Tinubu’s Inauguration: HURIWA Explains Why Onaiyekan is on Point

*Carpets Keyamo for selective judicial position 

*Minister insists calling for determination of case before May 29 mischievous

Chuks Okocha and Adedayo Akinwale in Abuja

Civil rights advocacy group, Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), has said the position of Archbishop Emeritus of the Catholic Dioceses of Abuja, John Cardinal Onaiyekan, that any politician whose electoral victory was being challenged by co-contestants should not be sworn in until after the elections petitions Tribunal were cleared was on point.

HURIWA, which noted that the cleric’s position was part of the recommendations of the Justice Muhammadu Uwais Electoral Commission Reforms that should have been incorporated into the Electoral Act 2022, however, carpeted the Minister of State for Labour and Employment, Festus Keyamo, for saying Onaiyekan’s position was “unstatesmanlike”.

The group described Keyamo’s position and his understanding of the issue as most unfortunate, stressing that Keyamo has suddenly become a defender of injustice in spite of being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, having dined with politicians and wondered where the Keyamo of the activism and civil rights days departed to.
But Keyamo has insisted that those calling for the determination of the election petitions before the swearing-in ceremonies on May 29th under the present electoral laws and Rules of Court or procedure were either  ignorant or  mischievous.

In a statement by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, the group said the Uwais report clearly stated that, “No elected person should assume office until the case against him/her in the Tribunal or Court is disposed of.”
Onaiyekan, speaking on Channels Television Thursday, said, “It doesn’t make much sense for President-elect Bola Tinubu to be sworn in before the conclusion of the Election Tribunal, which commences on Monday, May 8, 2023.

“There are cases in court that have not been disposed of. That is why we are in an anomalous situation. We have a president-elect whose election is being challenged and the court is handling it. I’m still waiting for the court to tell me who won the election. It doesn’t make much sense to be swearing in people when they are still in court.”

The cleric noted that even though the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress winner of the February 25, 2023 presidential poll, top contestants in the election like Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party and Peter Obi of the Labour Party were in court to challenge the decision of INEC, arguing that Tinubu did not score 25% of votes in the FCT and 24 other states, amongst other reasons they put forward for the nullification of the election.

In its position, HURIWA said; “80-year-old Archbishop emeritus of the Catholic Dioceses of Abuja, John Cardinal Onaiyekan, has spoken truth to power and this is very courageous of the octogenarian in a country filled with sycophants and hypocrites, who form that they are with the masses, yet dine with the oppressors.
“We throw our support for these statements by the Cardinal, advocating the promulgation of the essential recommendations made by the Justice Muhammadu Uwais Electoral Reform Commission such as ending litigation before swearing in, and the appointment of INEC Chair and Commissioners by an independent body outside of the President.

“The Justice Uwais reforms specifically recommended among others: ‘Constitutional amendments that would insulate the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from the political influences of the executive arm of government in terms of its composition and funding.
“The power to appoint INEC board was to be transferred from the president to the National Judicial Council (NJC) while its funding was to be a first line charge on the Consolidated Revenue of the Federation.

“The functions of the police on election duty stated in the PSC guidelines on code of conduct for officers should be incorporated into the Police Act. Election petition was to have time limit even as a Special Electoral Offences Commission was to be set up to try electoral offenders,” it said.
Defending his position, Keyamo in a tweet via his verified Twitter handle, yesterday, said in future, it might be possible to amend the laws and rules of court to accommodate such an idea, but that it was clearly impossible under the present circumstances.

He stressed that those who thought by such a call they were doing the petitioners any good, did not realise that they were, in fact, doing a great harm to the cases of the petitioners, saying it was the petitioners that needed more time to prove their cases and not necessarily the defendants.
“Those calling for the determination of the election petitions before the swearing-in ceremonies on May 29th under our present electoral laws and Rules of Court and/or procedure are either plainly ignorant or crassly mischievous.

‘’That is why the petitioners are given 21 days to file and the defendants have 14 days to respond. And the petitioners have a further seven days to reply, making a total of 30 days as against the 14 days of the Respondents. It follows that in leading evidence in court/Tribunal in support of the Petitions, the petitioners would also take more time. It is more arduous to prove an Election Petition than to defend it.”

Keyamo emphasised that his free advice to the advocates of pre-May 29th determination of the election petitions was that they were doing the cases of the petitioners great harm, adding that they should realise that as the saying goes, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’, stressing, “we also say ‘justice rushed is justice crushed.”

According to him, If these characters say a single point (let’s say the FCT 25 per cent storm-in-a-teacup issue) should be set down for determination immediately, would the petitioners’ lawyers agree to withdraw and abandon all other issues raised in their Petition and proceed only with that issue? Will they take that risk?  Ask them privately. They know better. This is because the rules of election petitions do not allow petitioners to prove their cases piecemeal.

Keyamo said a petitioner could not pursue a single point up to the Supreme Court and after losing, return to the Tribunal or Court and say he/she/it wanted to now prove other aspects of the case.
He pointed out that even that single point alone could not be determined by the Supreme Court before May 29th, because of the time given by the rules for parties to file their Notices of Appeal and exchange their briefs.