however in the evidence of the PW12 to successfully dispute the results of the 4 units in this case. The allegations of the PW12 in his deposition are not different from the allegations made by the other witnesses. From paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of his deposition; he claimed that there was inducement of voters, unregistered and unqualified voters voted etc. However a comparison of Exhibit 241, CTC of voters register for ward 10 unit 9, Exhibit 202 pages 74 – 77 and Exhibit 217, clearly show that the allegations and claims by the PW12 are not true. There was no cogent evidence to prove the alleged inducement of voters neither was there any credible evidence to prove the claim of the unlawful votes cast by unregistered and unqualified voters, more so when he the PW12 admitted signing the results of the ward as a supervisor Exhibit 217. Having signed the results, it is not expected that the same PW12 could turn around to dispute the correctness of same. Again, his allegations as stated in his deposition cannot be sustained. Apart from the units results tendered in this petition, all the others are hereby regarded as abandoned. The PW23 was the only polling agent amongst the witnesses, and his deposition is at pages 997 to 998 Vol.III of the petition. His allegations are the same as all the other witnesses. In spite of the fact that his name and signature are on Exhibit 202 page 46 he denied ever signing same. His evidence did not add any value to the Petitioners case. The 1st Respondent on his part called 4 witnesses in respect of Olorunda Local Government Area. They are the RW1, RW2, RW3, and RW4, who were ordinary voters, voted according to them after due accreditation. They voted in their various units and maintained that there was no harassment and no intimidation of any kind. Their evidence to us appear to be more credible as it is as to what they witnessed personally and not reports from any other persons/or agents. Their testimonies were not discredited by cross-examination. 16. ORIADE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. The PW32 and PW34 who were wards collation agents for PDP are the only witnesses called by the Petitioners in Oriade Local Government. There are however 12 wards and 111 polling units. The Petitioners’ allegations are in respect of 30 polling units in 7 wards which means they have abandoned their claims in 5 wards and 81 polling units. In a nut shell, the Petitioners pleaded that in Oriade Local Government in which the election is being challenged, was marred by non compliance substantially with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the Manual for Election Officials 2014, both of which were observed more in breach by the 3rd Respondent in the conduct of the election. That the non-compliance was not only substantial, but substantially affected the election in the polling units being challenged such that the results returned there from do not represent the product of any proper election and ought to be disregarded or cancelled. The polling units and the wards in question are as follows:- Erin-Oke, ward 01, polling unit 007, Erin-Ijesa ward 02, polling units 001, 003, 005 and 008, Ijebu-Jesa ward 03, polling units 001, 002, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 014 and 017, Iwoye ward 04, polling units 004, 005, 006, 007, and 008, Ikeji-Arakeji ward 07, polling units 005, 006, 007 and 008. Apoti Daghaja ward 08 polling units 001, 008, and 012, Erinmo/Iwaraja ward 12, polling units 003, 005, and 006. The Petitioners’ grudge against the election in all the above wards can again be summarized as follows:-
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 (1) Irreconcilable entries in forms EC 8A and EC 8B. (2) Arbitrary allocation of votes to the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the 3rd Respondent. (3) Intimidation, molestation and harassment of their supporters and agents by agents and supporters of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the presence of security agents. (4) Non stamping of form EC 8A as required by law. See page 149 paragraphs 53 a – g and page 150 paragraphs a – e of the Petitioners’ pleadings. In fact the main complaint of the Petitioners in respect of the election in this Local Government Area, is the non – stamping of form EC 8A in nearly all the units. In his deposition at pages 1636 to 1637 Vol.IV of the petition, the PW32 who as we have noted was a ward supervisor for the Petitioners alleged a number of irregularities. He alleged in paragraph 4 of his statement that party agents at the polling units of the wards were not allowed access to see and observe the electoral materials and witness the electoral exercise. When they protested, the electoral officials and the security agents either ignored them or threatened to send them away entirely. Paragraphs 6 – 10 of his deposition contain allegations of wide spread over-voting, multiple voting and voting by proxy in the polling units leading to cases of total votes cast exceeding number of accredited voters. That notable A.P.C. members did embark on campaign during the election inducing voters with drinks, food and money. The above allegations are very serious electoral irregularities if they are proved as required by the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). In an attempt to prove these allegations however, the PW32 said he personally observed all the malpractices and also gathered information from their field agents. He however failed to name specifically the wards and units he noted the alleged malpractices and those by his polling agents. Apart from his complaint of arbitrary allocation of votes to the 1st and 2nd Respondents in ward 8 Apoki/Daghaja units 001, 008, and 012 and Iwaraja ward 12, he did not mention any other ward or unit where he observed election irregularities personally. Every other allegations were generally mentioned. Apart from what he saw and sensed, his agents reports as shown herein are mere hearsay and therefore inadmissible. In spite of his allegation in paragraph 6 of his deposition, the PW32 admitted under cross – examination that he voted on the day of the election. This simply means that he went through accreditation. Again, PW32 failed to show when confronted with Exhibit 203, (form EC 8A) any record of over voting, or multiple voting. Exhibit 203, shows the signatures of the agents of the Petitioners. The agents were not called to deny if the signatures therein were not their own. It will be difficult for the Petitioners to deny the authenticity of the results bearing the signatures of their agents who observed the elections personally. Finally, the PW32 did not at the trial show any of the forms not bearing the official stamp of the presiding officers. PW32’s allegations are not proved. The statement and evidence of PW34 even under cross- examination is similar to that of the PW32, except that he denied signing the result shown to him, Exhibit 144B. All the same, Exhibit 144B bears the official stamp of the presiding officer. This is clear on the face of the Exhibit. The allegations of the Petitioners in Oriade Local Government again cannot be said to have been proved. It was observed that majority of the Petitioners’ witnesses were collation officers and not polling agents. On this, the Court of Appeal in the case of Ajimobi v. I.N.E.C. (2009) All FWLR (Pt.1 – 199) page 91 at 93 ratio held:“Only polling agents are material witnesses to establish and prove allegations of electoral malpractices. In the instant case, the Petitioner presented evidence of 11 persons to cover one hundred and sixty (160) polling units of allegedly affected areas of Ogbomosho e.t.c. clearly; the 11 witnesses are inadequate to prove any allegation of malpractice and other offences alleged by the Appellant” This case is in all fours with the case at hand as ward collation/supervisors and not polling agents were the witnesses fielded by the Petitioners in proof of their case. See also the case Yusuf v. Obasanjo (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.956) 96. The allegations of intimidations, threat to life against the Respondents particularly the 1st and 2nd Respondents were serious and the Petitioners needed to do more than identifying them and to show the veracity of their position. This, they failed to do. 17.
OSOGBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT In Osogbo Local Government Area, the complaints of the Petitioners relate to all the 15 wards in the Local Government. They have in pages 154 – 173 of their petition chronicled their grievances in all the 15 wards. It is their contention that all the votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the 3rd Respondent from 152 polling units out of the 227 polling units within these wards are unlawful votes as they were obtained in a manner that is not in compliance with the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). In proof of these allegations they called 5 witnesses, who testified before this Tribunal as PW2 – PW6. They have also tendered in evidence duplicate copies of form EC 8A, that is Exhibit 204, being the results from the various wards and units within the Local Government. Also before the Tribunal as Exhibit 179 are a series of forms EC 8B from this Local Government. The 5 witnesses called by the Petitioners were supervisors in their respective wards within the Local Government. PW2, Prince Kolapo Sikiru whose sworn testimony is found on pages 688 – 690 of Vol.II of the petition was the ward supervisor for Ataoja A ward 01 of the Local Government. PW3 – Gbadebo A. Adeyemo was the ward supervisor for Ataoja B ward 02. His evidence in chief is found on pages 697 – 699 of Vol.II of the petition. The supervisor for Ataoja C ward 03 was Oladimeji Sulaiman who testified as PW4. His evidence is on pages 706 – 708 of Vol.II of the petition. PW5 – Omojaro Oladepo, whose sworn testimony is on pages 721 – 723 of Vol.II of the petition was the ward supervisor for Ataoja ward 04. The supervisor for Hagun B ward 6 of Osogbo was Kola Olawide. He testified as PW6. His evidence in chief is found on pages 743 – 745 of Vol.II of the petition. The evidence of these witnesses relates to what happened in their respective wards on the day of the election. There is no evidence in support of the malpractices alleged in the remaining 10 wards of the Local Government. We therefore hold that the pleadings relating to these 10 wards have been abandoned. We shall therefore focus our attention on the 5 wards in which evidence has been called. It is the general testimony of these witnesses that by virtue of their duties as ward supervisors they were coordinating and supervising the activities of their agents in the various polling units within the ward. They were also receiving reports from these agents and at the end of the election, collected the unit results from the agents. These units results contained in form EC 8A are before the Court as Exhibit 204. It became clear from their respective cross-examination by counsel to the Respondents that they did not stay in any particular unit from the beginning to the end of voting on that day. In Ataoja A, ward 01, there are 19 polling units. It is the pleading of the Petitioners, supported by the evidence of PW2 that the election in all the units in this ward was not free and fair as there was no proper accreditation as votes were merely ascribed to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. It is the evidence of PW2 that in units 01, 04, 09, 010, 012, 016, and 017 agents of the Petitioners were harassed and prevented from doing their job by supporters of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. That eligible voters who were supporters of the Petitioners were not allowed to vote by supporters of the 2nd Respondent and the officials of the 3rd Respondent did not allow their agents to know the quantity of the electoral materials before the commencement of the election. That at Winjobi Street unit 001, the entries in form EC 8A cannot be reconciled, while at unit 002 ballot papers were not accounted for on form EC 8A, which was also not stamped. That also at units 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 010, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017 and 018 forms EC 8A were not stamped. That at units 010 and 013, form EC 8A contains entries that are in conflict. It is the further evidence of PW2 that voters were openly induced with money and other materials by supporters of the 2nd Respondent. That the officials of the 3rd Respondent ignored the protests by agents of the Petitioners at these units and allowed ineligible persons to vote. PW2 testified that the 2156 votes credited to the 2nd Respondent in this ward were not cast by eligible voters and should therefore be taken away. Under cross-examination by Ogunleye Esq. for 3rd Respondent, PW2 said all the agents at the various polling units on the day of election are alive. The agents engaged by the Petitioners to be their eyes at these polling units are in a better position to testify as to what happened thereat. The evidence of PW2, which is based on what was told to him by these agents
39 is inadmissible as it amounts to hearsay evidence. There is no evidence of harassment from any agent of the 2nd Petitioner. PW2 said his evidence is based on the reports he received from his agents as well as what he witnessed himself. He did not however go on to categorize these things he witnessed himself and we are not in a position to do that. He said he voted on the day of the election at unit 003 store, Isale. There is no specific complaint regarding this unit in his evidence. The bunch of forms EC 8A for this ward, that is pages 1 – 16 of Exhibit 204 does contain the result from this unit. The implication is that the Petitioners have no issues in this unit. While he has not testified to any malpractice in his unit, it is rather interesting that he is alleging malpractices in units where he was not present to witness what happened. He confirmed signing Exhibit 179 when shown by counsel to 2nd Respondent. This is form EC 8B for his ward. He signed as 2nd Petitioner’s agent. He said he signed Exhibit 179 with a reason. He did not state in his sworn deposition any reason why he had to sign the result. He did not also in his testimony identify any ineligible voter that was allowed to vote. While he says there was no accreditation, he did not deny the fact that voting took place in these polling units pursuant to which his agent gave him the results in form EC 8A. Even if there was no accreditation, we do not see how that affects the overall result as non accreditation also affects other parties contesting the election. Having signed Exhibit 179, and having not given the Tribunal any reason why the 2,156 votes credited therein for the 2nd Respondent should be disregarded, we cannot discountenance the said votes as urged by the Petitioners. The evidence of PW3 as regards Ataoja B ward 02 is not different from that of PW2. This ward has 10 polling units. His evidence, like that of PW2 is based on the reports he received from his agents as well as what he personally witnessed. He did not however separate those things he witnessed from those received through his agents. While he said the agents of the Petitioners were harassed and prevented from doing their work, no agent came to testify to that effect before the Tribunal. He testified that at polling units 002 and 003, there were discrepancies in the entries contained in form EC 8A. When shown pages 17 – 21 of Exhibit 204, which are forms EC 8A for this ward, by counsel to the 2nd Respondent and asked to point out the discrepancies alleged in his evidence, he said he needed a calculator. We understand him as having not done that as at the time he wrote his statement. If he had, he would have stated the details therein. We do not therefore believe PW3 that there are any discrepancies having not pointed any out. He said in units 003, 004 and 005, the results, form EC 8A were not signed nor stamped. Under cross-examination by counsel to 1st Respondent, when he was shown pages 17 – 21 of Exhibit 204, he conceded that they were signed except for page 21. Even if they are not signed, it does not show that no election took place in that unit. He admits signing form EC 8B which is Exhibit 179B1 before the Tribunal. He said he signed it to save his life, a fact not stated in his evidence when he had the opportunity of stating the circumstances under which he signed form EC 8B. He alleged alterations in form EC 8A, which he did not however show to the Tribunal. We have also not seen any. While he testified that people were allowed to vote without due regard to the voters’ register, he testified in response to a question by counsel to the 3rd Respondent that he does not have a copy of the voters register in his unit. And in any case, it is not his evidence that these alleged unregistered voters voted for the 2nd Respondent. They may as well have voted for the Petitioners. While stating that the 1715 votes credited to the 2nd Respondent in this ward do not represent the votes actually cast by the voters in the ward, he did not state what the actual votes should have been. Sanusi Balikis Abiola, who testified as RW5, is a registered voter who voted in polling unit 2 of ward 2 of the Local Government on the day of election. He testified that he got to the polling unit at about 8 am on that day and remained there until the conclusion of election and counting of votes. He testified that accreditation commenced at 8 am and all those who came with a permanent voters card were accredited, and all those accredited were allowed to vote. That every accredited voter voted only once. After the voting, the ballot papers were sorted out and counted and the results entered in form EC 8A which was counter-signed by all the agents. His evidence was not contradicted under cross-examination by Petitioners’ counsel. He rather reaffirmed that he was at the polling unit and witnessed all that happened. As stated earlier, no agent from this unit or a voter thereat has come to confirm the alleged malpractices in this unit or the ward generally. The evidence of PW4 is as regard the 17 polling units in Ataoja ‘C’ ward 03. He identified pages 22 – 31 of Exhibit 204 as the various forms EC 8A he received from their agents after the election. He acknowledged that all the agents signed Exhibits179B2 (form EC 8B). The Petitioners have however tendered results from only 10 units in this ward. These are comprised on pages 22 – 31 of Exhibit 204. These are for units 004, 005, 007, 008, 009, 010, 013, 014, 015 and 016. Even the result from unit 012 where PW4 voted is not part of Exhibit 204. He listed the units in which agents of the 2nd Petitioner were harassed and prevented from doing their job. None of these agents however came to confirm this fact before the Tribunal. His evidence is that the entries for units 005, 016 and 017 on form EC 8A do not tally. When asked how he got to know that the results do not tally, his response was “—after all the agents sat and we calculated it the results did not tally.” He did not however state what the actual result should have been. PW5 confirmed that pages 32 – 48 of Exhibit 204 are the results he said he received from his agents in respect of Ataoja ward D. While confirming that Exhibit 179B3 form EC 8B has 20 units indicated thereon, there are actually 22 polling units in the ward. His evidence in paragraph 2 of his sworn deposition relates to 20 units, while in paragraph 3viii he includes unit 021. However the results tendered before the Tribunal are for only 17 units. He agrees signing form EC 8B, but said he was forced to sign it. He did not state so in his written deposition. His evidence is, therefore clearly an afterthought. He said many eligible voters suspected to be members of the 2nd Petitioner were chased away by members of the 2nd Respondent. Yet not a single such supporter has been mentioned by him. Nobody has also been called to testify that he was prevented from voting. He did not point out the discrepancies in form EC 8A in units 001, 002, 006, 007, 016, 017, 018 and 020 as stated in paragraph 3vii of his deposition, even in his unit which is 007. The none stamping of form EC 8A in the units mentioned by him in paragraph 3viii has no relationship whatsoever with the conduct of the election. And in any case, there is no evidence of how the none stamping has adversely affected the Petitioners. Kola Olomide, PW6 was the supervisor for Otun Hagun B ward 6 on the day of the election. He testified that there were malpractices in all the 14 polling units in the ward. He was informed of these malpractices by his agents at the various polling units and he witnessed some himself. His evidence that his agents at all the polling units were harassed and prevented from doing their duties properly by supporters of the 2nd Respondent has not been supported by evidence from any of the said agents, not even the agent in his own unit where he voted. While in chief he testified that there was no proper accreditation, he admits under cross-examination that he “was allowed to vote. They did not take it (voters card) but I was allowed to vote like every other person.” Under cross – examination, he confirmed he received the results from all the agents in the units within the ward. That he gave all these results to the Local Government supervisor. Before the Tribunal however, there are only 3 results contained on pages 60 – 62 of Exhibit 204. There is no explanation as to the where about of the remaining results. Even PW6 said “What they brought to me I gave them to the Local Government supervisor. I do not know how they now became only 3.” Since only the results from 3 units are before the Tribunal out of the 14 units, the complaints as regard the other units are deemed abandoned. The results before the Tribunal are for units 001, 007 and 010 contained on pages 60 – 62 of Exhibit 204. The evidence of PW6 concerning these units is that their results on form EC 8A could not be reconciled. It is not clear what he means as he gave no explanation in his deposition or demonstrated before the Tribunal. What is however undisputed is that he said he signed form EC 8B. See Exhibits 179B5 and page 5 of Exhibit 219. It is not his assertion, even before us that he was forced to sign the said results. His signature is a confirmation of the authenticity of the result of that ward. We so hold. It is the assertion of the Petitioners in paragraph 55 of their petition that in the course of transferring the votes of the parties as contained in forms EC 8A to form EC 8B and thereafter to form EC 8C, votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, particularly in Osogbo Local Government Area were increased such that they were allotted votes not earned by them. They pleaded reliance on forms EC 8A, EC 8B and EC 8C from this Local Government. All these forms are before the Court as Exhibits respectively. The Petitioners have however not pointed out any discrepancies in these forms. They have not shown that
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
40 the votes recorded for these Respondents on forms EC 8A are different from those recorded for them in forms EC 8B and form EC 8C. Clearly this allegation has not been proved. What we have therefore done in the foregoing is to painstakingly demonstrate that from the evidence led by the Petitioners on record throughout the contested Local Governments, they have failed to prove their case that the election and return of the 1st Respondent as Governor of Osun State was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and electoral malpractices as contended in Ground (ii) of paragraph 20 of the petition. We so hold. As correctly submitted by all counsel to the Respondents and as we have already alluded to in the course of this judgment, it is to be reiterated that allegations of corrupt practices are in the nature of criminal charges and ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient to show through the conduit of a written address however well written that there are grounds to believe or suspect that there have been corrupt practices as the Petitioners have attempted to do without the critical element of creditably establishing these allegations by evidence of witnesses within the threshold as allowed by law. The Petitioners, in proving corrupt practices beyond reasonable doubt must lead concrete evidence showing the following: i. That the Respondent whose election is being challenged personally committed the corrupt act or aided, abetted, consented or procured the commission of the alleged acts of corrupt practices. ii. That where the alleged act was committed through an agent, that the agent was expressly authorized to act in that capacity or granted authority; and iii. That the corrupt practice substantially affected the outcome of the election and how it affected it. See Audu v. INEC (No.2) (2010) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt.1212) 456 at 544; Eze v. Okoroagu (2010) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.1180) 183 at 233 – 234; Aregbesola v. Oyinlola (2011) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt.1253) 458 at 557. The Petitioners in ground (iii) of the same paragraph 20 have gone further to question the Election and Return of 1st Respondent on grounds of substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the Manual for Election Officials 2014 and the Guidelines issued for the conduct of the election. To support this contention, the Petitioners made various allegations of non-compliance as contained in the petition. The fundamental issue for us here is one of proof of these allegations and how this has affected the elections or put another away, the question that arises is whether or not the Petitioners have satisfactorily established by credible evidence, that the scores or result recorded for the 1st Respondent by 3rd Respondent were unlawful, void and or invalid, or that such votes resulted from non compliance with the Electoral Act and or the INEC Manual or the Election Guidelines. Unfortunately, from the gamut of the evidence we have evaluated, we do not see any such credible proof. It may be pertinent at this stage to refer once again to the evidence of PW1. It is important to reiterate that PW1, the State Secretary of 2nd Petitioner that tendered the copies of the election results, that is Forms EC 8As, forms EC 8Bs and forms EC 8Ds respectively, other than pleading and tendering these documents, this witness clearly failed to relate the documents either to the pleaded facts or his evidence in chief. He also failed to show, from polling unit to polling unit, how the votes recorded for the 1st Respondent were unlawful or void votes, resulting from non – compliance with the Electoral Act, INEC Manual or Guidelines. In the same vein, most, if not all of the witnesses of the Petitioners, were not able to positively establish using either the result sheets or the stack of ballot papers contained in sacks which were indeed mostly unopened, the myriad of allegations of non– compliance contained in the petition, as we have demonstrated earlier on from unit to unit in the contested Local Governments. As earlier alluded to, the Petitioners indeed questioned some few witnesses of 1st and 2nd Respondents on the absence of stamping on some of the duplicate copies of Forms EC 8A and some of the entries contained therein. These witnesses as we had earlier stated were not the authors of these documents and have nothing to do with the production or the entries made thereon. The proposition is valid that a witness cannot be cross-examined with respect to a document which he neither authored nor had anything to do with. See Ita v. Ekpenyong (2000) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.695) 614. We really do not see any value in the answers supplied by these witnesses. We are of the opinion that the Petitioners ought to, but failed to subpoena a single Presiding officer in any of the polling units been challenged, whose conduct were majorly called to question, and who were the real authors of the result sheets or the Forms EC 8 series. No person in our considered view could have been better placed to give evidence on the outcome of the elections at the polling stations as regards the entries, non –stamping or the alleged disparities in the Forms EC 8As other than these presiding officers. The burden is on Petitioners, who would loose if these Presiding Officers were not called to give evidence, to summon them to give evidence. This, they did not do. We therefore hold that even if there were irregularities, and this we must restate were not precisely proved, the Petitioners have not been able to show how these alleged irregularities have negatively affected the outcome of the elections in the units challenged or substantially the totality of the results declared after the election. In any event, our view is that such irregularities, if at all, are such that the Tribunal can overlook in so far as they do not substantially affect the conduct of the polls in the totality of the Constituency of Osun State. Failure to strictly abide by the guidelines set out in the Manual for election officials is not necessary a ground to question an election in view of the provision of Section 138(2) of the Electoral Act which states:“(2) An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not itself be a ground for questioning the election.” The Electoral Act, vide Section 139(1) goes further to provide as follows:“(1)An Election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.” See also Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt.941) 1; Buhari v. INEC (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt.1120) 246. In the instant petition, the Petitioners have failed to establish before us what provisions of the Electoral Act and Manual have been contravened by any of the Respondents in the conduct of the elections in any of the polling units being questioned; or that the elections have not been conducted substantially in compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act; or that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. On the basis of the foregoing analysis therefore, we are bound to resolve issue two against the Petitioners and we hereby firmly hold that from the totality of the credible evidence adduced by all parties on record, the Governorship election conducted by 3rd Respondent in Osun State and the results declared are not liable to be voided by reason of corrupt practices in certain polling units of the 17 contested Local Governments linked to the Respondents. We further hold that we are satisfied that the Petitioners have not satisfactorily proved allegations of non-compliance with the laws governing the conduct of the questioned election to any degree or magnitude to have substantially discredited the election and as a result we find no reason to void the election or any part thereof on that ground. It must be understood that substantial compliance does not mean absolute compliance. See Biyu v. Ibrahim (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt.981); Ogu v. Ekweremadu
(2006) 1 NWLR (Pt.961) 255. ISSUE 3: Whether the 1st Respondent was validly returned as the candidate, who polled the majority of the lawful votes cast at the Governorship election conducted by the 3rd Respondent in Osun State on the 9th day of August, 2014. It is the assertion of the Petitioners that the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not poll majority of the lawful votes cast at the said election. It is trite law that the burden rests on them to prove their assertion. See sections 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2010, and the case of CPC v. INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 493 at 544 – 545 SC. The Petitioners are calling on the Tribunal to cancel all the unlawful votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the 3rd Respondent. PW1 testified in paragraph 39 of his deposition that:“39 – if the results credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the polling units of the wards and Local Governments challenged by the Petitioners in this petition are cancelled, the Petitioners will have majority of the lawful votes case at the election and will also have not less than 25 percent votes in 2/3rd of Osun State.” Since it is not the case of the Petitioners that the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not score lawful votes in any of the areas being challenged, they have by implication conceded that these Respondents scored some lawful votes in these areas. The burden is therefore on the Petitioners to determine which are unlawful votes amongst the votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. It is only when they have done this that the Tribunal will be in a position to deduct those unlawful votes from the total votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents and determine the winner. This was the decision in the case of Nadabo v. Dubai (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1245) 155 at 177, where the Court held thus:“ I think when a Petitioner is alleging that the Respondent is not elected by majority of lawful votes, he ought to plead and prove the votes cast at the various polling stations, the votes illegally credited to the winner, the votes which ought to have been credited to him and also the votes which should be deducted from that of the supposed winner in order to see if it will affect the results of the election. When this is not done, it will be difficult for the Court to effectively address the issue.” In paragraph 22 of the petition, the Petitioners have stated the votes credited to the 1st Respondent in each of the Local Government Areas in contention. They have also through their “expert” witnesses scanned and analyzed all the ballot papers used in the affected areas during the election. They are therefore in a position to lead evidence as to the unlawful votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. At paragraph 5.1 of Exhibit 243, which is the report of the physical inspection and statistical analysis of electoral documents used at the election issued by PW15, there is a table of summary of the alleged irregularities. From this summary, the Petitioners are contending that 265, 180 votes out of the 394,684 votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents are unlawful votes. Interestingly they have also found 147,072 unlawful votes credited to them. That if these unlawful votes are deducted from the total votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, these Respondents will have 129,504 valid votes. If their unlawful votes are deducted from 292,747 votes credited to them at the end of the election, they would have 145,675 valid votes, thus putting them in the lead with 16,171 votes. It however became clear during the cross-examination of PW15 by the Respondents that he in his report dealt with areas where there were no complaints from the Petitioners. In other words, Exhibit 243 covers a wider scope than that envisaged by the petition. Table 1 of Exhibit 242 lists polling units allegedly challenged by the Petitioners. On pages 2 – 4 of Table 1 is the list of all the polling units in Ayedaade Local Government. Under cross-examination by counsel to 1st Respondent, his attention was drawn to pages 20 – 26 of the petition as regards Ayedaade Local Government. Only 3 wards namely Otun Balogun ward 02, Olufi ward 03 and Otun Olufi ward 04 are covered by the petition. Meanwhile Table 1 pages 2 – 4 relates to all the wards within the Local Government. Similarly, his attention was drawn to pages 26 – 29 of the petition regarding Atakumosa East Local Government Area. He concedes that:“On pages 26 – 29 of the petition, only 6 wards are being challenged while table 1 lists all the wards. Pages 29 – 34 of the petition relates to Boripe Local Government. In my report I listed all the polling units in all the wards, but 5 wards are being challenged in the petition. In Ede North contained on pages 34 – 38 of the petition, my report covers all the units in this Local Government.” Table 2 in Exhibit 243 lists polling units with registered voters above 300 which do not have voting points. According to PW15, he relied on Exhibit 186, the Manual in reaching his conclusion that if there are more than 300 voters in a polling unit and no voting points are created, the votes will be invalidated. He referred to page 5 of the Manual which contains an introductory statement by Professor Abubakar Momoh. This statement is to the effect that – “This Manual draws on the various modifications introduced by the commission particularly on accreditation and voting procedure at polling units, as well as creating Voting Points in polling units with more than three hundred registered voters.” We however do not see this as a legal requirement that a voting point must be created where the number of registered voters exceeds 300. There is no law stipulating that where registered voters exceed 300 and no voting points are created, the votes cast in such a polling unit should be cancelled. Even the said manual itself does not state so. Based on this erroneous assumption, PW15, in table 2 says 252, 030 votes accredited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents are affected, while 139, 789 of the votes credited to the Petitioners are affected. Under cross-examination by counsel to 2nd Respondent, PW15 denies any errors in his table 2. His attention was then drawn to page 32 of table 2; unit 006 in Osogbo Local Government Area (ward 4 Ataoja D – Union Bapt. School) where there are 766 registered voters. He then conceded – “I have seen Exhibit 151G where 2 Voting Points were created where the voters were 766 for Osogbo unit 006. I have seen Exhibits 151m (xviii – xix) they are voting points created.” In response to a question by counsel to 3rd Respondent he said – “I have seen ward 4 unit 11 on Exhibit 3. All that is contained in table II of my report are polling units without voting points. I have seen voting points on Exhibit 3 but they are not based on the cut-off mark of 300. I have seen the documents given to me (these were 24 copies of CTC of form EC 8A and EC 8 VP for Boripe Local Government which are in evidence as Exhibits 244 and 244A respectively). I agree that voting points were created in those polling units.” Apart from the absence of any legal basis for the conclusion of PW15, he has by the evidence elicited under cross-examination conceded that Table 2 of his report does not contain accurate information. What we expected to see in his table 2 is the list of polling units where Voting Points ought to have been created but were not so created. Rather it contains the list of all polling units where registered voters exceed 300. His table 2 is the same as table 6 of Exhibit 342. The source of table 3 in the report is Form EC 8As and Duplicate Copies. Table 3 is a comparison of forms EC 8A – CTC and their counter-part duplicate copies issued to the Petitioners’ agents. According to PW15, 9,578 votes credited to APC and 4,814 votes credited to PDP are affected by this comparison. In table 3, PW15 has shown alleged irregularities by comparing CTC of forms EC 8A and their duplicate copies. The table showed that the CTCs of all the forms EC 8A examined were stamped. As stated earlier, these certified copies were made from the original of forms EC 8A which the Respondents’ witnesses said were duly stamped. This report is a confirmation of this assertion by the Respondents. While table 3 indicates that duplicate copies of forms
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 EC 8A were not stamped, it also indicates that there were discrepancies in the duplicate copies, that there were alterations in some duplicate copies, while some duplicate copies were not signed. In the case of Irewole, Ikire ‘C’ ward 3 unit 009 it is stated that there are different entries on CTC of form EC 8A and the duplicate copy. Polling unit 009 is Ijadubi Open Space. The complaint in this unit as per the complaint in the petition is that the result of the election was not recorded as required by law and form EC 8A for the unit was also not stamped. While PW15 has noted some discrepancies in the CTC of form EC 8A and their duplicate counter-part, he conceded under cross-examination by Prof. Osinbajo SAN for 2nd Respondent that – “I have seen table 3 of my report. I did not point out any discrepancy in the result stated on the original and duplicate of form EC 8A.” Table 5 in Exhibit 243 seeks to show areas where the total votes cast are more than the voters on the queue. For instance, in ward 3 unit 016 of Oriade Local Government the table shows that whereas there were 44 voters on the queue, the total votes cast was 54. The Petitioners are implying that extra votes were “imported.” While APC had 306 of such “imported” votes, PDP had 163. The evidence of all the witnesses for the Petitioners and the Respondents is that all accredited voters were allowed to vote. It is also their evidence that the accredited voters were told to go and come back at 12 noon when voting would commence. It is however not their evidence that accredited voters who were not on the queue at the time of counting were not allowed to vote. All that is required of an accredited voter is to ensure that he casts his vote before voting closes. What is clear from the totality of the testimony of PW15 is that the alleged unlawful votes include votes from wards and units not in contention in the petition. With the inclusion of votes from areas not in dispute, his over- all summary cannot be relied upon as representing the true situation. Upon a calm consideration of the totality of Exhibit 243, we entirely agree with the Respondents that it has been so discredited under cross-examination that no reasonable Tribunal can rely on it to hold that the votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents are unlawful votes. Similarly, PW38 another “expert” witness for the Petitioners admitted under cross-examination that his report covers more grounds than the complaints of the Petitioners. In response to questions from counsel to the 1st Respondent PW38 said:“Table 1 contains a list of 1842 polling units which are being contested. Our analysis in the 6 tables are related to the 1842 polling units - - - - Our analysis was not based on only 912 polling units which you say are being contested in the petition. - - - - - Having seen paragraph 1.2 of my report which restricted me to contested polling units, I agree that I extended my mandate by covering all the polling units in the Local Government Areas in issue.” He was however quick to add that this will not affect the overall result. Clearly, the report which is not a true reflection of the complaints of the Petitioners before this Tribunal cannot be relied upon in concluding that votes credited to the 1st and 2nd Respondents in all the wards in the Local Governments in contention are unlawful votes. Table 2 of Exhibit 342 contains a list of polling units where votes recorded for PDP on form EC 8A are less than the number of ballot papers given by the 3rd Respondent for inspection and scanning. For instance in Atakumosa East ward 1 unit 1, while the ballot papers scanned shows that PDP scored 172 votes, form EC 8A for this unit indicates that PDP had 165 votes, thus short changing PDP by 7 votes. In Irewole, Ikire ward II units 21, 22 and 23, the scanned ballot papers show that PDP got 20,107 and 67 votes respectively from these units, whereas the EC 8A forms from these units does not indicate any scores for PDP, thus short changing PDP by about 194 votes from these units. When confronted with the relevant results from these units under cross-examination by counsel to 2nd Respondent, PW38 said:“I have seen ward 11, units 21, 22 and 23 of Irewole Local Government on table 2. No entries are indicated for PDP in form EC 8A. My conclusion in these units is not correct.” But even assuming that there are no mistakes in table 2 of Exhibit 342, it is not even the testimony of PW38 that if all these votes not recorded for the 2nd Petitioner on forms EC 8A are added together to the result returned for the 2nd Petitioner, he would have majority of lawful votes. Table 3 of Exhibit 342 contains a list of polling units where votes recorded for APC on forms EC 8A are more than ballot papers given to the Petitioners by INEC for inspection and scanning with APC votes. For instance in Atakumosa East, ward 2, unit 2, scanned ballot papers show that APC had 232 votes, while on form EC 8A, 233 votes were scored for APC, thus giving it an extra vote. Here again, it is not the case of the Petitioners that if these “extra votes” are deducted from the total scores announced for APC, it would have less votes than those scored by the Petitioners. Tables 4 and 5 of Exhibit 342 contain list of polling units where INEC provided more or less ballot papers for inspection and scanning respectively, than the number of ballot papers recorded on form EC 8A. When confronted with table 4 by counsel to 2nd Respondent, he denied false entries therein. His attention was then drawn to some entries on the said table 4. His response:“By this table 4, the total votes cast for Atakumosa East are 222 and the difference in ballot papers are 1. For unit 003, the total votes cast are 258. In unit 001 the total votes cast is 251. In Ilesha East, unit 004, ward 2 the total votes cast is 200. I have seen Exhibit 55A, item 9, the total votes cast is 202. I therefore agree that my entry of 200 votes as against the 202 votes is wrong. For Atakumosa East, ward 02, unit 005, the entry for total votes cast is 222. I have seen (Exhibit) 4C item 9, the total votes cast is 223. I agree that here again my entry is false. On table 5, Ede North ward 4 unit 004, the entry for total votes cast is 256. In Ilesha East ward 10 unit 006, the entry for the votes cast is 215. I have seen Exhibit 63(vi), the total votes cast as indicated therein is 219. Here again my entry is false.” Responding to similar questions from counsel to 3rd Respondent, PW38 said:“I have seen Exhibit 134m. I have also seen my table 5 for ward 5 of unit 009 of Olarunda Local Government. The total votes cast is stated to be 407 but 409 votes are indicated on item 9 of Exhibit 134m.” Testifying further, under cross-examination by counsel to the 3rd Respondent, the witness said they used the computer as a tool into which they entered facts found on the documents to produce their report. He however concedes that:“ - - - the primary source must be correctly entered into the computer. The data we used is the same. But if the data used in our report is not the same with the primary source then our report will not be correct.” The Respondents have shown by their cross-examinations that the information from the primary sources which in this case were the ballot papers and forms EC 8A series, and voters register were not correctly entered into the computer. We therefore hold as conceded by PW38 that his report cannot be correct. The report of PW38 cannot also be correct for the further reason that he did not scan all the ballot papers used for the said election in the 17 Local Government Areas as directed by the Petitioners. He confirmed this fact in response to questions from counsel to the 1st Respondent when he said:“I confirm that yesterday the Petitioners tendered sacks of ballot papers for the 17 Local Governments used for the election of 9/8/14. I recall saying there were 4 bags for Ilesha East Local Government. It is correct that I opened only one of the bags. I took out one packet out of the several packets in the bag. I did not open any other bag or sack relating to the other Local Governments in accordance with the directives of my counsel.” The fact that he did not scan all the ballot papers given to him is further confirmed by the fact that he did not indicate in any of his tables the serial numbers of the ballot papers so scanned despite his concession that “INEC ballot papers have serial numbers.” It cannot therefore be said with certainty that the ballot papers so scanned were those used for the election in contention. Clearly Exhibits 243 and 342 have not established the facts they were meant to establish. That is that unlawful votes were credited to 1st and 2nd Respondents. The Petitioners have pleaded in paragraph 56 of their petition that a good number of their agents at the polling units who were present at the conclusion of the election declined to sign the result sheets in manifestation of their displeasure with the conduct of the election, but lamentably discovered that some
41 other persons purportedly signed the said results for the Petitioners. It is expected of the Petitioners, in proof of this assertion, to have brought the agents from those polling units to testify to the effect that the signature on the result sheets from their respective units does not belong to them. The few agents that testified on behalf of the Petitioners confirm signing form EC 8A shown to them under cross-examination by the Respondents. None of them testified in chief that they were forced to sign the result sheets. The Petitioners have therefore failed to prove their allegation. To show that invalid votes were counted and recorded in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the Petitioners say they would request the Tribunal to do a physical examination and recount of the ballot papers used at the election in the affected areas. They subpoenaed the 3rd Respondent who produced all the ballot papers in issue and they tendered them through PW38. All the said ballot papers are in evidence before the Tribunal as Exhibits. Unexpectedly, the Petitioners did not call on the Tribunal to do the physical examination and recount of the ballot papers. Why have the Petitioners decided to abandon this noble cause which would have clearly shown and proved that invalid votes were counted in favour of the Respondents as alleged. We accordingly invoke section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and hold that the Petitioners did not do so because they know that the outcome would not have supported their contention but would have rather strengthened the case of the Respondents. With these ballot papers and voters registers before the Tribunal, the Petitioners were in a good position to show the Tribunal through these Exhibits their allegations of over voting and allocation of votes to the 2nd Respondent. This they did not do. Page 6 of the final written address of the 1st Respondent contains a table, showing amongst other details the total votes remaining for APC and the total votes remaining for PDP. The total votes remaining for APC are stated to be 234,971, while the total votes remaining for PDP are stated to be 219,189. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners, relying on this table in his final oral submission before us contends that this is an admission by counsel to the 1st Respondent that the lawful votes scored by the 1st Respondent at the election are 234,971 and not 394,684 declared by the 3rd Respondent. That their votes of 292,747 declared by the 3rd Respondent being higher than the valid votes of the 1st Respondent, the Petitioners ought to have been declared winners of the said election. Relying on the case of Okonkwo & Ors. V. Kpajie & Ors. (1992) NWLR (Pt226) 633 amongst several other cases, counsel submits that this admission by counsel binds the 1st Respondent. We do not however agree with the submission of Petitioners’ counsel that the table amounts to an admission that the 1st Respondent scored 234,971 valid votes. We say this in view of paragraph 4. 2.4 of the final address, where counsel submits:“It is submitted, assuming without conceding, that it is taken for the purpose of argument, that the Petitioners established cases of non-compliance in all the 914 polling units for which it tendered forms EC 8A and the votes of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the Petitioners in the 914 polling units as recorded in those 914 forms EC 8A are deducted, the 1st Respondent will still have majority of lawful votes cast (that is, 234,971) and have one quarter of total votes cast in all the 30 Local Governments in the State to be declared the winner of the election.” All that the 1st Respondent has done is a simple mathematical deduction. That is that even if the Tribunal agrees with the Petitioners that the 159,713 votes recorded for the 1st Respondent in all the 914 polling units in form EC 8A presented to the Tribunal are illegal votes and thus deducted from the total votes of 394,684 scored by the 1st Respondent in all the 30 Local Government Areas in the State, he would still have valid votes of 234,971. And if a similar exercise is done for the 1st Petitioner and 73,558 of illegal votes are deducted he would have valid votes of 219,189. Thus still making the 1st Respondent the person with the highest number of valid votes. We do not appreciate the argument of Petitioners’ counsel that such a deduction should not be made from the votes credited to them by the 3rd Respondent. This is because they have not shown that all the votes credited to them as contained on forms EC 8A in all the 914 polling units are valid votes. On the whole, we do not find issue three proved. It is accordingly resolved against the Petitioners. In conclusion, we must place on record our deep appreciation to all learned counsel who had appeared for the parties at one time or the other in the course of these proceedings. This Tribunal has had the priviledge of appearances of most knowledgeable senior advocates and other learned counsel, who throughout the proceedings of this Tribunal extended due humility to the Tribunal and conducted themselves in the best tradition of the legal profession despite the pressure brought on the parties and this Tribunal in view of the need to fast track the trial of the petition in order to meet the constitutional time frame. In the final analysis, our judgment is that, from the totality of the evidence led before us in this petition, and from the findings we have made in the foregoing, the Petitioners have clearly failed to discharge the burden placed on them by law, to establish that the result declared by the 3rd Respondent with respect to the polling units being questioned in all the 17 Local Government Areas of Osun State, with respect to the Governorship election held on 9th August 2014, were invalid or void by reason of corrupt practices and or substantial non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended); or that it was the 1st Petitioner who scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the said elections, to be entitled to be returned as winner thereof. In other words, the Petitioners have failed to lead relevant, credible and or cogent evidence to sustain all the grounds upon which they questioned the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent as the duly elected Governor of Osun State with respect to the Governorship Election conducted in the State. Quite clearly, the 1st Respondent won the majority of lawful votes cast in scoring 394,684 votes as against the 1st Petitioner’s 292,747 votes, and having satisfied all Constitutional requirements, we hereby affirm the declaration and return of 1st Respondent by the 3rd Respondent as the duly elected Governor of Osun State. Consequently, we hereby refuse all the reliefs sought in the petition and the petition therefore fails and it will be and is hereby dismissed. In the interest of peaceful co-existence and reconciliation amongst all contending parties, we shall make no order as to costs. This is our judgment.
……………………………….. HON. JUSTICE ELIZABETH NGUVEREN KPOJIME (Chairman) ……………………………….. HON. JUSTICE VINCENT IGOMETI OFESI (Member) ……………………………….. HON. JUSTICE ABUBAKAR IDRIS KUTIGI (Member) Published by JUSTICE NOW FOUNDATION, Odiolowo St., OSOGBO, OSUN, NIGERIA
42
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
LAW PERSONALITY Dr. Kayode Ajulo, a lawyer, is the National Secretary of the Labour Party (LP). In this interview with ADEBISI ONANUGA, he speaks on his party’s crisis, postponement of the general elections and the ongoing distribution of Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs), among other issues.
H
AS the leadership crisis in Labour Party (LP) been resolved? There is no leadership crisis in the Labour Party. Those claiming to have caretaker committees are merely wasting their time. They do not have the party paraphernalia; they do not even have the support of the stakeholders, including the civil society. They are not even recognised by the INEC. It is funny how desperate our friends could turn out to be, they tried to field candidates and when their nominations were rejected they turned around to make efforts to condemn all candidates, but they again failed. Their foray into the party hierarchy is just meant to shore up their dwindling fortunes in the labour movement. And I am sure they have enough forest fire to put out on their farmlands now than to continue to fan the ember of discord in our fireplace. They deserve no attention for now. Labour Party is presently preoccupied with how to bring power back to the people and we are on course. Are you impressed with INEC’s level of preparedness, especially with PVCs’ distribution? Prof. Jega had four years to prepare for the general elections, but chose to be chasing shadows and pursuing frivolities instead of getting down to the important details. He had demonstrated himself in the past as a shoddy umpire, when in 2011 he had to postpone election when voters were already on queue ready to cast their vote. Those of us that contested then suffered from this ineptitude of the INEC. I nearly lost my life thereafter as I was abducted for three nights. Now INEC has unleashed an avalanche of uncompleted tasks to crown the garbage heap of laggardness and shoddiness. I can authoritatively say that out of the six steps or thereabout, promised towards a free and fair and violence free election, Jega-led INEC has only been able to fulfil one, which is the production of voters’ register. But, this is also filled with errors and a lot of omission of voters’ names. If Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola of Lagos State, or the Sultan of Sokoto, could not find their names on that ill-famed register, how much more the teeming ordinary people? In most zones of the country, a large number of voters have not been able to collect their permanent voter’s cards (PVC). For instance, in the Southwest and Northwest the figures are less than 60 per cent, and in the Northeast where it is highest, it is about 75 per cent. Secondly, seven days to election, the INEC ad hoc staff is yet to be employed and properly trained and kitted for the process, the police are not ready and the army has said it is not going to be involved. For now INEC was not ready. The preparations so far were shoddy. But with the six-week shift, I don’t think Jega should have any excuse. He has already said he is on top of the situation. Let us give him the chance to do what is expected of him as INEC Chairman. What is your take on elections postponement? Let me quickly address the issue of nomenclature and concept. Correctly put, what has happened is a mere shift or rescheduling in the date of elections and not as postponement as such. And as at the time INEC finally did that it was already long overdue. It was more or less almost belated. Even the blind could sense that a shift was inevitable given the lack of readiness on the part of INEC. Prof Jega was not prepared for the election; stubbornly pressing ahead to conduct the polls would have amounted to an exercise in chaos. Yes, there was the issue of security, which was germane, particularly in the Northeast, palpably under siege from Boko Haram. But it would interest you that in most parts of the
‘INEC should have no excuse for not holding elections’
•Dr. Ajulo
‘The President needs to be advised that our institutions must be strengthened and the law must take its course even if heaven will fall and if heaven must fall as I have always said, we should have enough strong men to hold the heaven from falling on our heads’ country more than 40 per cent of the people were yet to collect their permanent voters’ card and thus would have been disenfranchised. In such circumstance, any party that loses would definitely have had legal grounds to reject the results. Also, it stands against all reasons to think that INEC that was yet to train and kit ad-hoc staff, print ballot papers and put in place the necessary logistics would want to press ahead with the election. Those claiming that it was a ploy by the PDP are either not well informed about the true state of things or are just plainly trying to be mischievous. The fact is when all the cards were laid on the table; the parties all agreed that it was only fair to the electorate as well as the political gladiators to have a shift in date. Even if you ask some people in opposition parties now expressing their dissatisfaction, they will tell you that at the meeting with the INEC, which I attended, they had the opportunity to express themselves, but could not advance any logical argument against a shift in date of election. For me, it was a right decision, a face saver for INEC and contrary to speculations the organization that benefited the most from the shift is the INEC itself. You can also see that it has helped to douse the tension beclouding the political space. Do you think battle against insurgency can be won in six weeks? I am not a military man, neither
am I an intelligence officer, so I wouldn’t know what information they had at their disposal and what level of readiness or strategic and tactical considerations that made them to make such projections. But we should be cautious of those critics, who can’t differentiate a pump action from a Dane gun. We should give our security institutions the benefit of the doubt. Nigerians need to have faith in our institutions; it is an organ of the state meant to protect the interest of all. So, if they have come out with certain claims on an issue that borders on the security and integrity of Nigeria, then we must give them that benefit of the doubt. It is also noteworthy that some people seem to have made it their cliché that nothing good can come out of this country or any of its institution except from them or when they are in power. But they have forgotten that the country is greater than any cabal or group. That is why such element would rather project the invincibility of Boko Haram than praise Nigerian officers and soldiers when they demonstrate gallantry and unequalled heroism in the fight against Boko Haram. I think the government and the military deserve our moral support and faith in the fight against Boko Haram. If you lose election today, you can always come back to win some other time, but if you lost the country, you have lost it for good. You have lost everything, and
this should be more paramount to us. We should stop running down our armed forces. He said he has already deployed all the PVCs. I think we should wait and hope he gets it right this time around instead of being pessimistic. There are reports that Jega may not be allowed to conduct the elections because the Presidency feels he is too independent-minded. Do you think the president can fire him? For me such speculations are more or less ill-wind that blows no one any good. You call someone the Chairman of an independent electoral body and you will now sack him for being too independent minded? These for me are speculations by recurrent monumental political nitwits. They are speculations by political jobbers, who are stared in the face by their dwindling political fortune and now resort to heating up the polity. As to whether or not the President has the right to sack Jega, I would say yes, with emphasis. By the provision of our sacred Constitution and other extant laws, Prof. Jega is an appointee of the President. The President, of course, has the right to fire him. This is the law and there are some issues we should not over politicise. Do you support the use of Temporary Voters’ Cards in place of PVCs? The most important thing, I think, is that people should not be disenfranchised on account of failure on
the part of INEC. There have been instances of people, who cannot find their names on the register, but have evidence of registration in the form of temporary voters’ card. INEC should be ready for other options in resolving this, even if it means use of temporary voters’ card. But then that would depend on how significant such cases are vis-a-vis the pros and cons of such decision. I am apprehensive on the usage of the voters card thing, we seem to be deceiving ourselves, yes the world is moving digital, but I believe the card must be tested and Nigerians on the real and most important election should not be used as guinea-pig to test run the effectiveness of such technology. Do you think the president is sincere in his promise to hand over power if he lost? I have no doubt in the president’s commitment to the peace and integrity of Nigeria. I equally have no doubt that he is a man of integrity. He is a democrat, who respects the rule of law and I don’t expect him to deviate, even under the most difficult condition for him as a person. Let’s recall the Edo State election, his party PDP lost and he congratulated his party’s opponents. In my state, Ondo, the popular party, that is Labour Party, won and he congratulated us in which the likes of General Olusegun Obasanjo castigated him and called for his head and removal despite that the man is unfettered. The party lost in Osun State and the President embraced his opponent, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola. These instances should not be overlooked. The man is humble, he came from a lowly background, which he has not ceased from telling us, he should forever be grateful for God’s grace on him and I am sure that what he now owes his creator is to be sincere to his country. Some Niger Delta militants have threatened war if the president loses. Don’t you think they should have been arrested by now? Did you say arrest? That is not the first time such threats are being made. And they were not the first to make such threat. I think what needs to be done is total investigation of these threats of war and to caution all Nigerians to be more decorous in their pronouncements. We also need to note that such statement by Jonathan’s kinsmen was in response to xenophobic idioms of monkeys and baboons from the opposition. I think everybody needs to be cautious. Our security agents need to be proactive in their dealings with these war mongers and all of us. What is your take on the President’s perception that stealing is not corruption? We must learn not to be mischievous or given to trivialising issues. It is wrong to take things out of context. But, I really feel what the President meant was that the problem of corruption in Nigeria goes beyond mere stealing of public funds, that it has different, deep, and more damaging dimensions. If the president acknowledged that a problem was more deepseated than we all reckon, I see no reason why we need to take him out of context. That was the height of mischief; simply an exercise in malicious imputation. The President needs to be advised that our institutions must be strengthened and the law must take its course even if heaven will fall and if heaven must fall as I have always said, we should have enough strong men to hold the heaven from falling on our heads. Why is it that your party has no presidential candidate? The truth is, we threw it open, but with certain set of criteria which candidates must satisfy. However, no candidate with such criteria came forward. So for us, it is better not to field a candidate than to field one we will regret.
43
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
FROM THE COURT In what seems a novel case in the history of electoral disputes, the ECOWAS Court will on March 3 begin hearing in a case of alleged fair hearing denial and miscarriage of justice resulting from proceedings at the Justice Raphael Agbo-led 2011 Delta North Senatorial Election Appeal Tribunal, ERIC IKHILAE reports.
Ex-senatorial candidate sues govt, NJC to ECOWAS Court for rights abuse A
FORMER senatorial candidate Jude Azekwoh has gone to the Economic Community of West African States Court (ECOWAS Court) to enforce his rights against the Federal Government and the National Judicial Council (NJC). He is asking that the government and NJC be sanctioned for allegedly denying him the right to fair hearing. Azekwoh initiated the suit marked: ECW/CCJ/APP/23/2013 on December 9, 2013 following the alleged refusal by the NJC to act on his letters of complaint to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), who is NJC’s Chairman, over the handling of his petition at the election tribunal. The plaintiff, who is seeking, among others, $10 million compensation from the NJC, argued that the defendants violated his right to fair hearing as guaranteed under sections 3, 7 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR). Azekwoh contested the 2011 Delta North Senatorial election on the Democratic People’s Party (DPP) platform. Senator Arthur Ifeanyi Okowa of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) won the election. He challenged the election outcome before the Electoral Tribunal in Asaba, Delta State. The tribunal struck out his petition on the ground that the application for the pre-trial session was not by way of motion. He proceeded to the Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Benin, Edo State where, he said, his appeal against the decision of the election tribunal in Asaba was allegedly subjected to “unfair, unjust and illegal termination” by the appeal panel in Benin headed by Justice Raphael Agbo. Azekwoh said his recourse to the ECOWAS Court resulted from the alleged failure of the NJC (an agency of the Federal Government, with control over the nation’s judiciary) to act on letters written to it by his lawyer in the case, Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN), asking the NJC to intervene and redress the injustice done to him. Okpeseyi had, in one of the letters, stated that Azekwoh’s “petition was sacrificed on the altar of technicalities” at both the tribunal and the appeal levels, thereby leaving unresolved, the questions he raised about the competence of the PDP candidate. “The decision and approach of the panel of justices of the Court of Appeal, Benin in respect of this matter, violently violated our client’s right to fair hearing, compromised his appeal and has occasioned mis-
•Court opens hearing, March 3
•Okowa
•Azekwoh
carriage of justice,” Okpeseyi said in one of the letters, copies of which formed parts of the court documents. Azekwoh argued that where his appeal against a decision of an electoral tribunal was “dismissed for no reason in law and in fact, without hearing,” his right to equality before the law, protection of the law, fair hearing and right to participate in government guaranteed by the ACHPR, have been violated. He is praying the court to declare: •That his right to equality before the law and protection was violated was the Appeal Court in Benin allegedly refused to hear his appeal petition on no justifiable legal or factual ground. •That the his rights, as a Nigerian and citizen of ECOWAS, to have his case heard at the appellate level of the country’s court and be accorded fair hearing were violated when the Court of Appeal, Benin refused to hear his appeal no: CA/B/EPT/230/2011. •That the failure of the NJC to act of his petitions, has resulted in the continuing breach of his right to fair hearing and freedom to participate in the government contrary to Articles 7 and 13 of the ACHPR. The government and NJC have objected to the hearing of the case. They filed separate responses to the suit. The government wants the case struck out for want of jurisdiction, while the NJC is seeking the case’s dismissal on the ground that
the suit lacked merit. Represented by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN), the government argued that the subject matter of the suit is based on election petition, over which the court lacked “the requisite jurisdiction to hear and/or adjudicate.” It added that the decision of the Nigerian Court of Appeal in such matters was final on the ground that the appellate court was the final domestic court with jurisdiction over such election petitions under the country’s Constitution. It further contends that the ECOWAS Court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate on a suit already heard and finally disposed of by the Nigerian court, and that the plaintiff’s claims do not disclose any cause of action against it (the Nigerian government.) The NJC, who entered defence over a year after the case was instituted, but applied for an extension of time, denied the plaintiff’s allegation of not being accorded fair hearing. It said the plaintiff, being aware that hearing in electoral appeal must not exceed 60 days, failed to conclude his case within the stipulated time. On allegation that it failed to act on the plaintiff’s letters of complaint, the NJC said it took the necessary steps as provided by the law, including demanding that the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA) responds to the allegation
that the plaintiff’s appeal was sacrificed on the altar of judicial technicalities. The NJC said it concluded that Azekwoh’s case was without merit upon receiving the PCA’s response, and in view of fact that it lacked the power under the law, to reconstitute a fresh appeal panel to hear the case after the expiration of the 60 days allowed. In separate responses to the arguments by the Fed Govt and NJC, Azekwoh faulted the defendants’ applications for extension of time, arguing that they failed to provide sufficient reasons why they did not respond within the one month allowed, upon being served with the plaintiff’s processes. In faulting the Fed Govt’s objection, the pliantiff observed that the government (named as the 1st defendant) failed to plead the political aspect of the case, which it (the Fed Govt) referred to and on which basis it urged the court to decline jurisdiction. “Preliminary objection brought without pleadings (statement of defence) being made available to the court is in the nature of demurrer, a process which is no longer allowed in all jurisdiction in Nigeria and worldwide because judges must look at what was before them in order to give considered opinion on preliminary point of law in objection to the proceedings,” Azekwoh said. He raised four issues for the court’s consideration. They include whether subject matters arising from political and legal dispensation in a member country that violate the fundamental rights of citizens and the provisions of ACHPR shall not be heard by the ECOWAS Court simply because of their origin in politics and law. Azekwoh also asked the court whether a citizen of a member nation of ECOWAS is not entitled to remedy under Article 3 and 7 of the ACHPR if the judicial process of his country by action or inaction, made it impossible for his cause to be heard. In reaction to NJC’s defence, Azekwoh argued that a failure by the Justice Raphael Agbo-led tribunal to hear his appeal while he was still within the 60 days allowed under the Electoral Act, “is a failure of fair hearing.” He contended that by virtue of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule of the Constitution, the NJC owes him a duty to show that, a report to it ,was followed up with appropriate action and where, no step was taken in respect of the plaintiff’s report of violation of his right (as is the case in this suit), the NJC cannot absolve itself of liability.
‘Don’t allow subversion of peoples’ will’
L
AWYERS under the auspices of Lawyers for Change, have urged Nigerians not to allow selfish and greedy politicians subvert their will. Addressing reporters in Lagos, the national coordinator of the group, Adesina Ogunlana, urged the people to keep a close watch on political developments in order not to turn the country into another “Cote D’Voire”, especially now that the military has allegedly been compromised. “Our people must reject the unholy schemes and plans to stymie growth of democracy in our country. We must all vote and ensure that our votes count,” he said. Ogunlana said based on their observations of political events in the country, the group is convinced that the government of the day and the ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) are not interested in a free and
By Adebisi Onanuga
fair presidential election “because of the possibility of a General Buhari wining”. He remarked that President Jonathan can no longer be trusted and listed several failed promises and agreements within and outside the PDP to buttress his claim. Ogunlana lamented that the federal government has since the postponement of the elections applied intimidating tactics against the opposition in the West, East and North of the country without any reasonable cause and legality. He condemned the deployment of military personnel and armoured vehicles to residences of some key figures of the opposition party, All Progressive Congress (APC) including Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, Imo State governor, Rochas Okorocha and Head of the Media, Buhari-Osinbajo
Campaign Organisation, Garba Shehu in Abuja. He also noted the deployment of heavily armed soldiers to streets of Lagos, Kano and Port Harcourt, described as strongholds of the opposition. The national coordinator of Lawyers for Change berated the Assistant Inspector General of Police (AIG) Zone II, Joseph Mbu over statements credited to him that the Police would kill 20 persons for every officer killed in the event of electoral violence. He remarked that such statement from a high ranking police officer was capable of leading to a massacre of thousands of innocent Nigerians in the hands of trigger-happy police officers. He described as sad and curious the fact that government has not said or done anything since Mbu made the threat.
•Ogunlana He, therefore, called for immediate retirement of AIG Mbu, who he described as a henchman deliberately posted to Lagos to carry out a pre-conceived agenda in the coming elections, “since Lagos is the heartbeat of the APC”.
African Bar seeks free, fair elections •Appoints new officers By Joseph Jibueze
T
HE African Bar Association (AFBA) has urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to ensure that the March 28 and April 11 elections are free and fair. At its maiden press briefing in Lagos by its interim executive committee led by Mr Hannibal Uwaifo, the association said it would pay close attention to the general elections even though it was not accredited as an observer by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) because it applied late. Uwaifo, who is the interim president, said AFBA would do its bit towards ensuring violence-free exercise. “We’re going to be monitoring the elections from our own vantage point. I also know that our colleagues in the African Bar Association are also monitoring it, such as the Director of Information and Protocol. We’ll be issuing statements of a broad nature in due course. “We’ll encourage a fair electoral process, an independent umpire, political tolerance and we’ll be discouraging violence. We’ll urge those who win to be magnanimous in victory and those who lose to take it with all sense of equanimity,” Uwaifo said. Members of the interim executive are Uwaifo (Nigeria), Mr Dev Erriah, Vice-President (Mauritius); Mrs Flavania Charles (Tanzania), General Secretary; Mrs Obele Akinniranye, Deputy General Secretary; Mr Nyamordi OchiengNyamogo, Director of Information/ Protocol (Kenya) and Mr George Chisanga (Zambia). Mr Stenford Moyo of Zimbabwe is the governing council chair, while Mrs Funmi Oluyede is the co-chair. To assist the AFBA interim executive are former Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) Director-General, Prof Epiphany Azinge (SAN), who will serve as Chairman, African Bar Research Council; Mrs Joseph Anenih (Chairperson, African Women Lawyers’ Forum and Inter-Governmental Relations); former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Lagos Branch Chairman, Chijioke Okoli (Co-ordinator, Nigeria Committee) and Gogo Karibi Whyte as Chairman, Organisation and Planning. Also appointed were Mr. Kolade Adegboyega, who is the Director for Budget & Planning; Rudolf Ezeani, executive director; Mr. Val Oaiya as Chairman AFBA conferences; Chukwuma Ezeala as Chairman, elections committee West Africa; Mrs Tola Rotimi Chairperson Public Rights Reference Council and John Austin Unachukwu, who was appointed as the Media Officer. Uwaifo said AFBA is a non-governmental organisation formed in 1972 in Lusaka, Zambia, to foster unity and encourage cross border practice; corporation amongst lawyers in advancing the legal profession and promoting rule of law and good governance in Africa; helping members to defend citizens’ rights; and helping African nations attain high level of transparency in governance as well as eliminating corruption. AFBA suffered setback due to political interference, but in order to sustain its founding fathers’ dreams, the immediate past President Charles Idehen constituted the interim committee pending the next AFBA conference when elections would be held into substantive offices. Uwauifo said membership of AFBA is open to individual lawyers in Africa, and registration forms can be obtained from its temporary secretariat on 8, Ribadu Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.
44
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015
LEGAL OPINION
Court orders bank to pay lawyer N10.5m J USTICE Oluwatoyin Ipaye of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja, has issued a garnishee order compelling Zenith Bank Plc to pay the judgment sum of N10.5million from the account of People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to a lawyer, Mr. Debo Adeleke. The amount represented his professional fees for various court cases handled by the lawyer for the Lagos PDP. Justice Ipaye issued the order last week following the refusal of the PDP to pay Mr. Adeleke his professional fees after the court had initially delivered a judgment against the party. In her ruling, Justice Ipaye upheld the arguments of the claimant and his request for a garnishee order to compel Zenith Bank Plc pay Mr Adeleke from the PDP’s account domicile with the bank. The judge ordered Zenith Bank Plc to issue a N10.5 million Cheque to Mr Adeleke from the PDP account within the next three days. Justice Ipaye regretted that it was very unfortunate that a lawyer would have to drag his client to court for payment after rendering legal services to the client. Adeleke had sued both the national headquarters and Lagos State branch of the PDP over their failure to pay him his outstanding legal fees after
By Adebisi Onanuga and Peace Iyere
he had made over 180 representations in court for the party in its election petition matters. Adeleke contended that he handled seven cases for the PDP at the Lagos State Local Government Elections Petitions Tribunal between November 2011 and August 2012, saying that the party only paid him N1.45 million out of the N12 million agreed for handling the cases. Delivering judgment last November, Justice Ipaye upheld the argument of Mr Adeleke and ordered the Lagos State chapter of the PDP to pay him N10.5 million as his outstanding legal fee. Ipaye had also asked the Lagos State PDP to pay a N50,000 cost in favour of the claimant. The Lagos PDP, the judge noted, breached the provisions of Order 11 Rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules. According to the judge, proof of service before the court showed that the party was served with the court processes, but refused to file its response to the claimant’s affidavit. Ipaye posited that the failure of the party to comply with the court rules had shown that the party was not in-
terested in defending the suit. She had said then that the court was more than satisfied with the totality of the unchallenged facts of the claimant and therefore, entered judgment in his favour. At the resumed hearing last week, counsel to PDP, Mr. Chukwuma Nmesirionye had filed a motion challenging the judgment of the court. Moving the application to set aside the judgment, Nmesirionye said the order was against the account of the 2nd defendant (Lagos PDP) and not account of the 1st defendant (the national PDP). He argued that the attempt by the judgment creditor to attach the account of the national PDP domicile in Abuja is against the order of the court. But counsel to Adeleke, Thankgod, opposed the application. Thankgod had argued that the summary judgment gave his client the right to recover his money from the Lagos PDP’s account from anywhere in the country. Thankgod said Zenith Bank had confirmed that PDP’s account with them has enough funds to satisfy the judgment sum. He had subsequently urged the court to dismiss PDP’s application seeking to set the judgment aside.
•From left: Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, Augustine Alegeh (SAN); Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN) President, Chidi Onyeukwu and his Chartered Institute of Stockbrokers counterpart, Albert. E. Okumagba during the signing of a collaboration agreement among professional associations at the ICAN Secretariat, Victoria Island, Lagos.
‘AG Moeller not registered by CBN’
T
HE Federal High Court in Lagos has heard that a firm, A.G. Moeller Limited, is allegedly not registered as a financial services company by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). A former Chief Accountant at Cross Country Limited, Mr. Godsday Chukwusa said this while testifying in the trial of A.G. Moeller’s Managing Director, Adeloye Olukemi. The police charged him before Justice Okon Abang, allegedly defrauding Cross Country Chairman Bube Okorodudu of N80million. Chikwusa had earlier testified that sometime in March 2007, Cross Country wrote the defunct Oceanic Bank Plc, Fidelity Bank Plc, EBN Finance Limited (a subsidiary of the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc) and AG. Moeller for finance lease facilities to enable it buy some vehicles. He said AG Moeller gave Cross Country N140 million to finance the acquisition of 40 buses with a tenor of 24 months at 60 per cent interest rate per annum. Yesterday, Chukwusa said the total sum payable to AG Moeller Ltd at the end of the tenor stood at N228 million. “For a transaction of N288million, Cross Country paid about N223 million, but AG Moeller said the company was still owing N213 million,”
By Joseph Jibueze
the witness said. According to him, what Cross Country owed AG Moeller, including default charges, was N19million rather than N213million. He said following AG Moeller’s demand for an outstanding sum of N213million, and worried by the “excess charges”, Cross Country’s lawyer, Mr Ladi Rotimi-Williams, wrote a letter to the Association of Financial Houses after every effort to resolve the dispute failed. “Chief Williams wrote to the association, which replied that AG Moeller was not a member,” the witness said. At this point, the police counsel, Ralph Nkem, sought to tender the letter as well as the reply of the Financial Houses Association. However, Olukemi’s lawyer, Mr Kunle Ogunba (SAN) objected to the admissibility of the documents on the basis that the letters were neither addressed to the witness nor did he write them. Nkem, however, argued that the documents were relevant, adding that the witness was the Chief Accountant when the transactions were made, and now serves a consultant to Cross Country. “The documents can be tendered through him, and one of the counts in the charge is that the accused oper-
ated a financial house without licence by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN),” Nkem said. In the charge, the police said Olukemi and others at large on March 29, 2007 at 2, Ebun Street, Surulere, Lagos, did conspire amongst themselves to transact financial business without a valid license by the CBN. The alleged offence is punishable under Section 517 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Another count reads: “That you Adeloye Richard Olukemi ‘M’ between March, 2007 and January 2010 at the same place in the aforesaid Judicial Division with intent to defraud did obtain the sum of N80m from one Bube Okorodudu, the Chairman/ Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Cross Country Limited in excess of the capital sum of N140m advanced to him through the medium of a contract of finance lease facility induced by false pretence and thereby committed an offense contrary to Section 1 (a-c) and Section 1(2) and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.” Olukemi pleaded not guilty to the charges. Justice Abang will rule today on Ogunba’s objection to the documents’ admissibility.
LAW AND PUBLIC POWER
with gabriel AMALU email:gabrielamalu1@yahoo.com For comments: 08033054939 (sms only)
Why vote for Akinwunmi Ambode?
O
NE of the best campaign songs for the 2015 general elections, belong to Akinwunmi Ambode. He is the All Progressive Con gress (APC) gubernatorial candidate, in Lagos State. I refer to that campaign theme song that ignites thus: ambooo ambo.ambooo ambo …. After that intro, the music takes the listener through a delectable thematic content and beats, to rally the voter’s mindaround the APC’scandidate’s potentials. Regardless of the variant, that campaign thematic song, urges the listener to vote Ambode, duringthe next gubernatorial elections. His opponents, particularly Jimi Agbaje of the Peoples Democratic Party, have their own theme songs, but none excites, like A+MBODE’s own. The A+MBODE sign, has to do with the visual theme of Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode’s campaign. On this score, the APC candidate surely has his acts together. Among the numerous campaign posters, one of the most memorable also belongs to him. I refer to the poster, where AMBODEdelicately joins his two palms, perhaps in supplication for votes, but more significantly, a pose depicting his devotion to unity and peace. For the religious, it is the Amen or Amin sign. With a chubby, handsome, and peaceful face, solemnly looking ahead, the APC candidate, seems to be praying for a successful election. There, his bright eyes oozes love, while his palms delicately sticking together, is an open plea for all Lagos residents to come out enmass, to unanimously endorse him, as the next governor of Lagos State. Talking of endorsements, the APC candidate surely has his bag full, with very significant endorsers. The first and perhaps one of the most treasured endorsements, came from the traditional ruler of Lagos. Interestingly, before Akinwunmi Ambode became a household name and a gubernatorial frontrunner, in record time, Oba Rilwanu Lukman Akiolu, openly endorsed A+MBODE as the anointed candidate, to take over the governorship of Lagos State, after the glorious reign of Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN). With that royal decreeby the preeminent Lagos State monarch, Akinwunmi’s candidacy took a life of its own. Significantly, Mr. Ambode also has the emblematic support of the incumbent governor of Lagos State. The endorsement by the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is not half-hearted. It is total, unequivocal and comprehensive. To sell A+MBODE, Governor Fashola is not leaving anything to chance. He uses town hall meetings, campaign stands, official functions, and indeed all opportunities, to expertly market his candidate. He sells Ambode as more experienced than his closest rival, Jimi Agbaje, of the PDP. He reels out A+MBODE’s excellent performance in public service, and excitedly tell Lagosians that his candidate has the competence, drive and ingenuity to shepherd the state of excellence. Governor Fashola, himself, with impeccable credentials as governor, dutifully reminds Lagosians of the numerous signature projects of his administration, and the need for sustenance. He warns Lagos voters not to torpedo the Lagos-Badagry rail project that has reached advanced stage; the Bus Rapid Mass Transit programme that has brought modernity to Lagos; the urban renewal programme that street by street, is restoring the pride of Lagos. He talks about the free and qualitative strides in education, which has restored the impetus of primary and secoundary education, with all the potentials that it portends for the future of the state. The Governor of the State of Excellence, reminds Lagosians of the need to sustain the financial autonomy and independence of the state. He reminds Lagos residents that Akinwunmi Ambode was at the financial trench, to rout the imperial invasion by the federal government, under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, which had withheld the funds of the local government councils, to cripple the state. He sells his candidate as a financial genius, an administrative expert, who will hit the ground running, if elected his successor, as he has been part and parcel of the success story of the State of Excellence. Like a proud marketer of an excellent product, BRF excitedly reals out A+’s multiple academic laurels, and the other numerous exhibits of his fecundity. The man who started it all, to the glory of Lagos State, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, advisedly tells Lagosians that we should all board the Ambode train, as it is sure to lead to further prosperity. The distinguished leader of the strongest opposition party ever, in the chequered political history of Nigeria, we must remember, was the Nostradamus, who saw the brilliant performance of Babatunde Fashola, well before he nominated him, as his successor. He reminds us that he was castigated by those without the gift of clairvoyance. But like all true leaders, he stood his ground then, that, Fashola was the man; and true to his prediction, BRF today stands out in shining armour. Now again, the man with the gift of prophesy, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has prophesied that Akinwunmi Ambode is the next man with the Midas touch. I guess it makes a lot of sense to believe him. At his campaign stops, AMBODE the man of the moment has shown his capacity for logic and clear thinking. He has shown a firm grasp of fundamental governance issues. He has been able to connect and empathise with the poor and the deprived. He has shown uncommon acumen and succinct grasp of the big issues that would transform the mega city of Lagos, to one of the best and safest in that class. Akinwunmi Ambode, has also shown capacity to connect with the ethnic and cultural plurality of Lagos State. In his campaigns, A+ has gained endorsements from discerning cultural associations of non-indigenous peoples of Lagos, without alienating his kits and kin. For Ndigbo in Lagos, with Mr. Ben Akabueze, the Honourable Commissioner for Economic Planning and Budget in Fashola’s cabinet leading, they have a stake in AMBODE’S triumph.k
46
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
47
SHOWBIZ
Oscars 2015: Birdman wins best film •As Eddie Redmayne, Julianne Moore get acting bests
I
N a spectacular ceremony, typical of the annual Oscars, Birdman, a movie about an actor trying to redeem himself after playing a superhero onscreen by attempting a serious stage play, won the overall best film at the awards show, Sunday night. The event held at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood, Los Angeles, United States. At Saturday’s Film Independent Spirit Awards, Birdman was also named best film. “I don’t know how that happened,” Alejandro Inarritu, the movie’s Mexico-born director, said as the winning film team gathered around the mic, but the movie’s star, Michael Keaton, gave the credit all to Inarritu, saying, “this guy is as bold as bold can be.” It was a night full of stirring political speeches, and before Inarritu surrendered the stage, he dedicated his award to his fellow Mexicans. The director said he hoped that the Mexi-
cans living in Mexico “find and build a government that they deserve” and that those Mexicans who have come to the U.S. find “respect and dignity.” Just moments earlier, Inarritu picked up the best director award, and he jubilantly confessed that as a good-luck charm, he was wearing the tighty whities Keaton wore in the film: “They are tight, they smell like balls,” he laughed. And Inarritu had gotten his first call to come to the stage just minutes before that, when Birdman got the Oscar for best original screenplay. He wrote the film with his three screenwriting partners Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris Jr. and Armando Bo. Inarritu recalled how three years ago, he asked them all “to follow [him] in a crazy idea, [and] because they are crazy, they did.” But while Fox Searchlight’s Birdman took four key Oscars, the wealth was spread around.
In fact, all eight best picture nominees got at least one Oscar, albeit not necessarily the ones each was looking for. Searchlight’s The Grand Budapest Hotel, which also collected four Oscars, proved to be popular in the craft categories, as was Sony Pictures Classic’s Whiplash, which picked up three Oscars. An exuberant Eddie Redmayne delighted in receiving his first Oscar for portraying Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything. “I don’t think I’m capable of articulating what I am feeling right now. I’m fully aware that I’m a lucky, lucky man,” he said, before going on to testify that “this Oscar belongs to all of those people around the world battling ALS,” the disease with which Hawking has lived throughout his life. “I will be its custodian,” Redmayne promised. ALS also was referenced in Julianne Moore’s acceptance
• Inarritu, director of Birdman
nial appearance to do more than just welcome the guests, delivering a rousing call for the motion picture industry to accept its “responsibility to protect freedom of expression around the world.” Host Neil Patrick Harris kicked off the proceedings at the Dolby Theatre with a musical number, “Moving Pic-
tures,” written by the Oscarwinning Frozen team of Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez, that used a lot of multimedia razzle-dazzle to put him in the middle of famous motion picture scenes. He was joined by both Anna Kendrick and Jack Black, who contributed to the Gilbert-andSullivan-like patter.
Bobby Brown gives Nick Gordon condition to see Bobbi Kristina
Jay Z, Beyonce still can’t find house in L.A
B
S
INGING couple, Jay Z and Beyonce who moved to Los Angeles, recently have not been able to find the perfect L.A home they desire to buy. However, report says they haggled their way into a rental for $150K a month. The couple who are said to have enrolled their daughter Blue Ivy, into a school in the Hollywood hub, are said to be familiar with the crib in ritzy Holmby Hills - it’s the same one they rented last summer on a short term lease - but real estate sources say they just locked it down for a full year. We are told the power
speech as best actress for playing a woman with early-onset Alzheimer’s in Still Alice. She spoke of how people with Alzheimer’s “deserve to be seen so we can find a cure,” and she also explained that when the movie’s two directors, Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland, found out in 2011 that Glatzer had been diagnosed with ALS, Glatzer told Westmoreland that what he really wanted to do with his life was continue to make movies. Two movies about crisis hotlines won the short film awards. For live-action short, the winner was The Phone Call, from Mat Kirkby and James Lucas, in which Sally Hawkins plays a crisis-hotline counselor. For documentary short, the winner was Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1, from Ellen Goosenberg Kent and Dana Perry, about the suicide hotline dedicated exclusively to U.S. veterans. Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs used her ceremo-
couple’s been itching to move out of the Beverly Hills area hotel where they’ve been living while house hunting - so they decided to go back to their old digs. The rented apartment, a 7bedroom, 9-bathroom and an infinity pool with a waterfall,
is said to be on a 16,000 sq. ft. land. It will be recalled that Jay Z and Beyonce paid $200,000/ month for the pad last year, but were able to knock off $50,000/month, having dealt directly with the owner this time.
OBBY Brown is calling BS on Nick Gordon for suggesting the family won’t let him see Bobbi Kristina, but observers say when you read between the lines it sounds like there’s a string attached that Nick won’t touch. Brown lawyer says, “To address the continued and never ending media requests for comment about Mr. Gordon’s requests to visit Bobbi Kristina, let me be very clear, Mr. Gordon was offered an opportunity to potentially visit Bobbi Kristina and he declined to meet the terms of any possible visit.” The lawyer won’t say what
“term” Gordon must meet, but it’s pretty apparent. Reports say since there’s a criminal investigation because Bobbi Kristina had visible injuries when she was rushed to the hospital, and Nick is the target of the investigation, Brown may be suggesting that Nick talk to the police. The lawyer certainly hinted he wants Nick to sit down with police, saying, “We are only concerned with individuals that can help Bobbi Kristina and bring resolution to the investigation.” Despite ongoing investigations, it appears Nick has not been interviewed by po-
lice. Nick made a public plea Saturday night to allow him in the hospital, claiming he’s the one who can bring his girlfriend back to life, but Brown’s lawyer scoffs, saying, “Obviously Mr. Gordon is not as desperate to visit Bobbi Kristina as he wants the world to believe.” Gordon’s attorney says his client’s legal team advised Nick to reject Bobby Brown’s conditions in order to visit Bobbi Kristina. He says Nick has repeatedly offered to meet with Bobby in private to clear the air, rather than go through lawyers, but the singer turned Gordon down.
48
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
49
HEALTH
Clean environment, ventilation can stop pneumonia, says expert A
CHEST and respiratory physician at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), Idi Araba, Dr Cyril Chukwu has enjoined Nigerians to clean their environment ahead of the rains to prevent pneumonia. According to him, pneumonia, the second killer of children in Nigeria after malaria, is a disease caused by germs in humans’ lungs. Besides, germs are caused by microscopic organisms, such as bacteria, virus and micro-plasma as well as fungi. Chukwu spoke of germs as living things that can only be seen under the microscope, saying: “The germs float in the air.” Part of preventive measures, the physician said, are clean environment, ventilation and reducing overcrowding in houses, adding: “If people are crowded in a room it can spread to other inhabitants.” Everybody, he said, would be dead if the body cannot defend itself against the germs. “The human body has immunity, which helps defend itself against germs but within limit. Humans breathe in millions of germs daily but the body defend itself against them, hence it resists the germs. “When the weather is very cold the ability
By Wale Adepoju
of the body to resist the germs is low. This is because the body’s defence is helped by temperature. The temperature, however, should not be too high or too low.” Enzymes, he said, work well in a range of temperature. “When the temperature is too low, the body’s ability to defend itself against germs, which it breathes in, is reduced and thus allows them to settle in. That is how cold sets in. If there is cold and no germs, there cannot be pneumonia,” he said. Moreover, most European and American countries experienced very cold weather, yet there is no pneumonia. Why? This is because their environments are clean and it has been proven that germs thrive in dirty environments.
“So, for you to have the disease, you must inhale the germs in the air. There are more germs in a dirty environment than a clean one.” “The body”, he said, “usually is able to resist the germs but it is a different situation when the germs are overwhelming or when people’s body cannot cope with the load of the germs.” They come down with pneumonia,”he said. Dr Chukwu said a cold environment minimises people’s ability to resist the germs. “During rainy season, we see more pneumonia patients than in the dry season. We see between five and six patients weekly during the dry season. But, this increases to
‘The human body has immunity, which helps defend itself against germs but within limit. Humans breathe in millions of germs daily but the body defend itself against them, hence it resists the germs’
•Dr Chukwu
about 10 weekly during the rainy season. There is a slight increase during the rainy season,” Dr Chukwu said. To stop the disease, he said, medical aspect is little, stressing that other professionals have to come in to ensure a clean and conducive environment. The government, he said, should have a policy in place to ensure cleanliness. Public enlightenment is equally important, he added. Dr Chukwu said too much alcohol and diabetes could aid the disease as well. “Nigeria’s challenges are far more serious than not to expend fund to such researches on pneumonia”, Chukwu added.
Baby needs N2m for corrective surgery in India
A
•From left: Category Manager, Close-up Oral Care, Mrs Oiza Gyang; Customer Marketing Director, Kalpesh Parmar; winner, Ayokunle Adekanbi; special guest, Miss Ayobami Odekunle and Director, Brand building (Oral and Personal care); Unilever Nig. Plc, David Okeme at the grand final of Closeup final draw held at Eko Hotel, Lagos. PHOTO ISAAC JIMOH AYODELE
Urological surgeons laud Mansard for yearly funding
T
HE Pan-African Urological Surgeons Association’s Initiative for Urological Training in Africa (PIUTA), University College Hospital (UCH), Ibadan, Oyo centre has praised Mansard Insurance Plc for its support to the centre by means of its annual funding of the Postgraduate Training Fellowships in general urology. Mansard Insurance Plc is a member of the AXA Group, the worldwide leader in insurance and asset management. Speaking on the centre’s achievements for last year, the Director of the centre, Professor Oluwabunmi Olapade-Olaopa, said Mansard’s support for the centre has been invaluable towards achieving the centre’s accomplishments. “Some of the landmark achievements made with Mansard’s support include the overseas training and conference fellowship to Dr. Sikiru A. Adebayo of Urology Division, Department of Surgery, University College Hospital, Ibadan, to attend the Bristol Urology Urodynamic Course in the United Kingdom and the 34th Congress of the Societe Internationale d’Urology held in Glasgow-Scotland in October last year,” he
By Oyeyemi Gbenga-Mustapha
stated. Prof Olapade-Olaopa said: “Dr. S.A. Adebayo and Dr. Ijeoma N. Chibuzo, on behalf of others, presented the patented University of Ibadan/University College Hospital Bladder Manikin - a locally designed teaching aid for suprapubic catheterisation in low resource countries at the conference in Glasgow. The Manikin was awarded the First Prize for the Best Affordable Technology. “Through the support of Mansard, PIUTA was able to clear and insure the state-of-the-art endoscopy equipment donated by Karl Storz GMBH (a German company) for advanced urological training fellowships at the University of Ibadan and the University College Hospital. Also, the centre was able to produce Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) in indigenous Nigerian languages. A survey of patients on usefulness of the PIL revealed that the leaflets were very useful as they understood the information provided on the diseases and their treatment. Part of the fund from Mansard also provided support for the development of a Yoruba language Human and Veterinary Medical Dictionary.”
Professor Olapade-Olaopa said the yearly funding of the centre by Mansard is a worthy initiative that supports health professionals’ education and healthcare delivery which corporate organisations in Nigeria ought to emulate.
SEVEN-WEEK-OLD baby, Olumide Oshodi-Glover, who is battling a heart problem, requires N2 million for surgery in India. A consultant paediatric cardiologist at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), Dr Ekanem N Ekure, who diagnosed him of a hole-in-the heart, said the baby require Echo-cardiogramme (ECG); urgent management of arrhythmia and medical management with anti-failure medication and cardiac surgery for cardiac defect. He has been referred to a foreign hospital for this. But, the obstacle is raising the money for the trip for the baby and his mother, Ms Elizabeth Ikhalea, a single parent of the sick child. Oshodi-Glover could not breathe easily and he is always crying. His breathing is heavy and he is restless, said the baby’s mother. Ms Ikhalea, who is a caterer, said doctors advised that her son should have the surgery without delay to save his life. She can receive financial help through GT Bank: Elizabeth Ikhalea: 0017551956. Her mobile telephone number is 08034039087.
•Oshodi-Glover By Wale Adepoju
She said her meagre earnings could not support the cost of treatment, adding: “I am calling on the government, organisations and well-meaning Nigerians to come to our aid. “I have been having challenges giving my baby proper care because I have no steady means of livelihood, as an event caterer, due to my nine months of pregnancy and the needed time for proper care for my baby, especially since his diagnosis with the heart condition. “I understand that my baby would need $10,000 (N2 million) for corrective surgery.” Mrs Ikhalea is pleading for financial assistance before it is too late as she soliciting support from wellmeaning Nigerians for her baby to have the surgery.
•From left: Regional Sales Manager, PZ Wilmar Abbey Matanmi presenting the car key to the winner of Hyundai SUV, CEO of Osas Ventures, Mrs Ozigbo Mabel, during presentation of prizes to winners in the Devon King’s Cooking Oil Cruise Promo held in Benin.
50
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
51
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
THE NATION
BUSINESS ENERGY
E-mail:- energy@thenationonlineng.net
Stolen crude oil drops to 50,000 bpd T
HE Presidential Committee on Oil Theft Proliferation and Control has said the stealing of crude oil has declined by 50 per cent to about 50,000 barrels per day (bpd) from the initial 100,000 barrel(bpd) when thieves activities were at a peak. The Chairman of the committee, Delta State Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan told reporters last weekend on the sideline of the commissioning of the National Integrated Power Project (NIPP) 750 megawatts (MW) Olorunsogo 11 Power Station in Ogun State that it is laughable to say oil thieves are stealing 400,000 barrels per day. He said the figure rose when thieves vandalised the pipes, oil firms shut down operations pending the repairs. Therefore, the shut-in production and the quantity of stolen crude oil when added together gave rise to the 300,000 bpd and 400,000 bpd often mentioned by people as stolen crude oil. Uduaghan described the estimated
By Emeka Ugwuanyi
50,000 bpd stolen daily as unacceptably high as many oil firms don’t produce that volume, adding that the government is fighting the menace at local and international levels. Uduaghan said: “Let me explain the issue of figures and I have always said this, when you hear 400,000 barrels, it doesn’t mean that it is 400,000 barrels that is stolen. What it means is that in the process of stealing the crude, it affects some of the wells, so the operators shut down the wells and when they shut down, and are not producing the 300,000 barrels or 400,000 barrels, the volumes are calculated as stolen. There is no time the stealing has been more than 100,000 barrels per day and that was at the peak. In fact, right now, it is less than 50,000 barrels per day that is being stolen, so it is not 400,000 barrels. But even at 50,000 barrels, it is still unacceptably high because not many companies produce up to 50,000 barrels per day. It is im-
Operators oppose 30% cut in project costs
O
ILFIELD technical services operators have kicked against the move to cut down on project costs by operators of the exploration and production (E&P) companies. They said slashing project costs by 30 per cent is not right, and is anti-progress and capable of compounding their problems. Already, members of Petroleum Technology Association of Nigeria (PETAN) have received letters from operators of Nigeria’s Exploration and Production (E&P) companies asking them to discuss price cut due to the fall in the crude oil price. However, the association is saying no to the request. Its President, Emeka Ene, said the body would resist any attempt to slash the cost because the idea is going to have negative effects on their operation. He said the issue of downward review of costs of projects should not arise because of the glut in the global oil market. Ene said many members got the nod to implement projects when there was a boom in the oil market occasioned by the rise in prices of crude oil to over $100 per barrel, adding that they have invested in equipment with which they would execute the projects. He said telling such operators to cut down project cost is an indirect way of sending them out of business because they are going to lose more money. He stated that any attempt to slash the cost of projects would further dip the revenues of the service providers as well as hinder their capacity to stay in business. Ene explained that the falling crude oil price is affecting stakeholders across the value chain, adding that those engaged in project implementation are badly hit. He said: “Many operators got the contracts when the price of crude oil was $115 per barrel. Now prices have dropped to between $40 and $50 per barrel, and we are being told to adjust the contract fees by 30 per cent. They have forgotten that a lot of money has gone into procurement of technologies for such projects vis-a-vis other spending. The questions begging for answers are: How are the operators going to make up for the loss they have suffered if they agree to slash the cost of projects? How are they going to mitigate the
portant I clear the figures.” On whether the committee is making any alternative supply arrangement to address lack of feedstock to refineries, he said it was looking into it. The operators of the refineries have been complaining of not getting crude to refine due to pipeline vandalism, which causes a lot of downtime and damage to their machineries. Uduaghan said the committee was working to drastically reduce vandalism to see increased uptime in the refineries. Uduaghan said: “I don’t know much about the refineries but there must be lot of other reasons why they are not running but on the issue of crude oil theft, there are various strategies. There are immediate and long term strategies that have been put in place especially by the security agencies directly working with Mr. President. The immediate strategy is for the security agencies to be reinforced and that is what we are doing. They are
being reinforced in their activities,patrolling more and dealing with the crude oil theft more. On bigger scale, there is international collaboration on the crude oil theft. Some of these oil that are being stolen, 80 per cent is exported and it is only 20 per cent that is being used for illegal local refinery. The illegal refineries are being destroyed. On the stolen crude oil that is being exported, the Federal Government is working with various countries as part of the international collaboration because they (stolen crude oil) have destinations and are utilised by big refineries outside the country. The Federal Government is working with various countries to identify these refineries that use them and to ensure these goods don’t get there. “There are other local strategies including improvement in the kind of pipelines that are being used, and surveillance, among others but these are short to medium term strategies. The oil companies have to change
their pipelines on the long run to pipelines that are very sensitive so that when vandals want to break it, the act can be noticed in the control room. These are some of the technical details that are being worked upon. “Apart from the national cooperation against pipeline vandalism, there is also the local cooperation which is mainly the engagement of the communities. For us in Delta State for in instance, we have been engaging the communities and educating them on the effects of pipeline vandalism. Pipeline vandalism first of all leads to oil spill, and in turn, ravages the environment. If you go the Niger Delta, there is a lot of degradation of the environment from oil spill. On the long run it affects our people in terms of agriculture, health wise, among others. So we are doing a local community engagement to educate the people, because some of the people that carry out the vandalism are within the communities.
By Akinola Ajibade
cost of production, in the event that crude oil prices plummet further? “Cutting down the project costs is not the issue. We (operators) want to sit down at the table to address the issue of downward review of the cost of projects. The E&P companies can only sack us (operators) from the business by forcing us to agree to their cost-cutting measures.” Ene said that Nigerian companies need more jobs to do for growth, adding that they should not be discouraged through reduction of the project costs. Also, the Chief Executive Officer, Mansfield Energy, Dr. Dapo Oshinusi, said each company will look inwards and see where to reduce cost and where to maintain operations in readiness for more work that will take off in the industry soon.
•From left: Mr Ibirogba; Acting Managing Director, National Engineering and Technical Company Limited (NETCO) Mrs. Bolande Ashafa; and Acting Group General Manager, Engineering and Technology, Dr. Ajayi Adewale, during the visit to Kaztec Engineering fabrication yard at Snake Island, Lagos.
Kaztec advances work on Addax’s Antan platform, jacket
W
ORK has reached advanced stage on the construction of the platform and jacket for oil production from Antan field, owned and operated by Sinopec Addax Petroleum Limited, at its Snake Island fabrication yard in Lagos. The work is being undertaken by Kaztec Engineering Limited,a subsidiary of Chrome Group. Antan oil field is in water depth of about 40 metres and located in oil mining lease (OML) 123 holding approximated recoverable reserves of 15 million barrels and expected to produce 12,000 barrels per day (bpd) at peak. Steel work in Antan is estimated at between 1400 and 1500 tons. The Group Executive Director, Engineering and Technology, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Adebayo Ibirogba, who was on working visit to the fabrication yard at the weekend said he was impressed by the level and standard of work he saw and promised that the corporation will continue to support local fabrication yards by giving projects to do. Ibirogba said: “We are here to see for ourselves what Kaztec is doing in the oil and gas industry in terms of fabrication, local content, and their contribution to the efforts to
•NNPC assures local fabrication yards of patronage By Emeka Ugwuanyi
indigenise operation. “Kaztec is a client and they are doing some work for us and they are angling for more works. For us, we look for value-added work at every point in the value chain. So, when we have indigenous fabricators like this, it is very important that we come to see what they are doing and actually assess if they can improve our business. As they are integrated so is NNPC, we want to produce more oil, we want to convert the oil into petroleum products and to serve the Nigerian people and to increase our contribution to the transformation agenda of President Jonathan’s administration. “We are impressed with what we saw here considering the fact that this is a new yard but there is plenty of room for development. Also from what we saw, the standards are very high and only hope it will get better. “For local fabrication yards to continue to be engaged, we need to increase their activities in the upstream sector. We can all see that all hands are on deck to get the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) out. When we get
the PIB out, it will create a level playing field for all players and that is what the indigenous fabrication yards need. Many don’t even want incentives, they just need a level playing field so that they can compete in an open and transparent market and I think with that, the people that are driving the investment will be confident and investments will come. Remember that crude oil is inching back to $60 per barrel, and $60-$65 per barrel is a range for profit.” For the marginal and brown field operators and how to boost their continued existence in business through technology, Ibirogba said: “Technology is a worldwide phenomenon; we don’t have monopoly of technology in Nigeria. We lean on the entire world industry but there are several advances going on at the same time in our efforts to improve production, and bring down the cost of production. For the marginal field operators, the reason why they are buying these assets is because they are lean in size, and their operating expenditure (opex) is low. Therefore, what they need do is work and see those assets are cheaper than the international oil
companies (IOCs). There is no doubt that many of them are currently facing hard times but whatever hard times they are facing now is temporary. It is normal, all businesses are technical, it goes down and comes up again. Our advice to everyone is to hang in there, hold on to what you have because it will get better.” On construction of floating production, storage and offloading vessels (FPSOs), he said that the local content laws give them (local fabrication yards) competitive advantage, so we encourage everyone who wants to invest in them locally because we will definitely patronise the local fabricators well before we go abroad. The Managing Director of Kaztec Engineering Limited Mr. John Niezner while conducting the NNPC delegation round the fabrication yard, said the company operates wholly in line with the Nigerian Content Act by engaging Nigerians in all its welding and fabrication operations. He said most of the engineering designs and materials are locally sourced, adding that the company’s operations contribute enormously to the country’s Gross Domestic Product.
52
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
53
THE NATION
* The Environment * Mortgage * Apartments * Security * Homes * Real Estate
BUSINESS PROPERTY/ENVIRONMENT
Website:- http://www.thenationonlineng.com 08062722507
property@thenationonlineng.net muyiwalucas2002@yahoo.com
Court nullifies surveyors’ expulsion T HE Federal High Court, Kaduna, has nullified the ex pulsion of Mr. Emmanuel Osita Okoli as a member of the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV). Justice Evelyn Anyadike held that Okoli and Mr. Daramola Olutoye could only be expelled by NIESV Council and not by its Annual General Meeting (AGM). She was delivering judgment on a suit brought by Okoli, Mrs. Cecilia Bola Okoli and Olutoye, against
By Muyiwa Lucas
registered trustees of NIESV, Estate Surveyors and Valuers Registration Board of Nigeria, Mr. Bode Adediji and Mr. Rowland Abonta. The plaintiffs were members of the NIESV until March 12, 2011, when Okoli and Olutoye were expelled at the AGM of NIESV. Before the action, Olutoye had sued Adediji at the Magistrate and High Courts, but Okoli was not a party to the matter. At NIESV’s AGM on March 12,
2011, one Samuel Ukpong was said to have moved a motion seeking to expel Okoli and Olutoye because they filed several suits against the institution.The men were allegedly not given the opportunity to defend themselves, paving the way for their expulsion. The plaintiffs sought these reliefs: A declaration that the purported expulsion of Okoli and Olutoye is null and void; a declaration that the NIESV’s AGM acted in excess of its constitutional
•Managing Director, Federal Housing Authority, Prof Mohammed Al-Amin (right) receiving a souvenir from the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Management Services), University of Lagos (UNILAG), Prof Duro Oni during a visit to the institution. With them is Head of UNILAG’s Department of Building, Prof Godwin Iroroakpo Idoro.
Firms to build N1.2b Marvel Heights
T
WO firms, American Chi nese (AC) Yafeng and AG Homes, have signed a N1.2billion agreement to build 44 housing units at Isheri North, a suburb of Ogun State. The project, which will comprise four-bedroom terrace houses, is designed for the middle and upper class in the society, and will sit on 1.6 hectares of land. According to the Chairman, AC Yafeng Africa, Mr. Emeka Okoye, the project is a collaborative effort to help solve hous-
By Wale Adepoju
ing problems in the state. He said AG Homes’ building and development arm, Evangel Properties, a mortgage bank, would fund the project, while his company will build the houses. The housing units, christened Marvel Heights, will be completed in 12 months. The Executive Director, AG Homes, Mr. Ngozi Anyogu, expressed the company’s gladness to be involved in such partner-
ship, especially one aimed at finding a solution to the housing needs of Nigerians. Discussion, he said, was ongoing to build houses in Enugu and Abuja. He said his company was satisfied with the partner’s output, adding that it shared in the vision to provide habitable and affordable housing to Nigerians within their incomes. “Our interest still remains the best shelter that is affordable,” he said.
Lamudi’s Dial4Home makes its debut
A
FIRM, lamudi.com.ng has unveiled its new product for finding a house for
rent. It is called “Dial4Home”. It is a platform that connects a prospective house seeker to an estate agent with the specified type of house wanted. To use the platform, its Managing Director, Obi Ejimofo, said a client would dial (07000 526834) to speak with a company staff member. After the enquiries, a text message containing the names and telephone numbers of estate agents who have the required specification of the client is immediately sent to the prospective client.
He said finding properties for rent or sale through lamudi.com.ng, is relatively cheaper than going through the conventional means because charges are not imposed on clients, and no registration fees is required. “Once we connect the two parties online, we do not interfere again as we leave both parties to conclude their transaction. We do not take commission from either of the parties and we do not regulate the transaction beyond connecting clients to agents,” Ejimofo said. According to him, Lamudi.com.ng is the largest online property market in Nigeria with over 40, 000 housing listings;
hence, using the platform, Ejimofo said, guarantees effective reach of the target audience. He said services for the Dial4Home cuts across the entire country and is supported by over 7, 000 agents registered on the platform. Ejimofo said the company’s integrity is tested and reassured in the calibre of firms that have partnered and supported the initiative. Ejimofo said to prevent any fraudulent intention, the firm will not engage in any financial transaction online. He also advised propspective clients to endeavour to see and verify properties that are being offered to them by agents before making any financial commitment.
power when it purported to expel the duo; a declaration that only NIESV’s council is empowered by the constitution of the institution to discipline and/or expel members of the institution; a declaration that the motion moved by Ukpong for the expulsion of Okoli and Olutoye not having been brought within the contemplation of NIESV is null and void and could not have been the basis for the expulsion from the institution of the first and third Plaintiffs; a declaration that the failure of the AGM of NIESV to afford the first and Third Plaintiffs the opportunity to be heard before their expulsion from the institution goes contrary to the spirit of the constitution of the institution and the right of the first and third plaintiffs to fair hearing guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution; a declaration that the act of the defendants of ordering the closure of the premises of business of the first and second plaintiffs wherein the second plaintiff was never expelled or suspended by the institution for any act whatsoever is a gross violation of the his right to practice as an Estate Surveyor and is hence null and void. They also sought an order setting aside their purported expulsion; an order restraining the surveyors board from withdrawing their licence as estate surveyors and valuers and/or closing down their offices. In her judgment, Hon. Justice Anyadike noted that the disciplin-
• Okoli
ary power of NIESV is vested in its council, adding that its AGM does not have the power to investigate and/or penalise any member for professional misconduct. Even if the AGM has such power, she held, the procedure followed by them in Okoli and Olukoye’s expulsion is not in the spirit of its constitution. Justice Anyadike lampooned the defence counsel for “acting in concert to frustrate the hearing of this case from inception till now ... no wonder they refused to file any written addresses because honestly they have nothing to canvass.” NIESV’s AGM acted in excess of its constitutional powers in expelling Okoli and Olutoye, adding that only the council of NIESV is empowered to discipline and/or expel members. The purported expulsion of Okoli and Olutoye from the institution, she declared, is null and void because due process was not followed.
New estate coming to OPIC’s Makun City
P
ROPERTYmart Real Estate Investment Limited has concluded plans to add Cranbel Estate to its portfolio. Cranbel Estate is being implemented in line with the Ogun State Property and Investment Company’s (OPIC) proposed New Makun City, on the LagosIbadan Expressway. The estate, located on a mapped-out area would serve both commercial and residential interests in a serene environment in the new Makun City. There are three-bedroom, all rooms en-suite with two car park spaces serving each apartment; each block in the estate is made-up of eight apartments. Propertymart is upbeat about the project, hoping that it would redefine standards in estate business. Their optimism is hinged on the facilities that are to be incorporated into the scheme. This will include uninterrupted power supply, treated water, interlocking roads, street light, drainage and perimeter fencing to ensure effective. The Managing Director of Propertymart, Adeyinka Adesope, explained that the company is embarking on the scheme following the successes it has recorded in other housing schemes. He said the firm would be offering modernised homes that will
perfectly match the taste, needs and lifestyle of prospective buyers. “At Propertymart, we choose to build homes that appeal to your lifestyle and make you truly understand what ‘coming home’ is all about. We are all about providing value for money through innovative real estate services to surpass client’s expectation,” he said. Adesope assured that clients would get the best value for their money, saying the firm has been providing its clients with the confidence that their local and international investments are conducted through highly qualified team of specialists who are capable of delivering prime services that support their estate preferences. Adesope said his firm provides property with investment value, and also have consideration for flexible payment, stating that the price tag on the three-bedroom apartment is N4, 896,450 for full payment, while a scheduled payment spread over 24-month at N7, 491,569, is obtainable with an initial 10 per cent deposit or N749, 156.90. Other features of the Cranbel Estate, he noted, would include lush green area, estate club house, tennis court, gymnasium, children play area and uninterrupted water and power supply, among others.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
54
EQUITIES NIGERIAN STOCK EXCHANGE DAILY SUMMARY AS AT 23-02-15
Equities open with N137b gains
N
IGERIAN equities sus tained its bullish streak as the stock market reopened yesterday with a gain of N137 billion. As investors await earnings reports and dividend recommendations, increased demand enabled divesting investors to place premium on their market values. With nearly two advancers to every decliner, aggregate market value of all quoted stocks at the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) rose from opening value of N9.804 trillion to close at N9.941 trillion. The All Share Index (ASI), the composite index that tracks prices of all quoted equities, indicated average gain of 1.39 per cent to close at 29,793.13 points as against its opening index of 29,383.93 points. Average year-to-date return thus moderated to -14.03 per cent. Market analysts said investors were taking position ahead of the announcement of the full-year results and divi-
Stories by Taofik Salako Capital Market Editor
dends by companies. They added that the assurance by the President Goodluck Jonathan over the weekend of a peaceful election and handover, even if he loses the presidential election have improved positive investors’ sentiments towards the market. The overall market position was also boosted by substantial gains by several highly capitalised stocks including Dangote Cement, Nigerian Breweries, Guaranty Trust Bank, Zenith Bank and Guinness Nigeria Plc. Nigerian Breweries led the gainers with a gain of N4.30 to close at N139 per share. Forte Oil trailed with a gain of N2.60 to close at N223. Flour Mills of Nigeria gained N2.52 to close at N34 per share. UAC of Nigeria (UACN) added N1.70 to close at N35.70.
Guinness Nigeria rose by N1.62 to close at N124.90. On the other hand, Beta Glass topped the losers’ list with a drop of N1.42 to close at N27.08 per share. Portland Paints declined by 20 kobo to close at N3.83. Red Star Express depreciated by 19 kobo to close at N3.71 per share. International Breweries declined by 14 kobo to N17.86 while Nigerian Aviation Handling Company (Nahco) dropped by 10 kobo to N4.60 per share. Total turnover stood at 306.631 million shares valued at N3.01 traded in 4,139 deals. The financial services sector, driven by banking stocks continued its dominance of trading activities. FBN Holdings was the most traded stock with 48.35 million shares worth N362.48 billion. Access Bank followed with a total of 44.89 million shares valued N269.91 billion, while UBA exchanged 42.57 million shares worth N151.37 million.
DAILY SUMMARY AS AT 23-02-15
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
55
MONEYLINK
Cross River tops World Bank rural development Index
T
HE Cross River State govern ment has disbursed over N1.7 billion directly to 247 communities across the state for the execution of various community projects, thereby emerging tops in the World Bank project review implementation progress report on overall performance index in Nigeria. A document obtained from the World Bank Aide memoire and released after an implementation support commission for community and social development project CSDP- Nigeria, revealed that Cross River is leading 25 other participating states on the project in terms of disbursements to grants. The World Bank explained that the funds released through the State Community and Development
Agency is germane for the project to actualise its planned development objective. It pointed out that such exemplary gesture of the state government has sustainably improved access of poor people to basic necessities of life with majority of them being women and children. According to the World Bank, the provision of grants to communities is a project requirement and key item in the Community Development project cycle, which enables communities access needed funds for effective implementation of their projects to improve access to basic services. The apex bank maintained that Cross River state is among a few states in the country that met its strenuous effectiveness conditions, enabling it to start drawing down
Afrinvest is ‘Best for Asset Management’
from the $200 million International Development Association (IDA) credit. It added that through the Cross River Community and Social Development Agency, the state has provided funding for 247 approved Community Development plans comprising; 673 micro-projects distributed across eight sectors of Education, Environment, Gender and vulnerable, Health, Rural, Electrification, Social, Economic as well as Transport and Water supply. The World Bank further lauded the efforts of the Governor Liyel Imoke-led administration in effectively mainstreaming rural development; stating that by any standard, the Cross River Community and Social Development
A
•Jim Yong Kim Project is the flagship in Nigeria, whose implementation performance is unprecedented. Consequently, the World Bank in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Finance announced Governor Imoke as the Community and Social Development Project Ambassador in Nigeria.
NAPPS partners Sterling Bank on capacity building
T
HE National Association of Proprietors of Private Schools (NAPPS) has entered into a strategic partnership with Sterling Bank Plc. This was disclosed during a press briefing held last weekend in Lagos where it was disclosed the partnership is a strategic move by both parties to foster capacity development by equipping students with qualitative education and the required skills to take on leadership roles that will impact positively on the society. Speaking on the choice of Sterling Bank Plc, the President of NAPPS, Lagos Chapter, Chief Yomi Otubela, said that the choice of Sterling Bank Plc was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Council of the Association based on its contribution
Stories by Collins Nweze
to the growth of the sector through capacity building, sponsorship of activities in the education sector and commitment to the development of education in the country. As part of the Agreement, the NAPPS boss disclosed that the Bank will be actively involved in the association’s annual retreat tagged, “Effective Empowerment of Schools through Collaborative Capacity Building & Leadership”, scheduled to hold from February 25 – 27, 2015. He regretted that despite the willingness of people in the private sector to invest in education, most of them were faced with challenges such as proper book keeping and accounting, corporate governance and human capital development among
others. “The partnership with Sterling Bank is therefore expected to address these challenges through access to finance, sponsorships and staff development”, the NAPPS president stated. Sterling Bank’s Group Head, Strategy & Communications, Mr. Shina Atilola, disclosed that the decision of the Bank to support NAPPS was based on the Association’s resolve to work with like-minded institutions to improve the poor state of the education sector in the country for good. He added that the lender’s choice of projects to support in the education sector was based purely on the outcome of research conducted on the key issues hindering the sector.
Mr. Atilola who stressed that the primary focus of Sterling Bank is to enrich lives by adding value through capacity building and development opined that government alone cannot solve the problem of education in Nigeria. His words: “There is a need for the intervention of the private sector in the development of education to bring the sector back to its rightful place in the country. Government is doing its best, but we are not there yet. That is why the private sector must come in and invest in the education sector if our children to obtain qualitative education without having to pay over the odds for it. Sterling Bank’s intervention in the sector will help to ameliorate some of the challenges the sector faces”.
frinvest has been named “Best for Asset Manage ment – Nigeria” in the Wealth & Finance International magazine Finance Awards 2014. The Finance Awards were developed to recognise and reward excellence, best practice and innovation in finance, open to individuals and firms operating and working in a wide range of industries, including personal finance, corporate finance, accountancy and financial management. In naming Afrinvest Best for Asset Management - Nigeria, Wealth & Finance was impressed with the firm’s tailored asset management services which it customises to its target high-net worth, institutional and retail clients. “Investors find Afrinvest’s flexibility and excellent client service delivery to be the best points about working with the company”, noted the Finance Awards Committee. In his response, Managing Director of Afrinvest Asset Management Limited, Mr. Ola Belgore, expressed appreciation to the organisers of the award for recognising the firm’s professionalism and excellent client service. Belgore also assured investors of the firm’s commitment to providing value for their investments. “We will continue to ensure that we get the right outcome for our clients, and do so in a way that they can understand, so we do not fall into the mistake of leading with complexity when our clients are looking for simplicity,”he assured. Wealth & Finance International is a monthly publication, dedicated to delivering high quality informative and up-to-the-minute global business content.
MEMORANDUM QUOTATIONS AFRINVEST W. A. EQUITY FUND ARM AGGRESSIVE GROWTH BGL NUBIAN FUND BGL SAPPHIRE FUND CANARY GROWTH FUND CONTINENTAL UNIT TRUST CORAL INCOME FUND FBN FIXED INCOME FUND FBN HERITAGE FUND FBN MONEY MARKET FUND FIDELITY NIG FUND • UBA BALANCED FUND • UBA BOND FUND • UBA EQUITY FUND • UBA MONEY MARKET FUND
126.04 9.17 1.12 1.19 0.63 1.39 1,744.73 1,104.77 112.34 121.16 1.67 1.29 1.32 0.95 1.17
125.82 9.08 1.12 1.19 0.62 1.33 1,744.73 1,104.00 111.75 120.30 1.62 1.28 1.32 0.93 1.17
GAINERS AS AT 23-02-15
SYMBOL ACCESS FLOURMILL UBA UACN AIRSERVICE ZENITH BANK UBN TRANSCORP MAYBAKER TRANSEXPR
O/PRICE 5.60 31.48 3.41 34.00 2.00 17.37 8.50 2.45 1.55 0.89
C/PRICE 6.09 34.00 3.60 35.70 2.10 18.23 8.92 2.57 1.62 0.93
0.49 2.52 0.19 1.70 0.10 0.86 0.42 0.12 0.07 0.04
O/PRICE
C/PRICE
BETAGLAS PORTPAINT REDSTAREX CONTINSURE GOLDBREW VONO RTBRISCOE NAHCO IKEJA HOTEL NEM DANGSUGAR
28.50 4.03 3.90 0.86 0.93 0.97 0.79 4.70 3.32 0.60 6.19
27.08 3.83 3.71 0.82 0.89 0.93 0.76 4.60 3.25 0.59 6.11
CHANGE -1.42 -0.20 -0.19 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.10 -0.07 -0.01 -0.08
Interbank ($/N)
199.00
$1
Black Market ($/N)
215.00
$1
London Inter-bank Offered Rates (LIBOR) ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Inflation: December
8%
Monetary Policy Rate
13.0%
Foreign Reserves
$33.2b
Oil Price (Bonny Light/b)
$60.91
Tenor
CHANGE
LOSERS AS AT 23-02-15
SYMBOL
FOREX RATES (NairaVs Dollar) February 23, 2015
Money Supply (M2)
N16.42 trillion.
Credit to private Sector (CPS)
N17.2 trillion
Primary Lending Rate (PLR)
16.5%
NIGERIAN INTER-BANK OFFERED RATES (NIBOR)
Tenor
12-02-15 Rate (%) Rate (%) 13-02-15
Overnight (O/N)
14.683
76.583
1M
15.033
15.977
3M
15.809
17.177
6M
16.493
17.908
Transaction Dates 03/02/2015 3/12/2014 1/12/2014
Amount Offered in ($) 500m 400m 350m
Amount Sold in ($) 499.93m 399.97m 349.96m
1 Month 2 Months 3 Months 6 Months 12 Months
19 Feb
20 Feb
Rate)%
Rate (%)
0.1735 0.2147 0.2615 0.3841 0.6709
0.1715 0.2108 0.2626 0.3857 0.6744
Nigerian Stock Market Indices Statistics 19 Feb All Share Index 29,282.04 Mkt Cap (NGN’bn) 9,770.36 Deals 3,385 Volume (mn) 564,28 Value (NGN’mn) 6,087.80
20 Feb 29,383.93 9,804.36 3,714 377,75 6,568.66
GOVT. SECURITIES YIELD – SECONDARY MARKET
Tenor
Feb. 13, 2015
Rates
T-bills - 91
12.44
T-bills - 182
13.85
T-bills - 364
13.92
Bond - 3yrs
15.92
Bond - 5yrs
17.22
Bond - 7yrs
16.59
0
56
THE NATION TUESDAY FEBRUARY 24, 2015
NEWS Ekiti police: we’ve rearrested 110 inmates of prison
E
KITI State Police yesterday confirmed the re-arrest of 110 inmates who last year escaped from the Ado Ekiti prison break. Police spokesman Albert Adeyemi, over 30 suspected armed robbers were also arrested last year. ”We have put in place many strategies which include ensuring that the residents arme themselves with the numbers of the CP and other personnel to enable quick reach when in distress”, he said. Police Commissioner Taiwo Lakanu said more pin downs and foot patrol operations had been intensified in some satellite towns within Ado Ekiti Metropolis and remote areas that are not motorable to complement the 24-hour patrol on highways and inner cities by his men.
Army restricts campaign vehicles
T
HE Army yesterday warned politicians and political parties in Borno State to desist from parking their campaign vehicles outside of their offices. A statement by the 7 Division of the Army in Maiduguri said that any such vehicles seen parked outside the designated places would be treated as constituting a security risk.
The statement, by the spokesman of the Division, Col. Tukur Gusau, said: “The headquarters 7 Division of the Nigerian Army wish to appeal to politicians to please park their marked campaign vehicle in their respective political parties offices only. “Any vehicle seen parked outside such offices will be treated as security risk.’’
Keyamo’s absence stalls Fani-Kayode’s trial for money laundering
T
HE trial of the Director of Media and Publicity of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Presidential Campaign Organisation, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, was stalled yesterday at the Federal High Court in Lagos. It could not go on because the prosecution’s counsel, Mr. Festus Keyamo, was absent. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting Fani-Kayode for alleged money laundering. Justice Rita OfiliAjumogobia had adjourned for the former aviation minister to open his defence. Fani-Kayode, accompanied by some aides, was in court and duly went into the dock when the case was called. However, Mr. Somadina Okore, who represented EFCC, drew the court’s atten-
By Joseph Jibueze
tion to a letter by Keyamo, saying he would not be available. He said Keyamo had another case at the Federal High Court in Yola, and that he had asked that a new date be fixed so that he could prosecute the matter himself. Fani-Kayode’s lawyer, Mr. Wale Akoni (SAN), said he was aware of the letter and that he had no objection to the request for an adjournment. He also reminded the court that the matter was adjourned till Tuesday (today), adding that if it was convenient for the court, his client would return to stand trial. Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia had discharged and acquitted Fani-Kayode of 38 out of 40 counts of alleged money laundering. The judge, while ruling on
the defendant’s no-case submission on November 17, last year, held that the commission did not prove the other counts sufficiently. She partially upheld FaniKayode’s no-case submission and directed him to open defence on two counts (25 and 26). Count 25 reads: “That you, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, on or before September 20, 2006, while serving as the Minister of Culture and Tourism, in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this court, made a transaction exceeding N500,000, which was not done through financial institution, by accepting cash payment of N1 million, which sum was further paid into your personal account number 103450252601 with First Inland Bank Plc, Apapa branch, now First City Monument Bank (FCMB),
through Supo Agbaje, your administrative worker, now at large.” Count 26 reads: “That you, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, on or before September 20, 2006, while serving as the Minister of Culture and Tourism in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this court, made a transaction exceeding N500,000, which was not done through financial institution, by accepting cash payment of N1.1 million, which sum was further paid into your personal account number 103450252601 with First Inland Bank Plc Apapa branch, now FCMB, through Supo Agbaje, your administrative worker, now at large.” The alleged offences contravene the provisions of the Money Laundering (prohibition) Act, 2004. Fani-Kayode pleaded not guilty to them.
Ex-Ohaneze president backs Buhari From Nwanosike Onu, Awka
T
HE former President- General of the apex Igbo sociocultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Dr. Dozie Ikedife, has endorsed the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Gen. Muhammadu Buhari. Ikedife, the ex-presidential liaison officer during former President Shehu Shagari’s administration in 1979, said the APC candidate possessed the qualities to give Nigeria the leadership it deserved. Ikedife, who briefed reporters yesterday in Nnewi, described those who questioned Gen. Buhari’s certificate as being naïve. He said the APC standard-bearer, while serving in the military, attended courses that were equivalent to today’s master’s degree. Ikedife said with his 56 years medical practice and experience, he vouched that Buhari had mental and physical capacity to lead the country.
Man, 70, dies after sleeping with two minors 70-YEAR-old man
A
died while sleeping with two girls, aged 14 and 16, in a hotel at Ogbaku in Mbaitoli Local Government Area of Imo State. The man, was said to be the village chairman of Umueye at Irete in Owerri West Local Government and a retired driver in one of the oil companies. According to a source, the two girls were regular sex partners even after being reprimanded by their parents. It was learnt that the two girls, who were said to be in junior secondary school,
From Okodili Ndidi, Owerri
were not aware of their joint visit to the man until they met at the hotel. The source said: “Both girls jumped into bed with the man at the same time, but before he could finish with one of them, he started panting and died.” The girls, sensing danger, ran away, but they were arrested in their homes by policemen attached to the Ogbaku Police Division. Police spokesman Andrew Enwerem confirmed the incident and the arrest of the girls.
CAC’s powerful prayer
C
HRIST Apostolic Church (CAC), Oke Iyanu, Itire D.C.C. headquarters, has begun a seven-Tuesday special programme. It started on February 3 and will end on March 17. Venue is 181/183, Mushin Road, Church bus stop, Itire, Lagos. The theme of the programme is: “Prayer for First & Last Born”. Ministering are Pastor J.O. Babayemi, Pastor E.O. Odugbesan, Pastor J.O. Omoniyi, Pastor F.B. Fashina, Pastor Yinka Alonge, Pastor Lanre Adekunle, Lady Evang. Ekundayo and other anointed ministers. Pastor Babayemi, who is also the Itire DCC superintendent, said Almighty God would perform wonders in people’s lives during the programme.
RCCG holds programme
T
HE Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), Holy Ghost Zone LP26, will hold a one day programme tagged: “Divine Platform (Raising Kingdom
Treasurers)” on Thursday at 6pm. It is billed for Fountain of Love Parish, 46, Agege Motor Road, opposite Oando filling station, Moshalashi bus stop, Mushin, Lagos.
•General Manager/Chief Executive Officer, Lagos State Emergency Management Agency (LASEMA), Dr Olufemi Oke Osanyintolu (second left) presenting a cheque to Mr Sakiru Salami a victim of fire (at Aiyetoro/Lagbadi, Epe) at Agbowa relief camp...yesterday. With them are LASEMA’s Director of Opreation Olusegun Magnus-Davies (left) and Otun Bashorun of Epe land Chief Muideen Ademola PHOTO: DAYO ADEWUNMI
Youths begin campaign against elections shift
A
BUHARI/OSINBAJO support group, “I am ready”, launched yesterday a campaign against a further postponement of the general elections. The campaign involves the use of 50 metres (600 feet) banners to be displayed by at least 300 campaigners across major locations in Nigeria, as well as concerts and youth mobilisation/enlightenment. The group said since the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has achieved over 75.9 per cent Permanent Voter Cards (PVC)
By Joseph Jibueze
distribution, and the military has been recapturing towns seized by insurgents in the Northeast, the commission and the Federal Government must ensure that the re-scheduled elections are held. Its National Leader Tola Adekunle-Johnson said the “I am ready” campaign will include mobilising at least one million signups through the social media to demand that elections must hold on March 28 and on April 11. “We intend to embark on
gentle walks across the country to let the whole world know that the people are ready for this election. INEC has proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are ready to conduct the elections. We the electorates are saying: ‘I am ready to vote.’ The onus is now on government to team up with Nigerians to have a credible election in March,” Adekunle-Johnson said. He said the group would also campaign against voter apathy, adding that should the All Progressives Congress (APC) win the presidential
election, youths would hold the APgovernment to its promises. The group’s Head of Media Relations, Kingsley Binitie, said millions of youths would be mobilised to ensure that votes count and there the people’s mandate is not stolen or electoral process subverted. “We’re going to protect our votes and ensure they count. Then when the APC government takes office, we’re going to ensure that the party’s manifesto is implemented,” Binitie added.
Ex-Anambra governor Mbadinuju dumps PDP
F
ORMER Anambra State Governor Dr. Chinwoke Mbadinuju has said the Boko Haram insurgency is part of God’s judgment Nigeria. He said the insurgency would not abate until the country embraced justice. Mbadinuju, who spoke at a news conference to announce his defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress
From Tony Akowe, Abuja
(APC), said Sodom and Gomorrah might be a child’s play if Nigeria did not tread softly, adding that it was clear from what was happening in the country that “injustice begets corruption, no matter how it is painted”. The ex-governor, who said he is a founding member of the PDP in Anambra State, noted that the injustice perpetrated by the PDP denied him
a second term in 2003 although he won the governorship ticket on the three occasions the primary election was held. He said it became necessary for him to join the APC because it was the right thing to do, adding that “while the APC has proven itself as a promising party of present and future, we can all see glaringly that everything good about the PDP has since vanished. The tearing of the PDP
membership card last week by no less a person than former President Olusegun Obasanjo is a symbolic attestation to this truth”. The former governor, who went down memory lane on how unfair the PDP had been to him, said despite working for the success of President Goodluck Jonathan in 2011, he was never carried along, adding that about 10 memos he sent to the President were never acknowledged.
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 24, 2015
57
POLITICS THE NATION
E-mail:- politics@thenationonlineng.net
All Progressives Congress (APC) National Publicity Secretary Alhaji Lai Mohammed spoke with reporters in Lagos on polls postponement by the electoral commission, the Permanent Voters’ Cards (PVCs) distribution, the audio tape on election rigging in Ekiti State, preparations for the re-scheduled elections and other issues.
‘Polls postponement can’t save PDP from defeat’ F EMI Fani-Kayode accused APC leaders of holding meetings with INEC Chairman Attahiru Jega in Dubai and other places. The Southern Nigerian Peoples Assembly (SNPA) also accused him of holding meeting with Northern leaders. Did your party leadership meet him in Dubai or any other place? To answer your question, nothing like that happened. When someone like Fani-Kayode makes a statement, we should be able to ask him: where in Dubai did the meeting take place? Which leadership of the party met Jega in Dubai? But, he said he was not going to release any more information… He has not done so, because he doesn’t have any. If he has that information, knowing him very well, he would have wanted it published. It is like the PDP is trying to do a damagecontrol, as its National Chairman Adamu Mu’azu came out last week to pass vote of confidence in Jega… Yeah, let me tell you; it is clear from what is going on that the PDP does not want Jega; the party does not want this election to go on at all and if it wants it to go on it don’t want Jega to conduct it. It doesn’t want the use of Smart Card Readers too; they don’t want free and fair election. Let me explain. One, if there is no pressure from Nigerians and the international community, there will be no elections because if the military has asked for at least six weeks. But, perhaps, six weeks may not be enough. Two, the postponement was done by President Jonathan using the military to blackmail INEC, so he can have more time for the party’s smear campaign, have time to militarise the election and perfect his rigging machinery. He is also hoping that, within that time, the court will be used to disqualify Buhari, steal more money and buy more PVCs. Those are the reasons they postponed the elections. Three, you can see that the moment the postponement was made, the only party on record, when we met Jega that supported the postponement was the PDP and 16 other portfolio political parties. I am serious. When, the position was made, the PDP justified it; it was happy about it. Last Saturday, I was on a TV programme, Okupe said there was no way the election could have held because X number of people had not got their PVCs. But, surprisingly, they did not use the argument of PVCs. Is it not surprising that the same day that the Council of State was meeting and the PDP co-travellers met and made allegations against the INEC chairman, asking for his arrest. They were preparing the ground for the postponement. The PDP said, I mean Ahmadu Ali, that they had no confidence in Jega. Now, given the fact that INEC had given a four-week extension for people to go and collect their PVCs, even as of February 5, 2015 about 67 per cent of registered voters had collected their PVCs, so it is reasonable to assume that within four weeks all those who intended to collect their PVCs could have done so. Now, how come they are now asking that we should not use PVCs again and that we should use TVCs? But, most people don’t their TVCs because either they’ve lost it or have submitted have their PVCs. The question people will be asking is, how do you want the election to have integrity? What has happened to the money you invested in card readers and in training? So, purely you can see that these people don’t want elections. Hasn’t what the President said a few days ago changed your perception about the election holding? There is no way I would believe anything Jonathan says. Absolutely not possible. You all watched the tape on Ekiti rigging. These are the same people that came out to say that the Ekiti election was free and fair and trying to justify that it is only when APC loses elections that they complain. After what I saw in Ekiti, in that tape, I don’t believe Mr. President one bit. There are two conditions we want to put on
•Mohammed
‘Clearly, the intention of the Jonathan administration in postponing the election is to create chaos and create an atmosphere where elections would not hold at all. But, we thank God that they have been disappointed. I think the reaction of our party and our presidential candidate appealing for calm must have shocked them immensely’ ground. One, election must hold as scheduled. Two, the elections must be free, fair and card readers must be used. Thirdly, there must not be militarization. The military must not play any role in these elections. If these conditions are met, we are going to accept the outcome of the elections. You heard what Senator Musiliu Obanikoro, then serving as Minister of State for Defence, said in the audio. He said we are not here for a tea party, I have been sent by Mr. President. Fayose said in this election, I am Jonathan. So, Mr. President assure who? No way. Obanikoro has sued; he is contesting the matter in court… Obanikoro can sue anybody he wants to sue. Look, we are not idiots. If you wake me up in the middle of the night, I know Obanikoro’s voice. They can’t deny it, unless there is an inquiry with that tape. Some people felt if Ekiti election had been rigged, there would have been violence… Look, that election was rigged so clinically that there could not be any protest. You heard and you saw that each tactical commander was given explicit instruction to go to each local government and work for the PDP. They did three things: one mass arrest of our leaders before and during election. Do you know what it means when you arrest leaders of the party? It means the man who has the resources to even pay agents and also mobilise is out, other person is just shoot-at-sight. Thirdly, which they did, which affected us, they were given specified instruction to work for the PDP. Let me be honest with you, we suspected it. In Ekiti, in run-off to the election, we were afraid about the movement, why did they change the Brigade Commander? What are these nocturnal meetings about? A serving governor, Rotimi Amaechi, was physically prevented from entering another state. So, what are we talking about and how could we have protested about those things? You think if we had known about
this audio/film, we would not have presented it in court? Are you going to do that? You see, it might be late for the tribunal thing, but from now we will still go to court to say that this election was not conducted properly and that will be the bottom line. But, surely the military connived. What is going to happen is that this will help us in 2015 elections, in that we would not allow this kind of thing to happen again. Those military officers that compromised in the film have done great disservice to the military. Do you regret that this kind of audio or film is coming very, very late after the Ekiti election? We don’t regret it. I think it has come at a good time. You see, don’t forget that the man who made this video is not a member of the APC. He made the video and he confessed that when he decided to join the military, he didn’t expect to be used like this. What is the assurance that the March 28 and the April 11 election date will stand and, two, what happens if they start to reverse the order of election? We would resist it. For it to happen, they must tell us why? What would be the logistic reasons for putting one first before the other? We did not dictate which one should come first. As a matter of fact, we wanted it from the bottom up. Now, if anybody had planned to have National Assembly and presidential polls first, if they tell us they wanted to change, it means they are trying to rig for Jonathan and that election would lack credibility. We are not going to accept any change. Some Nigerians are asking me what would they do in case the shift they election again, and I said they should resist. The Presidency, the government, the political parties are products of this country. The Chief Justice of Nigeria has set up Tri-
bunals ahead of the elections. Will the period between April 11 and May 29 be sufficient for litigation? Don’t forget that the Chief Justice set up Tribunal way ahead of February elections believing that elections would on February 14 and February 28. How has the postponement affected your plans? Clearly, the intention of the Jonathan administration in postponing the election is to create chaos and create an atmosphere where elections would not hold at all. But, we thank God that they have been disappointed. I think the reaction of our party and our presidential candidate, appealing for calm must have shocked them immensely. During the run up to the postponement, they were deliberately showing videos of post-2011 elections where people say Buhari asked his supporters to be burning cars and killing people. So, this is what they are expecting. But, thank God, wiser counsel prevailed and today we have frustrated their first initial plan. We thank God that postponement has annoyed more people and they have lost more supporters than they thought they would gain. Thirdly, I wouldn’t pretend, it would affect us because, one, we now have to look for more money; two, it would now give opportunity to continue with their smear campaign. It would also allow them to perfect their rigging plans; that is why you see the deployment of soldiers to some duties, but I can assure you, if anybody takes a survey between last Saturday and today, I can assure you that the APC has gone higher in the rating and the PDP has gone down. Yes, the intentions were to derail us and ensure they arrest our momentum, but unfortunately, what they have done was to postpone their funeral; you can’t wake up a dead man. What we would do is to make the best of a bad situation within the six weeks to gain more ground and acceptance everywhere. The PDP and some critics are asking why the APC is crying over the postponement of elections, while it has postponed local government elections in Lagos… Did they ever conduct election in Anambra? What are they talking about? But, it doesn’t make it right? No! Excuse me, what does the law say? What does law say about council election? It is a state law. What if those after Buhari get a pliable judge to get disqualify him… Nobody should toy with the fate of this country because the consequences would be too dire. Not all the people that are chanting change, change belong to the APC? Because it is clear, if one is qualified as a General and he retired as a General in the Army, it is clear that Jonathan’s aim is only to ensure that Buhari does not run. It is clear that it is between him and Alex Barde, the Chief of Defence Staff. Buhari’s certificate was removed from his record and it is on record. General Alani Akinrinade’s interview is so illuminating. Akinrinade said it is not true; he joined the army before Buhari, they requested for their certificates and their certificates were still with the army till today. You mean the removal of Buhari’s certificate is between Jonathan and the Chief of Army Staff, Barde? Yes. Buhari told me that he knew his certificates were in his file when he was the Army Secretary. They removed it. The army has become completely politicised. Quote me. The leadership of the Nigerian Armed Forces has been completely politicised and the major casualty is this current political saga; it is not Buhari and it is not the APC. I am happy that some courageous generals are speaking up. It is insulting. For a man who went for several military trainings in Britain, India and the War College in US to be described as an illiterate leave much to be desired. They have condemned your entire military institution. So, everybody that goes to those military institutions are illiterates!
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
58
NEWS Abductors of Amaechi’s aide yet to contact family From From Rosemary Nwisi, Port Harcourt
T
HE whereabouts of the kidnapped Rivers State journalist and Governor Rotimi Amaechi’s senior aide, Fred Ndigbara, was unknown last night, more than 24 hours after he was abducted. His kidnappers had not contacted either the police or his family. The Assistant InspectorGeneral of Police (AIG) in charge of Zone 6, Calabar, Tunde Ogunsakin, addressed reporters yesterday in Port Harcourt, the state capital, on Ndigbara’s abduction. He was briefed by Rivers State Police Commissioner Dan Batureh. Ogunsakin said the police would ensure that the journalist was released quickly and unhurt. He said: “We are as worried as you are over the abduction of your colleague. The police are making efforts to ensure he is rescued as soon as possible. “His abductors have not contacted anybody; so, no ransom has been demanded. The police commissioner told me this when he briefed me on the incident today.” Ndigbara was abducted by gunmen at the All Progressives Congress (APC) ward rally in his Kaani 1 hometown in Khana Local Government Area. It was learnt that his abductors stormed the venue of the rally in a red Toyota Highlander Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) car and whisked him away to an unknown destination. Efforts to speak with his family were unsuccessful at the time of filing this report.
Fed Govt battles to avert strike in polytechnics From Tony Akowe, Abuja
T
HE Federal Government and the House of Representatives Committee on Education will today meet the leadership of the Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics (ASUP) in a bid to avert another shut down of academic activities in the nation’s polytechnics. Officials of the Federal Ministry of Education and Labour are expected at the meeting with the leadership of ASUP, who had issued a two-week ultimatum to the government to rescind the circular suspending the implementation of CONTISS 15 in polytechnics. The union also wants government to address the alleged arrogance of the managements of the Federal Polytechnics, Oko and Ado-Ekiti. They are demanding the removal of what they described as “autocratic governing councils” in the institutions and improved funding of polytechnics, among other demands. In July 2014, the union suspended a 10-month old strike to allow the Minister of Education study their demands and act on them. However, President of ASUP Chibuzor Asomugha told reporters in Abuja yesterday that though the union had attended several meetings in the past without any concrete action by government, it would attend today’s meetings because of its desire to see a positive change in the system.
10-year-old Nigerian genius to study Mathematics
Oshiomhole to GOC: don’t use military to elongate anybody’s tenure
E
T
HE 10-year-old Esther Okade in this photograph looks like your regular little girl. She has a broad smile, a set of strong teeth, an enthusiastic spirit and a charming eyes. But Esther is not your regular little girl; she is a child prodigy who has been accepted to study Mathematics at the Open University in the United Kingdom. And one other thing: She is a Nigerian. Early this month, Esther received her letter of admission to the Open University after passing her A-Levels, with a B grade score in Pure Mathematics. The 10-year old is already a phenomenon in the UK as she is being dubbed “Britain’s cleverest girl”. But what made Esther’s achievements to be more outstanding is that she has never attended a formal school. Her mother, 37 year old Omonefe- who is also a mathematician- converted the living room of their semidetached three bedroom home into a makeshift classroom where she taught Esther and her brother Isiah aged six. Esther’s prodigy began at the age of three after her mother noticed that she was doing well with numbers. And by the age of four, she had learnt all the alphabets, known her tables and was on her way to learning Algebra. “By the time she was four, I had taught her the alphabets, her numbers, how to add, subtract, multiply and division. I saw that she loved patterns, so I developed a way of using that to teach her new things. I thought I would try her with algebra and she loved it more than anything,” Omonefe said. At the age of six, Esther made nationwide headlines when she passed her General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) an equivalent of the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) with a C grade in Mathemat-
•Esther (left) and her mum By Seun Akioye
ics. Esther seemed to have a set mind about what she wanted to do from early age. According to her mother, she had wanted to go to the University from the age of seven. “But I was afraid it was too soon. She would say, Mum, when am I starting, and go on and on. Finally, after three years, she told me,’ Mum I think it is about time I started university now,” Omonefe said. But her enrollment at the university would not alter the pattern her education has followed; she would study for the degree at
home after then, study for her PhD before starting a bank. “She wants to be a millionaire,” her mother said. Getting a place at the university was an “interesting process”. “We even had to talk to the vice-chancellor. After they interviewed her they realised this has been her idea from the beginning and in December last year she was told she had been accepted onto the course,” Omonefe said. But Esther is not the only star in the Okade family. If younger brother, Isiah can pass his A Levels at the age of six, he would best his elder sister as the youngest prodigy in Britain. Their father, Paul said he is a proud and happy fa-
ther. “ I cannot tell you how happy and proud I am as a father. The desire of every parent is to see their children excel them and take the family name to greater heights and my children have done just that.” The Okades who live in Walsall, West Midlands have been receiving congratulatory messages since the news broke in the UK. But some commentators have accused the parents of “depriving the kids their childhood, by pushing them too hard.” But Omonefe said: “ For now, we want her to enjoy her childhood as well as her math.”
Chatham House confirms Buhari for Thursday
T
HE Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), London, otherwise known as Chatham House, has released the official engagement of the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Party (APC), General Muhammadu Buhari, at the institute on Thursday. In a placement on its website, the institute said Gen. Buhari is expected to speak on the topic: “Prospects for Democratic Consolidation in Africa: Nigeria’s Transition”, beginning from 10am (London time). However, a statement from the APC Presidential Campaign Organisation asked all those who want to attend the event to register before midnight today. The APC statement by the Director of Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, reads: “The
From Tony Akowe, Abuja
Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) better known as Chatham House has confirmed that General Buhari will be speaking at its event billed for Thursday, February 26, 2015 in London. “A post on the website of Chatham on Monday disclosed that General Buhari who is on a working visit to the United Kingdom will be speaking on the topic “Prospects for Democratic Consolidation in Africa: Nigeria’s Transition.” “The programme to be chaired by Sir Richard Gozney, former British High Commissioner to Nigeria, will commence at 10am London time and last for just one hour. “The postponement of Nigeria’s fifth election since its return to civilian rule in
1999, together with fierce political competition, a security crisis and severe economic challenges linked to the drop in oil price, have thrown into sharp relief the challenges of conducting this essential process in such a complex environment. “While there is widespread speculation as to the reasons for the delay, there is also widespread acknowledgment of the necessity that national elections do now take place as scheduled on 28 March,” the APC presidential campaign organisation quoted the Chatham House as saying on its website while announcing the programme yesterday. It added: “According to Chatham House, General Muhammadu Buhari, former military ruler (1983-85) and now opposition presidential candidate, will discuss the importance of democracy for
Africa’s future, and in particular why delivering dividends of elected government matter both to Nigeria and internationally. “There will be a live streaming of the event commencing at 10am GMT and all those wishing to pose a question to General Buhari are advised to do so via Twitter using the hash tag #CHAfrica. “All prospective attendees are encouraged to apply to attend on or before midnight of Tuesday, 24 February. General Buhari had left Nigeria last week for United Kingdom as part of the international engagements of his presidential campaign. “The APC presidential candidate for the March 28 election has among other schedules met with Mr. Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister”.
DO State Governor Adams Oshiomhole has said the Army should remain loyal to the nation rather than being used to defending the tenure of an individual. The governor said Presidents would come and go while the nation would remain. Oshiomhole spoke in Benin, the state capital, when he hosted the General Officer Commanding 2 Division of the Nigerian Army, Ibadan, Oyo State, Maj.-Gen. Sanusi Muazu. The governor said no political office holder should be allowed to use the military for personal ambition. He said: “The reason this has become an issue is because of the nature of our politics and the way political actors have put their personal interests over and above the national interest. “Presidents would come and go; governors would come and go, whether they are good or bad. Even the Armed Forces commander would come and go. But the institution of the Nigeria Armed Forces will remain. Once we can distinguish between the person and the office, the institutions and the player, we may not have a crisis. “I believe the next elections, with all the tension that people are raising, with all the speculations that Nigeria would have a crisis; to me, I have seen all these before. God, who created this country, will ensure that after all the fog, the weather will be clear. Nigeria will stay.”
‘HIV prevalence rate drops’ From Kazeem Ibrahym, Uyo
T
HE National Agency for the Control of AIDS (NACA) said yesterday that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/ AIDS) prevalence rate in Nigeria has dropped from 5.1 per cent to 3.4 per cent. NACA’s Director-General, Prof. John Idoko, attributed the decrease to extensive awareness of the virus by Nigerians. He stated that the HIV/ AIDS Anti-Discrimination Bill, which President Goodluck Jonathan signed into law in 2014, gave those living with HIV that they would not be stigmatised when other people were aware of their status. Idoko, who was represented by the Chief Programme Officer, NACA, Mr. Ali AdeYusuf, at the four-day free medical treatment organised by NACA-Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme in Essien Udim and Ika local government areas of Akwa Ibom State, said the programme targeted 10,000 persons at each of the points. He revealed that the HIV/ AIDS was no longer a lifethreatening disease since the people living with the disease could still live their normal lives for a long period.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
59
NEWS Coordinator assures Benue PDP of logistic support
B
ENUE State Coordinator for Goodluck/ Sambo Campaign Organisation, Mr. Sam Ode, has told the Benue State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) that the campaign organisation would provide the logistics needed to execute its campaigns. He said the issues raised by stakeholders and state chapters of the campaign network in a meeting with President Goodluck Jonathan in Abuja were addressed, assuring that should state chapters agree on a total campaign, victory would be sure not just for Mr. President, but also for the PDP at all levels. Ode spoke yesterday at a town hall meeting organised by the campaign organisation in Makurdi for the Benue Northwest Senatorial District. Senator Jack Gyado asked the people not to take for
Stakeholders back Jonathan’s re-election From Uja Emmanuel, Makurdi
O
VER 308 stakeholders from the Benue Northwest Senatorial District have supported the re-election of President Goodluck Jonathan, following a declaration they made at a town hall meeting in Makurdi yesterday. Former Minister of State in the Niger Delta Ministry, Dr. Sam Ode, urged Nigerians to vote for President Jonathan and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), assuring that the party would sustain the culture of true democracy. Ode, who is the state coordinator of the Jonathan/Sambo Campaign Organisation, noted: “The PDP has over the years sustained the nation’s democracy and also ensured that the wheel of progress, sustainable growth and development is not hindered. “If we must sustain these achievements and ensure genuine democracy, we should rally round the ruling party to ensure continuity in our polity.” Mr. Terngu Tsegba urged the party to use the elections shift to embark on aggressive campaigns at the grassroots. The guest speaker and Second Republic senator, Chief Jacob Gyado, advocated peaceful elections, stressing that “President Jonathan should be allowed to serve his second term, after which power will return to the North.”
Gombe denies Boko Haram water poisoning By Vincent Ohonbamu, Gombe
G
OMBE Water Corporation has denied a rumour that the Boko Haram insurgents have poisoned the water supplied to Gombe from the water treatment plant at Dadin-Kowa, during their February 14 attack. The General Manager of Gombe Water Corporation, Isa Mohammed, an engineer, said the rumour was untrue. He said: “The rumour that the insurgents poisoned the water is not true. It is a lie.”
From Uja Emmanuel, Makurdi
granted, the Goodluck/ Sambo project, as the presidential election was key for the PDP victory. He said: “You have to know that the presidential election and that of the National Assembly are coming first. Once we lose them, then you know our people like bandwagon politics. They will go the wrong way. I therefore urge you never to tinker with an idea of waiting for another election. You must start with the presidential poll. “We the minorities have sacrificed enough from all sphere in this country. We have paid our dues in every aspect. Eighty per cent of the fighting forces to unite this country came from the minority. We gave too much blood to be messed up. You must vote Jonathan back to power to protect us.”
•Soldiers walk on the Kogui bridge, which separates Niger from Nigeria, in Diffa, eastern Niger, on Febuary 21. Foreign military advisers have been despatched to southern Niger to assist troops from Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Benin in the regional fight against Boko Haram.
Obasanjo’s exit is PDP’s death warrant, says Kwankwaso K ANO State Governor Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso has described the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as a dying elephant. He said the exit of former President Olusegun Obasanjo is an indication that the party is dead. According to him, the resignation of Chief Obasanjo confirmed the evil ongoing in the PDP. Kwanwaso said: “Obasanjo has got supporters not only in Ogun State, not only in the Southwest, but across the country. For him to come out and say what he said (because most of us, who have worked closely with him, know that he is somebody who always tolerates a lot of things.), I have not seen him since he decided to leave the PDP, but I can comfortably say that so much must have happened in the party for him to come out to tear his card, saying he has left the party. “Some of these people who made those mistake at the time of our exit, now, they are making the same mistake, and I hope they
From Kolade Adeyemi, Kano
will handle it in such a way that it doesn’t create more problems for them and even for the country. So, I think PDP has a serious challenge now.” Fresh facts are emerging on the issues, which led to the break-up of the G-Seven Governors, who protested at the 2013 PDP special convention when Bamanga Tukur was the chairman. Leader of the G-Seven, Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido, who is now the Northwest coordinator of President Goodluck Jonathan’s presidential campaign, described his five colleagues, who left the PDP in sustenance of the struggle, as non-issue to the progress of the party. He said the exit of Chibuike Amaechi (Rivers), Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso (Kano), Aliyu Wammako (Sokoto), Abdulfatai Ahmed (Kwara) and the impeached Murtala Nyako of Adamawa State from the
PDP remained inconsequential and of no effect to the success of the party in the coming elections. But Kwankwaso took a swipe at Lamido’s utterances, describing him as a betrayer. His words: “I don’t want to talk too much about the Jigawa State governor. Everybody knows that he was part of us. He worked so hard. In fact, he was the leader of the group. He took us to a level that we felt there was no going back, and we were surprised that he had different things in mind. He stayed in the PDP and we felt we had no business being in PDP. “I think if there is anybody who should criticise our exit, I believe it shouldn’t come from him or the Niger State governor. I don’t want to join issues with any of my colleagues. Nigerians are the best judges on our actions and utterances; and of course what we have done. I believe that that judgment will
be part of what will happen at the next election. “What we have done is not a secret, it is not something that anybody can hide; and I believe we have done the right thing, we have deepened democracy. PDP is no more the monster it used to be where nobody was important, where people were not respected, even the governor of the most populous state who won election almost single-handedly in the party to come back as a governor. “I was not being respected and they see me as an irritant and so on; but I can tell you, now if there is anything they can do under the sun to take me back to their party, I can assure you that they know the importance of Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso in Nigerian politics—I have no business talking about my colleagues. You can bring another topic.” Kwankwaso described Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose’s recent statements against General
IGP orders probe of don’s death HE Inspector General of Police (IGP), Suleiman Abba, has asked the Assistant Inspector-General of Police in charge of Zone 1, Kano, AIG Tambari Muhammed, to probe the death of Prof. Ahmed Falaki. The deceased was a Professor of Agriculture at the Ahmadu Bello University,
T
From Faith Yahaya, Abuja
Zaria. In a statement yesterday by the force spokesman, the IGP said the probe would unravel the circumstances leading to his death. The statement said arrests had been made in connection with the killing. It reads: “Inspector-General of Police Suleiman Abba
has viewed with great concern, the death in Kano of Prof. Ahmed Falaki of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. “The Assistant InspectorGeneral of Police in charge of Zone 1, Kano, AIG Tambari Muhammed, has been ordered to conduct an in-depth forensic investigation into the incident to unravel the circumstances sur-
rounding the attack and death of the Professor of Agriculture. “Arrests have made in connection with the incident, and the late professor’s vehicle recovered in Bauchi State.” The IGP assured the deceased’s family and the public that the police would ensure justice was done.
PDP, APC, APGA governorship candidates boycott debate
O
NLY the governorship candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Dr. Mike Omotosho, yesterday honoured the governorship election debate in Kwara State. Other parties, whose governorship candidates were invited, included the All Progressives Congress (APC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). But the APC governorship candidate, Governor
•Ahmed: I had engagement From Adekunle Jimoh, Ilorin
Abdulfatah Ahmed, gave reasons for his absence. The Senior Special Assistant to the Governor on Media and Communications, Dr. Muideen Akorede, said the governor was absent, following his prior engagement. He added: “The governor loved to be at the event, but
for prior state engagement. He is desirous of interacting with the group anytime, to highlight his achievements in the last four years and what his plans are if re-elected.” The debate, held in Ilorin, was organised by the Kwara Coalition of Business and Professional Associations (KWACOBPA), in collaboration with the Nigeria Elections
Debate Group, Centre for International Private Enterprise and International Republican Institute. It was assessed by a moderator and two panelists. Expatiating on his blueprint for the state, Dr. Omotosho bemoaned Nigeria’s over dependence on oil, saying such a development was dangerous for the economy. He promised, if elected, to place premium on the welfare of people with disability.
Muhammadu Buhari as reckless and unguided, saying it was unexpected of a person who called himself a leader.
Ribadu’s campaign inaugurated From Barnabas Manyam Yola
A
DAMAWA State Governor Bala James Ngilari has inaugurated Mallam Nuhu Ribadu’s governorship campaign in Yola. Performing the inauguration at the Banquet Hall in Government House, Yola, Ngilari denied sponsoring the General Muhammadu Buhari Campaign Organisation, saying he was not for Buhari but for President Goodluck Jonathan. The governor said those speculating that he was sponsoring the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate were rabble rousers, who were out to put a wedge between him and President Jonathan. The PDP Chairman, Chief Joel Madaki, urged the state chapter of the party to close ranks and work for its success.
Shonekan inaugurates Bandirawo city From Kolade Adeyemi Kano
F
ORMER Head of Interim National Government, Chief Ernest Shonekan, yesterday inaugurated Bandirawo city, one of the three new mega cities built by the Kano State Governor Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso administration. The other two, Kwankwasiyya and Amana cities, were recently inaugurated by Gen. T. Y. Danjuma and Gen. Yakubu Gowon. Chief Shonekan hailed Governor Kwankwaso for initiating the project. He said: “In these days when financial resources are scarce, governments must make sure that inaugurated projects are used carefully.”
60
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
FOREIGN NEWS LENT SERAP petitions Fed Govt, Dabiri-Erewa Theme: Accept God’s will for you! over Nigerians in Azerbaijan Text:”...... Joseph .... did as the angel of the
S
OCIO-ECONOMIC Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sent separate open letters to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ambassador Aminu Wali, and the Chairperson, Diaspora Committee, House of Representatives, Abike Dabiri-Erewa, over the situation of Nigerians living in Baku, Azerbaijan. In the open letters dated February 20, 2015, and signed by SERAP Executive Director Adetokunbo Mumuni, the organisation urged them to “urgently intervene in the situation of Nigerians living in Baku, Azerbaijan, who are being arbitrarily denied their right to nationality by the Embassy of Nigeria in Tehran, Iran by fail-
ing and/or refusing to issue the citizens renewal of their international passports. “Several Nigerians living in Baku, Azerbaijan have told SERAP that they participated in an e-passport exercise conducted by two Nigerian Immigration officers. This exercise took place between August 31, 2014 and September 1, 2014 and was witnessed by the Ambassador of Nigeria to Iran, Alhaji Tukur Mani, and an embassy officer. Every adult participant paid $150 while every child paid $120. But the embassy has so far failed and/or refused to issue the participants any passport,” the organisation said. The organisation also quoted Nick Nwolisa, President of Ni-
gerians in the Diaspora, Azerbaijan chapter as saying that: “Nigerians residing in Azerbaijan are left to their own fate. Some of the Nigerians here are on the verge of losing their jobs because without a valid passport, you can’t get a residence or working permit. “Most would be wandering the streets of Baku looking over their back because with an expired legal permit, you are a target of the immigration officers, who are bent on deporting Nigerians. Some would be expelled from school and can’t continue with their studies. We have been on our own here, and the situation we are in now is a matter of urgency and desperation,” Nwolisa said.
France stops Syria-bound 'jihadists'
F
RENCH authorities have for the first time, confiscated the passports of six nationals who were allegedly planning to travel to Syria to join jihadists. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said the intelligence services believed the men wanted to join the Islamic State (IS) militant group. The measure is part of new counter-terrorism laws adopted last November. Meanwhile, France has deployed an aircraft carrier off Bahrain to be used against Islamic State (IS) militants. Planes from the Charles de Gaulle carrier will be used against IS positions in Iraq, a
spokesman for Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said. The first Rafale fighter jet took off on Monday morning from the carrier as it sailed about 200km (120 miles) off the northern coast of Bahrain. Correspondents say that the deployment of the warship will halve the time it takes for military aircraft , which normally fly from the United Arab Emirates , to reach Iraq. France began Operation Chammal in support of the USled coalition against IS in September. Mr. Cazeneuve said authorities had acted against the six men after their departure to Syria appeared to be imminent.
Their passports and identity cards have been confiscated for six months, after which the order can be renewed. They have the right to appeal against the move in court. France is not the only European country that can now confiscate passports from would-be jihadists to stop them from travelling to Syria. In the UK, police can now seize the passports for up to 30 days from nationals trying to leave the country, and can temporarily prevent citizens suspected of involvement with Islamic State from re-entering Britain. The Home Secretary says she has seized passports from 25 suspected jihadists.
Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife” ( Matthew 1:24)
T
HE best prayer that anyone who desires to live a nice, peaceful, enjoyable and prosperous life ought to pray is to take a que from our Lord Jesus Christ when at the Mount of Olives, He prayed that, “ Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” (Luke 22:42). His decision to do God’s will, albeit very agonising, didn’t go unrewarded as “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”. ( Philippians 2:9-11). It is unfortunate that a vast majority of believers pay lip-service to doing God’s will such that when God directs them to a path they are expected to take which is contrary to the very nice way they had in mind, grumbling, complaining and violence becomes the order of the day. God told Isaiah in Isaiah 55:8 that, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord”. Solomon also wrote in Proverbs 14:12 that: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Following God’s way or leading to a path that is unpleasant or unreasonable to mere mortals is the sure way to everlasting joy and peace because He is the One that declares “.... the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done....”(Isaiah 46:10). Not only that, He is the”... Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Rev. 22:13). The hallmark of knowing who a Christian is, is determined when someone accepts God’s leading, even if it is seemingly uncomfortable or unknown. It is pertinent to note that Christianity is not determined by the church you attend, your intimidating titles, size of your congregation, the ‘charity work’ you engage in, the miracles that is attested to in your local congregation, the size of your Bible(s), the Scriptures you know off hand, your preaching dexterity, the flowing garment you wear, how vociferous you are with ‘tongue speaking’ or any other outward compliment (1 Cor. 13:1-3). Jesus Christ said that’
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21). To further bring this home, Jesus Christ introduced a theology that was, and is still, at variance with family understanding and belief when the multitudes with Him informed Him that His mother and brethren were looking for Him, He looked sideways and gave a verdict that “... whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother” ( Mk. 3:35). From our text, Joseph found himself in a quagmire when his virgin fiancee suddenly became pregnant and she could not offer a believable explanation for the pregnancy. The plausible option for Joseph was to abandon her secretly but an angel came to him in a dream that, “......fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 1:18-20). Immediately, he cast aside his initial rejection of the pregnancy and decision; he decided to take over the responsibility of being the father. He subjected Himself to the path of shame, dishonour, rejection and ignominy because it was in agreement with God’s will. It needs be said that doing God’s will is not very easy but when one follows that anti-social and antilogic path, it shall end in joy, peace, celebrations and elevation. Following God’s path is doing what He asks you to do mindless of opposition, unfamiliar terrain, rough paths, rough road and bitterness. It is a deviation from the chosen path, norm or dictate. Thank God that this year’s Presidential and Senatorial elections are expected to fall within the lent season by the grace of God. Knowing that prayers have been offered, and still being offered to God to give us credible leaders, we are expected to display Christian virtues and accept the outcome of the election as God’s will and eschew every form of pre and post-elections violence. The onerous thing for all is to surrender whatever happens to God and remain confident that whosoever gets to power through fraudulent means shall receive the reward here, and in eternity. Prayers: Father, give me grace to accept that your will is supreme and grant me courage to follow your path, no matter the circumstances, in Jesus’ name.
NEWS
Fayose under fire over death wish for candidate Continued from page 4
nance and development of the state. “If Fayose had taken the issues of development seriously as he is doing in his hate campaign against Buhari, the effects could have been felt in many areas that are germane to the state development,”the APC added. It said: “Fayose is busy on two fronts. One, in Ekiti, he keeps telling the people and workers in particular about the debts profile and the difficulty that he will face in paying workers’ salary, starting from March while saying nothing about his development plans for the people. “Outside giving Ekiti peo-
ple chicken and rice, he doesn’t have any development plan. “At the national level, he is busy with anti-Buhari campaign, wishing the APC presidential candidate dead and completely unable to divorce his personal interest of political survival from the collective interest of Ekiti people for a purpose-driven government that caters for the general good of the people. “We have no doubt in our minds that Fayose needs medical attention.” Oyo State chapter of the Buhari Campaign Vanguard said Fayose’s “antecedents and precedents constitute serious affront to human dignity”.
Speaking in Oyo town, the State Deputy Co-ordinator for the Vanguard, Chief Segun Taiwo said: “How on earth could a right-thinking and normal human being who is not a human type be wishing his fellow being dead because of politics. “Is Fayose God? Can he tell us when he will die, where and how? Who is Fayose to determine future aspiration of his fellow being? It is even a taboo in Yoruba culture to wish anybody dead.” Fayose denied yesterday the reports that he had sent some people on Gen. Buhari’s trail. He spoke at a news conference in Abuja on the health of Gen Buhari, saying he is re-
ceiving treatment in a London hospital. He said: “At Buhari’s age, I don’t need to run after him. My prayer is that he live long. Buhari is old even to govern a state. He is frail, old and not strong to run the affairs of this country. “General Buhari is not well, he is sick in the hospital. This is not personal. I am not against the North. I am not against the South. Our leaders should show us their medical records. “I am saying that Nigeria needs a healthy leader who will be able to address the problems of this country. Even in advanced countries, those wishing to lead present their medical records because they
Oil price drop: Nigeria to call emergency OPEC meeting if…
N
IGERIA will call an extraordinary meeting of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) if crude oil prices slip any further, Minister of Petroleum Resources Mrs Diezani Alison Madueke has said. Speaking in an interview with the Financial Times, she said: “We’re already talking with member countries. If the price slips any further, it is highly likely that I will have to call an extraordinary meeting of OPEC in the next six weeks or so,” she said. Mrs Alison-Madueke as OPEC president is responsible for liaising with member countries and the producer group’s secretary-general in the event of an emergency meeting. Almost all OPEC countries, except the Arab bloc, are “very
uncomfortable,” she said. The comments are the first public sign of the deepening unease about the oil crisis since Venezuela and Iran last month pushed for the cartel to cut output in a bid to reverse the more than 50-per-cent drop in prices since June last year. In November, the 12-member group chose to hold production
at 30 million barrels a day. The next official meeting is scheduled for June. Brent oil prices briefly rose by more than $1 a barrel on the comments, reversing earlier losses, but quickly sank again as dealers doubted whether there was any scope for rapid action given core Gulf OPEC members led-by Saudi Arabia
have given no sign they are ready to curb production. Nigeria “obviously needs more money for its oil, but if the Saudis, who control one-third of OPEC production, do not go along, what can it do?” said James L. Williams, energy economist at WTRG Economics in London, Ark.
know the amount of energy to be deployed.” Fayose also spoke on the interview Gen. Buhari granted a London television station, All Eyes on Africa, which he said was conducted in Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja room. Also, the governor admitted that he participated in the June 20, last year Ekiti governorship election rigging meeting, secretly recorded in an audio tape by Captain Sagir Koli. He said: “Yes, the voice in that audio tape is mine. If you listened very well, you would have heard me complaining about attempts by the APC to rig the election,” Fayose said. He had earlier denied ever been at such a meeting.
Police: Okrika violence perpetrator’ll be punished Continued from page 4
carry out any form of political violence as I have already ordered a heavy clamp down on any person (s), or group(s), that will disrupt the
Troops arrest terrorists disguised as women Continued from page 4
on Gwoza, Bama and Sambisa Forest has been stepped up. The statement added: “Meanwhile, in furtherance of the mission to clear terrorists from all their enclaves by the military, the Nigerian Air Force has stepped up its air bombardment of identified
targets in Gwoza, Bama and Sambisa forest, preparatory to other phases of the mission. “The air strikes have been highly successful as they achieved the aims, hitting vital targets with required precision. “Terrorists are now in disarray as they scamper to es-
cape from the impact of air bombardment of their locations in the forest. “Having successfully liberated Baga where the terrorists have been marauding, the troops’ attention has now been focused on consolidation of the security of the area to pave the way for return of citizens.”
•Fayose
•Ogunsakin
peace in Rivers state before, during and after the general elections. “My office has commenced a detailed investigation into the incident that took place during the APC rally in Okrika. “Also investigations on the case of attack and attempt on a Rivers State PDP convoy at Abua in Abua/Odual Local Government Area is nearing completion. I shall leave no stone unturned in a bid to ensuring that perpetrators of the acts are fished out and made to face wrath of the law.” The AGP said several stop and search points have been established in Okrika and Ogu/Bolo to recover illegal arms and ammunitions in the area.
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
61
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
62
NATION SPORT
Wenger: Monaco a tough test
I won't change my style - Bale
R
EAL Madrid forward Gareth Bale has insisted he has not changed his playing style despite receiving criticism from some Madrid supporters after not passing to Cristiano Ronaldo in a Liga game last month. The Welshman was jeered during the Santiago Bernabeu side's 3-0 win over Espanyol when he went for goal himself rather than pass to his Portuguese team-mate. Having received backing from Ronaldo and head coach Carlo Ancelotti, Bale has made it clear he has not altered anything in the wake of his side's 2-0 Champions League win over Schalke at the Veltins Arena on Wednesday. "I haven't really adapted my style of play," the former Tottenham star told Sky Sports. "In certain games, if a sight of goal has opened up I’ll take it. But [against Schalke] I think my team-mates were in better positions and I tried to play the ball around." Ronaldo was on target in Madrid's 2-0 win, with Marcelo adding the second to give the defending European champions a commanding lead in the last16 tie. It forms part of a strong recovery following the club's 4-0 derby defeat to Atletico Madrid earlier this month and Bale was delighted with their response. "We're relieved and over the Atletico result.
•Fred
Fred: My Brazil career is over
T
HE Fluminense hitman's fine recent form has led to speculation of a return to the Selecao but the 31-yearold has confirmed his international career has come to an end Former Brazil striker Fred has confirmed he no longer has aspirations of returning to international football. The Fluminense striker became a stalwart of former coach Luiz Felipe Scolari’s side ahead of the World Cup, cementing his place by finishing joint-top scorer of the Confederations Cup 2013 with five goals. He announced his international retirement after finding the net just once as Brazil fell to Germany in the semi-finals of the World Cup
the following year, before confirming he would happily return if coach Dunga required his services. However, he has yet to feature in a Brazil squad since Scolari’s departure in July last year and has now confirmed his international career is over. "Honestly, returning to the national team is no longer something I think about it. I am concentrating solely on [club football] here at Fluminense,” the 31-year-old former Lyon striker told Radio Globo. Fred has hit five goals in six games for Flu in the Carioca State Championship and his fine form, coupled with Dunga’s preferred No.9 Diego Tardelli’s recent switch to China, had sparked speculation of a possible recall.
•Wenger
A
RSENE Wenger believes his Arsenal side will have to continue their recent improvement if they are to get past Monaco in the last16 of the Champions League. The Gunners moved back into the top four of the Premier League on Saturday with a nervy 2-1 win at Crystal Palace but they quickly have to turn their attention to European matters. However Wenger is confident his squad, with their injury problems mostly behind them, is up to showing they have what is needed to last the distance on all fronts. "The spirit is there and we want to keep that as a very
strong basis, the team has come up a level and we will see that with the results," said Wenger. The Arsenal manager warned there can be no sense of complacency when they tackle Monaco, who topped Champions League Group C and won 1-0 at Nice on Friday night to maintain their own domestic top-four challenge. "The last 16 in recent years has been super tough. This is a 50/50 game," said Wenger, who is set to face the club he guided to the 1988 Ligue 1 title in a competitive fixture for the first time. "We know that Monaco are very tight defensively - they didn't concede in the group stage against good teams. Of
course it will be tricky, but a possible tie. "It is really a 50/50 because Monaco are in a similar position to us. They came back into a good position in the league and their confidence level will be high." Despite all of the nostalgia connected with the European tie, Wenger, who left Monaco the following year to take over at Nagoya Grampus in Japan, insists his sole focus had been on getting the needed result at Selhurst Park. "I have enough experience to know that the most important game is this one, after, you think about the next one, so it has not been hard." Wenger added.
Messi better than Ronaldo -Henry
T
HIERRYHenryhasheaped praise on Cristiano Ronaldo for his consistent performances over the last four years, but stresses that Lionel Messi is the better player. Ronaldo was voted the Fifa Ballon d'Or winner for the third time in January, having won the award for the first time in 2008 before Messi went on to win it four times in a row. Despite the Real Madrid star having pipped the Argentine to the accolade in each of the last two years, Henry still feels his former Barcelona team-mate is the better player, but says people should enjoy watching both of them. "IplayedalongsideLeo,sothere’smy answer,"theFrenchmanrepliedwhen asked by Fifa.com which one of the two he prefers. "I have an enormous amount of respect for Cristiano, as someone who maintains such a high level for several years. "It’sonethingtohaveagood season, and then have another four years later but to keep up with that level for consecutive years is something else. "People realise it, of course, but I feel like we still don’t grasp the real measure of what these two are doing.Inthefuture,people will look back in awe at the continuity, the goals and the pressure that comes along with doing this for so long.
63
THE NATION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
SPORT EXTRA
Enyeama, Mikel top nominations for Nigeria Pitch Awards
S
UPER Eagles captain, Vincent Enyeama and Chelsea of England star, John Mikel Obi topped the list of nominations for the 2014 Nigeria Pitch Awards. Announcing the list of nominees for 14 categories of the award in Lagos yesterday, Managing Partner, SIAO, Ituah Ighodalo, said the selection of the nominees was painstaking, describing it as a culmination of a long, professional, painstaking process of distribution, retrieval, collation and verification of the nominations and voting for the awards. Enyeama was nominated alongside Enyimba’s Femi Thomas and Kano Pillars’ Theo Afelokhai for the goalkeeper of the year award. In the Midfielder of the Year cadre, Mikel will jostle with Enyimba’s Kingsley Sokari and
Lazio’s Ogenyi Onazi, while Godfrey Oboabona, Kenneth Omeruo and Chinedu Udoji will compete for the award in the Defender of the Year award. Russia based Ahmed Musa, Enyimba’s Mfom Udoh and Spain’s Ikechukwu Uche jostle for the Striker of the year award. Referee of the Year Ikechukwu Adigwe, Peter Edibe and Ferdinand Udoh. Club of the Year – Kano Pillars, Dolphins FC and Enyimba. Coach of the Year – Okey Emordi of Kano Pillars, Kadiri Ikhana of Enyimba and Edwin Okon of Super Falcons. Manager of the year – Kadiri Ikhana of Enyimba, Okey Emordi of Kano Pillars and Felix Anyansi-Agwu of
GTB Lagos Principals’ Cup enters quarter finals
M
•Enyeama
Enyimba. Players’ Agent of the Year – Nwankwo Kujah Friday, John Olatunji Shittu and Atta Aneke. For the football Friendly Governor of the Year, Governor Babatunde Fashola of Lagos State will lock horns with Governor Godswill Akpabio of Akwa Ibom and Senator Liyel Imoke of Cross River. State with the best football development programme will be competed for by Delta, Kwara and Lagos. Also, Nation’s Group Sports Editor, Ade Ojeikere was nominated in the football journalist of the year (print) category alongside Vanguard’s Tony Ubani and Punch’s Tana Aiyejina.
ATCHES will continue in this year’s GTBank Lagos Principal’s Cup, as eight teams’ battle for places in the last four of the competition across the state. At the Agege Stadium, CMS Girls Senior Secondary School, will tackle Girls Senior High School today, while Alakoto Senior High School will confront Ikotun Senior High School in the girls’ event. In the boys’ division, Ikorodu Senior Grammar School tackles Iju Senior
Grammar School, while Dr. Lucas Memorial College will take on Keke High School. In the other match, Government Senior College battles Ilado Community High School in the girls’ game. Tomorrow, Queens College will take one Oriwu Senior Model College for a place in the last four. Isolo Senior High School versus Birrel Avenue Senior High School, while Ifako Comprehensive Senior Secondary School battles Dairy Farm Senior Secondary School.
AYC: Knee injury stops Yahaya
A
KNEE ligament tear has ruled out Tottenham Hotspur youth star Musa Yahaya from next month’s African Youth Championship in Senegal. Flying Eagles’ coach Manu Garba announced Musa Yahaya will miss the U20 championship after he suffered a knee injury in the team’s second test match against Ghana Black Satellites last week in Tema. Musa Yahaya, 17, was forced out of the match at the 51st minute after he went in for a tackle and suffered a knee ligament tear in the process. “The scan result shows that Musa Yahaya will not be available for the AYC,” disclosed coach Manu Garba. “It’s a great loss for the team as he is a key player, but we have no choice but to forge ahead without him now. We wish him quick recovery and hopefully he will join us for the World Cup when we qualify.” The player himself has taken his injury setback philosophically, saying it is the will of Allah. It is believed the former Nigeria U17 star will be sidelined for up to six weeks if “well managed”. The Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) has also contacted the player’s English Premier League on the latest development. Manu is expected to announce a final 21-man squad latest Thursday midnight for onward submission to the Confederation of African Football (CAF).
Dike warns Eaglets against SA
F
ORMER Golden Eaglets’ coach, Alphonsus Dike has called for caution in the side's semifinal clash against the Amajimbos of South Africa. The reigning world champions will challenge the South Africans for a place in the final of the ongoing African Under-17 Championship in Niger Republic on Wednesday at the General Seyni Kountche in Niamey. Eaglets garnered seven points to top Group A, while South Africa finished second in Group B behind Mali. Dike said Eaglets must be at their very best on match day to be able to outsmart equally good South African side. “Unarguably, South Africa are a good side, the country’s football has been on the upward rise in recent time. It will certainly be a difficult encounter for both sides but the side that perseveres and maintains 100% concentration will come out victorious. “That means Eaglets must be 100% careful in their approach to the game as well as remain at their very best. I believe Eaglets will win at the end of the day but they must not underrate the opponents or lose even a second concentration. “Absolute concentration is the watchword throughout the duration of the encounter,” said the former Enugu Rangers coach to supersport.com.
TODAY IN THE NATION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 TRUTH IN DEFENCE OF FREEDOM
VOL.10 NO. 3135
‘Obasanjo, in the context of a collapsing PDP, should be a lesson to APC. No political party should allow its own nominee, though he be president, so much power as to turn the party into his own fiefdom’
OLAKUNLE ABIMBOLA
COMMENT & DEB ATE EBA
E
KITI’s stomach-infrastructure governor Ayo Fayose long ago joined the ranks of our compatriots in public life — you know them — who never touch anything without defiling it He has no shame. He is a compulsive liar. He holds nothing sacred. Since General Muhammadu Buhari was voted presidential candidate of the APC, Fayose has mounted a ghoulish death-watch on him, pivoting on medical report purporting that the 72-year-old former head of state had been treated for prostate cancer, at the Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, in Kaduna. Even if true, the report should have elicited empathy. The report was fake through and through, however; an inept forgery. But it was more than enough for Fayose to embark on a countdown to Buhari’s demise with the kind of glee you would expect of a person about to come into a vast fortune. Don’t vote for Buhari in the presidential election, he urged his band of followers, for the most part those whose stomachs he has conscripted for the vilest ends; don’t vote for him because he is going to die in office, like four previous leaders from his corner of Nigeria . That, essentially, was the statement Fayose put out in a signed advertisement that several newspapers plastered on the entire front pages, as if it was editorial material of the highest importance. And to every newspaper that agreed to publish this obscenity, Fayose forked out the going price of N5 million. For a while, he was distracted from his macabre obsession with compassing Buhari’s death by the disclosures that have now enteredthe annals of electoral skullduggery as Ekiti-gate. On the eve of last June’s gubernatorial election in Ekiti, some leading PDP members and top officials of the Jonathan administration gathered at Fayose’s Spotless Hotel, in AdoEkiti, to put the finishing touches to their design for winning the poll. In attendance were Musiliu Obanikoro, Minister of State for Defence, Jelili Adesiyan, Minister of Police Affairs, Brigadier-General A.A. Momah, commanding officer of the 32 Artillery Brigade deployed to Ado Ekiti to supervise the poll. Also in attendance, probably for an on-thespot assessment of the design that was to be pressed into service for him in the gubernatorial race in neighbouring Osun State several weeks later, was the PDP’s candidate, Iyiola Omisore. Unbeknownst to the schemers, the meeting was secretly recorded by Captain Sagir Koli, an aide to General Momah. The tape was posted online newspaper Saharareporters, after confirming that it was authentic. Fayose can be heard on the audiotape bul-
OLATUNJI DARE
AT HOME ABROAD olatunji.dare@thenationonlineng.net
Annals of political debauchery
‘
To give Fayose his due, he did not threaten to go to court, as Obanikoro did. Even if the publication was false, Obanikoro’s recourse to the law courts would still be fruitless •Fayose
•Obanikoro
lying and harrying Momah, charging that Momah had been taking a bribe from the APC to disarm the police and thus to clear the way for it to rig the poll. Obanikoro, who had all along denied being anywhere near Ado-Ekiti at the material time, can be heard declaring that he was on a mission from the President. He reminds Momah that his promotion lay more or less in his hands as Minister for the Army, and that he had better deliver. The tape contains just enough hints of the plot – how APC stalwarts were to be rounded up and detained and its field workers immobilised while only PDP operatives travelling in specially marked vehicles would have the field entirely to themselves. The plot is fleshed out in shocking detail in Koli’s deposition, including how one of the notorious Uba Brothers, rode into Ekiti at the head of a column of soldiers, with bus loads of cash taken out of the Central Bank in Umuahia, and how the military personnel in this special task force took their orders directly from Chris Uba, aforementioned. Only a person trained in reconnaissance could have reported in such precise and overwhelming detail how the gubernatorial election that brought Fayose to power for the
RIPPLES
Borno Pastor: CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA’S LEADERSHIP GOT N7b FROM PDP TO CAMPAIGN FOR JONATHAN
Lord, forgive them ‘EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DO’.
•Momah
’
second time was compromised, if not perverted. It makes frightening reading. When the audio surfaced on the web site of Saharareporters, Fayose stoutly denied its content, claiming that it was only the latest fabrication in a long line of fabrications by the APC, “the party of liars.” He said no such meeting ever took place, and that his voice had been digitally manipulated to implicate him. “There are softwares (sic) that can re-create voices and even bring the voices of long-dead notable persons back to life,” Fayose reportedly said. “There are softwares (sic) that can turn printed text into synthesised speech, making it possible for anyone to use recordings of a person’s voice to utter new things that the person never said. One of such softwares (sic) is called ‘Natural Voices.’” If this was Fayose speaking extempore rather than reading from a script that some bureaucratic hack prepared for him, the Higher National Diploma he parades from the Ibadan Polytechnic may well be authentic. Some might even be led to believe that he is actually a professor of cybernetics! It was only after several of the schemers named in the tape had fessed up to the fact of the meeting but not the purpose that Fayose
HARDBALL
M
USILIU Obanikoro, ex-this, ex-that, former and aspiring minister, made things easy and sweet on the stumps when he renamed himself Koro, a shot-gun, short-and-sweet, two-syilable abbreviation of the five-syllable, clanging original. But the problem is when accented somewhat, Koro could in Yoruba mean “bitter”, though that is not the meaning — or taste! — of the original name. Could this then be why the ex-chairman, Lagos Island Local Government, ex-commissioner in Lagos State, ex-senator of the Federal Republic, ex-minister of the Federal Republic, ex-failed gubernatorial candidate and aspirant, and ex-Nigeria High Commissioner to Ghana tends to leave a bitter taste in the mouth, in his many public involvements? Koro exited his Lagos Island council chair in a blaze of controversy, crossed, with his Alliance for Democracy (AD)-secured Lagos central senatorial mandate to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP); then, on PDP platform, came back for an imperious gubernatorial demand: Koro for governor! Of course, that ended in electoral disaster — and just as well, for Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN, his conqueror back then in 2007, has proved, for Lagos and indeed, the whole country, a splendid revelation.
Koro for minister! The same bitterness plagued his tenure as junior Defence minister, with the Army portfolio. As minister, Koro’s matter of urgent national importance was marshalling his soldiers to disrupt work at the Ilubirin Lagos Homs project, his own ground-breaking idea of a Lagos boy telling Lagos that he was not only in government, he was in power! But it is payback time right now, for his Abuja principal now runs from pillar to post in Lagos, and the rest of the Southwest, searching for votes he wilfully threw away! Then came the 2014 Ekiti governorship election, and Koro upped a rising ministerial notoriety with a tag-team partnership with Jelili Adesiyan, Police Affairs minister, using their combined Army and Police troops to muscle voters in Ekiti and Osun elections, in brazen display of illicit federal might, under the guise of securing these elections. The ploy worked in Ekiti, and the utterly disgraceful Ayo Fayose is the result; but was foiled in Osun, despite its “initial gra-gra”, as they would say on Lagos streets. Indeed, allegations from the Ekiti rigging audiotape scandal would suggest Ekiti as, so
admitted, without shame and without remorse, that he had indeed participated in it. To give Fayose his due, he did not threaten to go to court, as Obanikoro did. Even if the publication was false, Obanikoro’s recourse to the law courts would still be fruitless. Under American law, he would have to prove that the publication at issue was made with actual malice, .i.e. with knowing falsity, or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. That burden is almost insurmountable. And it explains why public figures rarely bring defamation lawsuits before American courts. If Fayose’s reaction to the Ekiti-gate was characteristically duplicitous, President Goodluck Jonathan’s was downright execrable. He would not waste his time investigating a fabrication, he told The Wall Street Journal long after some of the officials featured in the audiotape had admitted that they had met in Ado-Ekiti but for a different purpose, and long after Saharareporters had posted Koli’s damning account of rigging plan. How could Dr Jonathan, a scientist trained to be guided by empirical evidence, tell that the audio tape and the report were fabrications when he had not examined them? This is a repudiation of the scientific method. No wonder Nigeria under Jonathan has been like a stalled caterpillar, its antennae probing in every direction, its body inert. Meanwhile, Fayose has resumed his ghoulish pastime – his Buhari death watch. No sooner was it announced that the APC presidential candidate would be going to the UK on a working visit than he released a bulletin on Buhari’s itinerary. Buhari, he said, had been ferried to a plane in the dead of night on a stretcher, and rushed to London for urgent medical treatment. Buhari was not scheduled to speak at Chatham House, as his camp had claimed, was in the UK for one purpose only: to obtain treatment. Fayose even went on to name the hospital where Buhari was allegedly being treated. All this, Fayose exulted, was splendid vindication for the editorial advertisement he had placed in the papers several weeks ago warning that the APC had saddled Nigeria with a presidential candidate set to expire. Buhari has since been shown going about his business in the UK, including a photo-op with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. His Chatham House talk is scheduled for Thursday. Nothing in all this has moved Fayose to admit error. Rather, he has now conflated his ghoulish obsession with what he says is revelation from on high that Buhari will never be president. A debauched mind’s hallucination, Governor, is no revelation. •For comments, send SMS to 08111813080
•Hardball is not the opinion of the columnist featured above far, the bitterest in Koro’s chequered public career. The tape, secretly recorded by Capt. Sagir Koli, an intelligence officer under the suborned Brig-Gen. Aliyu Momoh (from allegations from the tape), captured Koro, Adesiyan, Fayose, Iyiola Omisore, and other PDP partisans, at a meeting in Fayose’s Spotless Hotel, Ado Ekiti, pillorying Momoh for not executing their rigging plans effectively enough. Koro has, of course, denied all; and once threatened a legal suit against Saharareporters that broke the news. But it is not looking sweet — for those who first denied there was any such meeting have changed their story, insisting though that the meeting was not meant to rig! President Goodluck Jonathan, in whose name Koro’s voice claimed it was acting, has all but dismissed the tape as alleged fabrication. He, however, admitted he had not listened to it. So, what was the basis for his judgement? Anyway, it so happens Koro covets being minister again. Jonathan has agreed, scandal or no scandal — but why is no one surprised? But the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) is calling on the Senate to block Koro’s nomination, at least pending a forensic probe. Koro for minister! That isn’t sounding so sweet right now, is it?
Published and printed by Vintage Press Limited. Corporate Office: 27B Fatai Atere Way, Matori, Lagos. P.M.B. 1025,Oshodi, Lagos. Telephone: Switch Board: 08034505516. Editor Daily:08099365644, Marketing: 01-8155547 . Abuja Office: Plot 5, Nanka Close AMAC Commercial Complex, Wuse Zone 3, Abuja. Tel: 07028105302. Port Harcourt Office: 12/14 Njemanze Street, Mile 1, Diobu, PH. 08023595790 WEBSITE: www.thenationonlineng.net E-mail: info@thenationonlineng.net ISSN: 115-5302 Editor: GBENGA OMOTOSO