As the nation awaited the verdict from the Presidential Elections Petitions Court, Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party's presidential candidate in the 2023 election, embarked on an unconventional strategy, taking his battle against President Bola Tinubu's victory to a United States court. In this narrative, DIRISU YAKUBU delves into the opinions of legal experts and the Nigerian public regarding this high-stakes legal maneuver.
The pages of history might one day etch the 2023 presidential election as one of Nigeria's most fiercely contested. Held on February 25, the poll witnessed Bola Tinubu's proclamation as the victor by the Independent National Electoral Commission, with a total of 8,794,726 votes. Securing the second and third positions were Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi of the Peoples Democratic Party and the Labour Party, with 6,984,520 and 6,101,533 votes, respectively. Rounding off the list, Rabiu Kwankwaso, the New Nigeria People's Party presidential candidate, garnered 1,496,687 votes.
Discontent with the election's conduct, both Atiku and Obi filed petitions against Tinubu's declaration, citing INEC's failure to conduct the polls in substantial accordance with the Electoral Act of 2022.
While their petitions challenge Tinubu's eligibility for the presidency, Obi hinges his argument on the fact that the former Lagos State Governor forfeited $460,000 due to a drug-related case in the US. Additionally, Obi contends that Tinubu did not secure 25 percent of the votes in the Federal Capital Territory.
On July 11, Atiku escalated matters by filing a petition to access Tinubu's academic records from Chicago State University. Atiku's attorney, Angela Liu, requested documents including Tinubu's admission records, attendance dates, degrees, honors, and awards obtained during his time at the American institution.
Atiku explained in his petition that the subpoena aimed to verify the veracity of his claims. He highlighted his concern that while Tinubu held the office of Nigeria's President, numerous petitions questioned his election and the legitimacy of documents pertaining to his university attendance.
In a swift counteraction, President Tinubu filed a motion to quash the subpoena with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chicago, USA, in response to Atiku's fresh petition.
Arguing against Atiku's petition, Victor Henderson, Tinubu's legal counsel, contended that no judge from the court had granted Atiku the subpoena. He further argued that the petition lacked validity since it allowed a mere six days for compliance, contrary to the 14-day period stipulated by the Illinois Supreme Court Rules.
Tinubu underlined that Atiku's actions amounted to an "improper fishing expedition about a foreign public official utilizing the Illinois court's subpoena power."
Amid the question of whether pursuing justice in the United States is justified, legal expert Mike Ozekhome commended Atiku's decision as a positive step. "It is a good development. The matter at issue is an international issue. It was the right thing to do," he commented.
Contrasting viewpoints are evident, with constitutional lawyer Kennedy Khanoba suggesting that Atiku's efforts may not bear fruit unless Tinubu is convicted in a US court.
Khanoba elaborated, "If Tinubu is not convicted in the United States, this petition would amount to a waste of time. Even if Chicago State University states that Tinubu never attended, it might not be sufficient to invalidate his election. Only a conviction would hold, as convictions bar individuals from holding public office for a specific period. Moreover, a US court's ruling would not bind Nigeria."
Khanoba also noted the ongoing case challenging President Muhammadu Buhari's academic credentials, suggesting it could have more impact on the petitions than Atiku's pursuit of offshore justice.
Political analyst Jackson Ojo emphasized Nigeria's sovereign status, asserting that pursuing justice abroad may not have significant implications. "The ruling of an American court may not bind Nigeria. We are a sovereign nation, and being part of international organizations doesn't make our laws subordinate to international laws. Whether President Tinubu's indictment in a US court affects the domestic tribunal and courts is uncertain," Ojo remarked.
Mustapha Shehu, a PDP chieftain and Atiku loyalist, urged patience and saw the US court approach as a method to gather evidence to support Atiku's case. "Atiku is a global figure, and I believe his legal advisers consulted extensively before seeking information on Tinubu's academic history from a US court," Shehu commented.
On the other hand, Transparency International's Executive Director in Nigeria, Auwal Rafsanjani, saw Atiku's move as indicative of diminishing confidence in Nigeria's legal system due to judicial corruption.
Rafsanjani noted, "It is unfortunate that our judiciary seems to be suffering from a serious integrity crisis, and Nigerians are losing confidence in the independence and credibility of our legal system and judges' commitment to delivering justice and fair judgment."
In an interview, Atiku's spokesperson, Mr. Phrank Shaibu, asserted the pursuit of truth. "We are out to prove to the world beyond any reasonable doubt the facts of the matter. It is as simple as that," Shaibu stated.
As the US legal saga unfolds, Nigerians observe with diverse perspectives, contemplating the possible implications and the interplay between international and national legal systems in the pursuit of justice.
1 Comments
Can you US be reliable on this matter?
ReplyDelete