The gubernatorial aspirant of the Accord Party (AP), in the last governorship election, in Enugu state, Barrister John Nwobodo, has commended the judges that heard petitions at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, PEPT, who ruled in favour of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Nwobodo said the learned judges followed judicial precedence and followed religiously the evidences presented before them.
Nwobodo, who is also the former Chairman Enugu Inter Party Advisory Council (IPAC) and Conference of Nigeria’s Political Parties (CNPP), said though there could be irregularities and flaws, they were not enough to negate the outcome of the election, saying that the popular candidate in the presidential election won.
He, however, commended the mature manner Tinubu’s opponents took the outcome of the PEPT judgment by opting to seek redress in a highest court in the land instead of opting for violence or upheaval.
Nwobodo pointed out that justice does not depend on popular opinion or sentiment but on palpable evidences presented and defended.
“Justice is not rendered in accordance with public sentiments and opinions. Justice is rendered according to defined rules deliberately made to safeguard fair hearing of all concerned. As it is said, justice is not a one way traffic. The legal principle “he who asserts must prove” is commonplace.
“The adversarial adjudicatory system practised in Nigeria is founded on pleadings and evidence. Each of these legal concepts have its specialised rules of which the failure to apply the rules may lead to regrettable consequences for the party at fault.
“In between the sundry questions above, there are several other legal considerations interspersing them such as properly pleading of facts, and producing evidence in admissible forms and fulfilling all conditions necessary for the admissibility of documents in case of documents to which conditions exists for their admissibility.
“The judgment reveals thoroughness, diligence and industry on the part of the quintet justices. The learned justices ardently understood the facts, and applied the laws as appropriate to the facts and legal issues.
“The Lordships religiously abided by judicial precedents and on each issue decided they supported same with legal authorities. The reasons for decisions are in view demonstrably sound.
“I should not be understood to be suggesting that the 2023 general election, particularly, the presidential election of 25th February, 2023 was without blemish. There were undeniably some irregularities on the field including flip flop and policy somersault by INEC.
“Those troubling issues may have well been documented for action, especially, legislative interventions through amendment of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“However, I do not think that the outcome of the presidential election would have been different had the irregularities not occurred. I believe the most popular among the candidates won. The benefit that would have accrued had there been zero irregularity is improved transparency.
“I admire the civility of the petitioners in the way they received the outcome of the petition and in their resolve to seek justice upstairs at the Supreme Court which is the final arbiter in this case,” he commended.
