During an interview with The Guardian in Abuja, the Individual contended that the highest Court is not constitutionally obligated to make a decision about President Tinubu's future solely based on the results from Chicago State University (CSU).
Related Articles
The legal expert headquartered in Abuja advised the political elites, regardless of their party affiliations, to exercise caution in their actions to avoid undermining the credibility of the judiciary.
As per his assertion, the endeavor is an exploratory journey devoid of any fruitful outcomes or constructive implications. Moreover, it is predicated upon a conspicuous lack of knowledge on Electoral Litigation. In addition to the observable trend of increasing negativity within our political landscape, wherein individuals demonstrate a diminishing respect for the Judiciary, can be observed.
There is currently a concerted effort by individuals to undermine the judiciary and diminish its standing. In contemporary society, it is not uncommon to observe individuals engaging in legal proceedings within a courtroom setting, only to then participate in televised debates pertaining to the same legal matter.
This occurrence can be classified as an aberration. The legal dispute between Awolowo and Shagari in 1979, spanning a significant period of 12 2/3, was witnessed by all. The distinguished Advocate demonstrated their adeptness within the judicial system rather than through televised platforms. The esteemed legal practitioners G.O. K Ajayi, SAN and Richard Akinjide, SAN & Co. exhibited exceptional performance in the courtroom.
There was an absence of fanfare or noise in television households. The individuals mentioned, including Rotimi Williams, SAN, Mudiagar Odjes, SAN, and Nwankama Okoros, SAN, exhibited remarkable qualities in the field of Electoral Litigation, demonstrating nobility, candor, and dignity while adhering strictly to ethical principles. Currently, we find ourselves in an era characterized by the infiltration of unscrupulous behavior.
Regarding the previous statements made, it is important to note that there is no existence of a certificate saga. However, even if we were to assume the existence of such a scenario, which is factually incorrect, its relevance to our current state of electioneering jurisprudence and litigation is negligible. This statement lacks use.
The purported acquisition or procurement of any information, whether from terrestrial or extraterrestrial sources, pertaining to the Election Petition currently in route to the Supreme Court, holds no substantive value. It holds no significance.
Electoral litigation is subject to statutory governance rather than being left unregulated. This particular species is derived and reproduces through the implementation of Statutory provision, hence distinguishing it from the broader domain. The nomenclature "sui generis" is attributed to this phenomenon due to specific reasons.
In order to cater to individuals lacking knowledge on the subject matter and to fulfill our responsibility to society, it is imperative to clearly articulate that, in accordance with the Electoral Act of 2022, as well as its predecessors, the requirement remains that an Election Petition must be submitted within a period of 21 (Twenty-One) days subsequent to the election.
Moreover, it is imperative that when filing, all reasons, complaints, and documents, regardless of their nomenclature, are frontloaded with the submitted Petition. Following a period of 21 days, no more modifications, amendments, or additions can be made to the Petition, with the exception of minor concerns such as spelling mistakes. This includes any changes to the doors and windows of the aforementioned Petition.
It is not permissible to make additions or reductions to an election petition beyond a period of twenty-one days. The courts are similarly bound by a statutory time frame within which they must address the petition. The judiciary is not empowered to extend the designated time frame specified by the Act for the resolution of an Election Petition by an additional hour, half hour, or minute.
If the deadline for disposing of an election petition has lapsed, any actions taken by the Court are rendered invalid. The Appellate judicial to which an Appeal will be directed from the lower Court lacks competence to act otherwise due to the statutory regulation and compartmentalization of Election Litigation practice and judicial jurisdiction.
Hence, the commodities that have been acquired from the United States of America do not possess any jurisdiction or presence within the Supreme Court. In other words, our assertion is that, at present, there exists no supplementary material that can be deemed admissible or endorsed by the Supreme Court in any form.
This is due to the absence of discretion in the case. I am aware that in some extraordinary circumstances pertaining to general and ordinary civil issues, the Appellate Court has the authority to exercise its discretion in admitting additional evidence. The regulations, even in those particular cases, are highly rigorous.
However, within the realm of electoral litigation governed by legislative regulations, the concept of discretion being utilized in contravention of the Statute remains unexplored. This is mostly due to the fact that courts are obligated to uphold and enforce laws, rather than being influenced by personal feelings or self-centered considerations.
It should be acknowledged that the Supreme Court is not a reliable source of judgment, and individuals should not be misled into believing otherwise. There is no evidence or indication to support such a claim in this particular context. Once an individual exceeds the designated time frame specified by law, or neglects to submit and fulfill all obligatory prerequisites while filing an election petition, there exists no recourse or remedy available.
The Court of Appeal, acting as the primary court in the Presidential Election Petition, has already engaged with the Appellant's Petitions comprehensively. The sole source of information that will be considered and deliberated upon before the highest court is the content of the record from the court of appeal. The user's text is concise and does not require any additional information.
Therefore, it is imperative for the Nigerian populace to pose a straightforward inquiry: What is the underlying purpose behind this extensive commotion? It lacks utility. Occasionally, certain individuals exhibit behaviors that are highly amusing. Has there been any scholarly examination of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? What are the fundamental prerequisites for assuming the role of the President of Nigeria?
According to the provisions outlined in the constitution, the sole need for admission is the presentation of substantiating evidence in the form of a school leaving certificate. It seems doubtful that you will successfully complete the examination. This is the required element. Furthermore, in the absence of possessing the aforementioned qualifications, one might demonstrate their proficiency through the presentation of relevant experience in a related field. These are all the specified requirements.
For this particular reason, I found amusement in my secluded space when individuals were discussing the qualifications of former President Buhari in relation to his academic prerequisites. The oversight occurred in neglecting the individual's progression from a military officer to the rank of General within the Nigerian Army, subsequent appointments as a military Governor and Minister, and ultimately assuming the role of military Head of State. Despite these notable achievements, the discussion revolved around the individual's eligibility, or lack thereof.
The statement demonstrates a lack of knowledge, as the constitution is unambiguous in its provisions. In order to be eligible, individuals must possess either a school leaving certificate or relevant professional experience. In this particular case, the individual initiated the conversation by asserting that the President did not attend Chicago State University. It is evident that he did not attend in the capacity of a student.
The institution made a statement affirming that he was a graduate who received Honours. Is it not expected that this will conclude the issue? Is it not satisfactory for any rational individual? However, auditory disturbances persist. The situation pertaining to Governor Obaseki's possession of a credential from the University of Ibadan warrants recollection.
The University of Ibadan presented itself before the court, asserting that the individual in question was enrolled as a student at the institution. The certificate was conferred upon him subsequent to his graduation. The court rendered a decision and concluded that the dispute was resolved. The assertion made by the University of Ibadan is considered to be the ultimate point of reference, beyond which no additional investigation or inquiry can be pursued.
Once the issuer of the certificate has acknowledged and taken responsibility for it, the case is considered resolved. Similarly, Chicago State University has made the claim that the president graduated with honors. Subsequently, there is an abrupt shift towards the pursuit of identifying counterfeit practices in a context where such practices are absent. It is imperative that the Nigerian populace assert their demand for the cessation of these frivolous activities within Nigeria.
The President diligently pursued his career and achieved a prominent position inside Mobile Oil Incorporated, a multinational corporation. No one lacking formal certification, such as the President, can successfully attain and hold a position of authority in that manner. These individuals should consider that. This is a matter that should provoke contemplation.
It has been recounted that the President, upon departing from Chicago State University, was regarded as one of the most exceptional students, if not the most outstanding. The individual possessed various work opportunities with prominent international accounting firms; but, they were advised by the institution to pursue a position with Mobile Oil Incorporated.
The individual in question assumed the roles of Senator and Governor of Lagos State, prompting ongoing discussions on his qualifications. Is it accurate to assert that we lack tasks or responsibilities? Alternatively, may these individuals be considered idle?
In order to provide a lucid response, it might be asserted that the issue surrounding the certificate can be considered a diversionary tactic. The observed behavior appears to be self-stimulation.
This is the current state of affairs. The subject matter lacks content. The proposition would not be deemed admissible at the Supreme Court. The topic in question holds no electoral litigation significance inside the Supreme Court. The windows and doors have been securely shut. There is a lack of space for exercising discretion.
I hold the opinion that these individuals are strategically influencing the susceptible general public in anticipation of an impending failure at the highest Court. Subsequently, they proceed to attribute blame and responsibility to the blameless and diligent Justices of the highest court, subjecting them to ridicule.
Nigerians should collectively oppose the emergence of a trend observed among these political figures who prioritize their own interests over the welfare and progress of Nigeria. It is imperative to cease the practice of attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary and render it devoid of authority.
In conclusion, I express my satisfaction over the Appellant's Appeal to the Supreme Court, which is not accompanied by the Chicago Certificate or the misleading claim of forgery. The rationale behind my desire is rooted in the objective of having the Supreme Court adjudicate the appeal originating from the Court of Appeal. In order to ensure that the ruling issued by the Supreme Court functions as a formal consolidation of legal precedents pertaining to the Electoral Act of 2022.
