The Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Prof. Itse Sagay, has hailed last Friday’s Supreme Court verdict on the Osun governorship election, agreeing with the premise upon which the apex court dismissed the appeal filed by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Ademola Adeleke.
However, Prof. Sagay said the Supreme Court should have made firm pronouncement on the validity of the supplementary election conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Speaking with Daily Trust, the legal luminary explained that there was nothing wrong with the decision of INEC to declare a rerun where the first poll did not produce a clear winner.
It would be recalled that the apex court in a split judgement (5-2) upheld the verdict of the Court of Appeal which earlier dismissed the judgement of the election petitions tribunal.
There have been mixed reactions after the judgement; with some commentators noting that the Supreme Court judges placed technicality above merit.
Prof. Sagay told our correspondent that the apex court judges were right in nullifying the verdict of the tribunal, thereby emphasising the import of the composition of judges in an election petitions tribunal.
He said the tribunal’s verdict which nullified Oyetola’s election would have been one-one if Justice Obiora had not delivered the majority ruling.
He said, “It is very clear that the issue of fair hearing which was the basis of the Supreme Court decision is a very strong fundamental principle of human right and if the person who was not present was reading the judgement, that is illegitimate.
“The lesson should be drawn home to everybody that all members of the tribunal or the court should be present before they can take part in a judgement. When a judge has conducted a case 90 per cent, the judge that takes his place is not allowed to use the records, he has to start all over again. That is the point the Supreme Court is making here, and I think I support the decision.”
But Sagay pointed out that the Supreme Court should have decided on the validity of the supplementary election to lay the matter to rest once and for all, stressing that there was nothing wrong with INEC’s recourse to a rerun when some voters had been disenfranchised in the first poll due to no fault of theirs.
He said, “I think it would have been good to hear that. If there was violence or something was wrong and you are unable to vote, I don’t know why it is something wrong in being allowed, on another day, to vote…I think the Supreme Court should have just completed that so that the issue would not arise again.
“Ballot boxes have been carried away. Even if you voted, your result cannot count and then INEC decides according to its guidelines to repeat election in such a place, what is wrong with that?
“I think the Supreme Court should have pronounced on that so that you don’t have a situation where somebody would pre-judge the outcome of election by creating confusion in some areas where he is weak and then insisting that those people there should not have an opportunity to vote and then he wins by only allowing election in areas where he is strong; that is the whole idea of supplementary election so that everybody can have an opportunity. I think the Supreme Court should have made a pronouncement on that; whether it is right or wrong.”
