September 24, Since Monday, September 11, the Court of public opinion has been sitting indefatigably and robustly, day and night, in an election petition judgment between Justice B. M. Tukur, Chairman of National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal Vs Majority Opinion Beyond Plateau.
In the matter aforesaid, Justice B. M. Tukur, who is accordingly perceived as a provocateur and enfant terrible, doubles as the judge and petitioner, while the boundless Court of Public Opinion is the willing and determined respondent.
The matter for determination is not whether B. M. Haruna did not concede to, and obliged Simon Lalong to procure the tribunal judgment in the matter between him and the APC against Senator Napoleon Bali and the PDP in the Plateau South Senatorial election of February 25, 2023 as it is being alleged, but whether Tukur did not atrophy, or commit judicial Afghanistanism by going outside and beyond the brief of the Election Petition Tribunal, to rule in favour of Simon Lalong who was trounced in the said election by more than 54,000 votes, to the effect that the PDP candidate, Napoleon Bali, was not validly nominated because his Party, the PDP, “had no administrative structure”, and that the massive, convincing, and overwhelming votes scored by PDP’s Napoleon Bali in the same election were “wasted”.
Public adjudication and advocacy since the controversial judgment have been pushing the trajectory of the issues that gave cause and foundation to the composition and erection of the Tribunal, which are basically, and subsist strictly, in the stuff of matters or injustices arising from the conduct of the elections by the Independent National Electoral Commission,(INEC).
Those who allege that Justice Tukur sold the judgment to Simon Bako Lalong insist on that position because they believe Tukur knows the position of the law on pre-election matters and the subject of locus standi and whether a petitioner or litigant can loosely benefit from any such claim and go scot free without being seen as a “meddlesome interloper” who is being green-eyed in a farm and context he had sewn no seed. Even legal luminaries say because Tukur actually shot himself on the foot in the case of Simon Lalong & Napoleon Bali, he had to grand stand in a face saving effort and insist on the issue of “no administrative structure” in the cases of Jos South/Jos East federal constituency, and that of Langtang North/Langtang South, to rob Musa Baggos and Beni Lar respectively of their well deserved and well earned electoral victories.
Why even expert opinion on the three judgments made by Justice Tukur in Plateau says they are archaic and dead on arrival is not only because the Appeal Court sitting in Jos has since settled the issue of structure in the Plateau PDP when it ruled and dismissed a matter brought before it claiming and pleading same by ruling that the Plateau State PDP indeed has administrative structure, as is indeed well constituted, but because Justice Tukur, by the desperate judgment stirring controversies and generating concerns, has contradicted his earlier ruling on a matter bordering on the same lack of qualification.
Ruling in a petition between Musa Ahmed Musa & Anor Vs Ali Baba Usman & others at a Tribunal sitting in Kaduna on November 15, 2021, Justice B .M. Tukur held, inter allia, in favour of the respondents, that “we have no hesitation to state that the first respondent was not only qualified but eminently qualified to contest the election into the Kaduna State House of Assembly. The petitioners having not been members of the 2ndRespondent, and not aspirants in Sabon Gari State constituency of Kaduna State, lack the locus standi to institute a case challenging the obedience or disobedience of court order by the second respondent (PDP)”.
Thus, the sane Tribunal headed by Tukur held that “in the circumstances therefore, we hold that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter bordering on nomination of the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent being a pre-election matter. We accordingly dismiss this petition and affirm the declaration and return of 1st respondent”.
While the Tukur judgment has stoked fires, stirred anxieties, sparked sentiments and generated false expectations and ephemeral celebrations, the question is what are the implications of the unsavoury and unprofessional dimension of this judgement on the integrity and ethical command of the judiciary? Did the Tukur judgment meet the “three-way traffic” test as set by the late erudite jurist, Chukwudifu Oputa – justice for the petitioner, justice for the accused, and justice for the society!
The Tukur controversial judgment has heightened tension and sharpened points of disharmony and segregation in Plateau, and unsettled the people who are arguing that choices and resolve to choose their leaders are superior to the technicality invoked by Tukur to achieve the benefits of self contradiction.
While the opposition has been upbeat and eulogises Tukur as its deliverer and leader, the majority of Plateau citizens are resolved to protect their will and heritage. In a well circulated press statement, the State Publicity Secretary of the leading opposition APC, Silvanus Namang, ran short of epithets of praise and glory to qualify Tukur and his disputed judgement.
A faction of the divided Labour Party in the state, in a press conference by its Chairman, Pastor Comrade Mike Audu, has celebrated to the effect that “the Labour Party in Plateau State received with joy the good news of the victory of the Party at the Election Tribunal. The Labour Party was declared the winner of the two House of Representatives seats of Barkin Lad/Ryom and Jos South/Jos East federal constituencies’.
Another pro-democracy group in the State, the Plateau State Youth Vanguard, in a press statement said “it has watched with dismay the nullification of the elections of the peoples’ elected representatives in the National Assembly by Justice M .B. Tukur”. The statement noted further that “the judgement of the three-man panel of justices came to us as a shock, and not in tune with the wishes of the people of plateau State”. Signed by its chairman, Ambassador Duwam Bosco, and Simon Dung Zih, Secretary, the group has called on PDP supporters and lovers of democracy in Plateau to remain calm.
The Forum of Former Youth Leaders in Plateau State, at a World Press Conference at the Azi Nyako Youth Centre, Dadin Kowa, Jos, expressed worry and concern over the unprofessional and contradictory judgments issued forth by the Elections tribunals. In the Statement by its Chairman, Yakubu Ibrahim Itse, the group noted that “for Justice Tukur to singly contradict his learned colleagues who had earlier upheld the elections of Senator Simon Mwadkon, Hon Musa A. Agah, and Hon. Isaac Kwallu on the same grounds tantamount to sewing a seed of discord and chaos in the state”.
Expressing its dissatisfaction with the justice Tukur judgement, The State Chapter of the PDP, in a statement by its Chairman, Chris Hassan, described the judgement as “electoral robbery which is unacceptable to the people of Plateau State”.
According to the chairman, “the fact remains that the PDP has a valid and solid structure through which our mandate was given”.
In that past one week, the Justice Tukur Tribunal judgments nullifying Plateau South Senatorial election victory of the PDP, and two House of Reps victories of the same PDP, have continued to attract scathing reviews from all over the country, with some law professionals regretting that the output of some judges are a scandal to the memories of judicial forebears like Taslim Elias ,Udoma Udo Udoma, Chikwudifu Oputa, etc.
It is hoped however that in the days ahead, only the Judiciary can bail and redeem itself.
