By Onikepo Braithwaite
What is that famous saying by Nazi villain, Joseph Goebbels, that if a lie is repeated often enough, people come to believe that it’s the truth! Present-day life has proven this assertion to be true, time and time again. And, it is also true that, “A lie can travel half way around the world, while the truth is putting on its shoes” (Mark Twain); but, it is also correct that, eventually, the truth comes out. These days we also refer to lies, as ‘Fake News’. So, many falsehoods have been peddled by both successive Governments and the people alike, that eventually, even though in some cases, decades later, have been unmasked as lies that they are! Be that as it may, even when the truth is revealed, there are some who still foolishly remain brainwashed, stubborn or unconvinced, preferring to bask in the falsehood and spread it, particularly when it suits their purpose to do so.
Electricity and the Refineries
Right from the beginning of the Fourth Republic, when President Obasanjo promised ‘electricity for all’ by the year 2000, Nigerians had subsequently been sold some bizarre narratives about some complicated electricity master plan that required years to be achieved, and we believed the stories as true for decades. 24 years later, electricity for all has remained nothing more than an elusive pipe dream.
Similarly, successive Governments have been doing so-called turn around maintenance on the Government refineries, and Nigerians believed this story. 25 years and billions of Dollars later, none of them are in good working condition. But, the truth has now become obvious to all, that there is no complex plan to get these sectors going – instead, there has been wicked corruption coupled with a chronic lack of will on the part of successive governments, preventing the provision of these facilities for the betterment and development of Nigeria. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason why the Power portfolio was removed from Babatunde Fashola, SAN, was so that no appreciable progress would be made in that area, because the progress that was made during his tenure as Minister of Power not only disappeared, his successor, Saleh Maman has been charged to court by the EFCC on allegations of committing money laundering to the tune of approximately N34 billion!
Most new administrations, on assumption of office, invite Alhaji Aliko Dangote to be a member of one Committee or the other; yet, they fail to follow his example in these two crucial areas I have mentioned above – electricity and refineries. Dangote Cement, Obajana, built an electricity power plant that can light up the whole of Abuja in roughly one year. Following the Dangote template, if a power plant had been built in six States per year (that is, one State per geographical zone), in six years, all the States of Nigeria and the FCT would have been fully lit up by 2006!
Similarly, Dangote Refinery commenced major construction in 2017 and it has started production – in approximately seven years, one of the largest and most modern petroleum refineries in the world was completed. Yet, Nigeria cannot complete the maintenance of its own refineries, in a quarter of a century or more! Shame, shame, shame! What is then the essence of having people like Alhaji Dangote on so-called Government Nation Building Committees, if there’s absolutely no will on the part of Government to tap into any of their positive and fruitful initiatives, particularly in the much needed areas of their expertise? None.
Nigerians have believed the false stories peddled by successive governments about electricity and the refineries, for too long. And, though this web of lies was not woven by the Tinubu administration, the truth has finally come out now! Unfortunately, so far, Nigerians are not encouraged by what is happening in both sectors under the Tinubu administration. Electricity supply keeps reducing, while those who were in charge during the past administration and failed to deliver on the rehabilitation of the refineries while the fuel subsidy scam thrived under them, are still in office.
Examples of False Narratives Concerning the Judiciary that have thrived
1) 2023 Labour Party Presidential Election Petition
Similarly, a narrative spun by the so-called Obi-dients’, maintained and disseminated to the world that the Labour Party Presidential Candidate, Mr Peter Obi, who undeniably performed well, won the 2023 election, despite the fact that no evidence was provided to support this claim, and the Labour Party’s Presidential election petition failed at first instance and at the Supreme Court. The Petitioner was unable to provide the necessary evidence that indeed, he won the election, nor did he discharge the burden of proof required by law for the petition to succeed. Both the Intermediate and Apex Courts, found the petition to be unmeritorious. Though, in this particular case, I’m not sure whether the repetition of the unsubstantiated claim that Labour Party won the Presidential election has been accepted as the truth by the majority, though, because of the hardship that Nigerians are presently experiencing, for some it may be comforting to believe this falsehood. The PDP was also unable to prove that it won the election, or succeed with its own Presidential election petition. Yet, supporters went to town, wrongly blaming the courts for not finding in favour of their Candidates instead. See the case of Buhari & Ors v Obasanjo & Ors (2003) LPELR-813(SC) per Niki Tobi, JSC on the common law principle that the person who asserts, has the legal duty to prove his assertion. Also see Edeoga & Anor v INEC & Ors (2023) LPELR-61806(SC) per Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC.
2) 2019 Imo Gubernatorial Election and Allegations of Forgery
It is the same thing with the story of the 2019 Imo State Gubernatorial election, and the ensuing petition; it keeps popping up like the proverbial bad penny, with the false narrative that the Supreme Court handed down a perverse decision in this matter; and this narrative has been repeated not only in Nigeria, but globally, so many times that many people have accepted it as the truth, though it is not. Somebody still telephoned me last week, to discuss the issue with me, because she said it had been a hot topic of discussion in the UK. I forwarded the piece I wrote on 13/2/2024 titled “When Trust Is Everything” for them to read for better clarification, and I hope that my further explanation below finally puts the matter to rest.
The Appellant, Hope Uzodinma (who I’m neither acquainted with, nor do I particularly care for) had contended that his votes from 388 polling units that were his stronghold, were excluded at the Collation Centre. At the time, Section 74 of the Electoral Act 2010 (now Section 71 of the Electoral Act 2022 (EA)) provided that all the relevant election result forms stamped, signed and countersigned by the relevant officers should be made available to Polling Agents and Police Officers. The Forms given to the Police containing the results in the 388 polling units, were subsequently tendered on Uzodinma’s behalf at the Election Petition Tribunal. See Buhari & Ors v Obasanjo & Ors (Supra). INEC then alleged that the Forms presented by the Police were forged; but, they failed to adduce any evidence to support their claim, nor did they tender any results to contradict the results tendered by Uzodinma.
It is trite that, the duty of a court is to consider all admissible evidence placed before it; the court cannot descend into the arena, and hand down decisions based on the fact that it prefers X to Y, or that public opinion is in favour of X. In ACN v Lamido & Ors (2012) LPELR- 7825 (SC) per Mahmud Mohammed, JSC (later CJN), the Supreme Court held that “The allegation of forgery being a criminal offence, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt”. Also, in Umar & Anor v Sokoto & Ors (2024) LPELR-62195(SC) per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC, the Supreme Court held that “….a Petitioner making such allegations should go beyond merely making allegations, but should also present substantial, credible and cogent evidence which will prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt”. In Abubukar v INEC & Ors 2020 NWLR Part 1737 Page 37, the Apex Court also held inter alia that: “Allegations bordering on forgery and/or making of false statement to INEC, are not only criminal and grievous, but are not matters or things one party alleges and then folds his arms to see how the other party wriggles out of it”. In Okon v PDP & Ors (2023) LPELR-60099(SC) the Supreme Court held inter alia that where the burden of proof beyond reasonable is not discharged in an allegation that a document is forged, such allegation fails.
I submit that INEC didn’t go beyond merely making the allegation of forgery, and so the allegation was bound to fail; no credible or cogent evidence was presented to prove their forgery allegation beyond reasonable doubt and contradict the Form EC8 Series submitted by the Police in respect of the 388 polling units. INEC simply folded its arms to see how Uzodinma would wriggle out of the forgery allegation – see Abubakar v INEC & Ors (Supra). It is also trite law that uncontroverted evidence is taken as true. However, those who didn’t support Uzodinma ignored these glaring facts, and went around the world with their own narrative that the decision of the Apex Court was perverse. In Eya & Ors v Olopade & Anor (2011) LPELR-1184 per Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, the Supreme Court held that particulars of forgery must be provided and evidence must be led in proof of forgery. This was not done in Uzodinma’s case, despite the fact that it is more than trite that he who alleges, must prove. Also see the case of Ndoma-Egba v A.C.B. Plc (2005) LPELR-1973(SC) per George Adesola Oguntade, JSC.
It is sad and unfortunate that Lawyers who are aware of the true position of the law, or know that they have done a poor job in handling their client’s case, or that their client doesn’t have a viable case, are silent and content to have the Judiciary maligned as having delivered perverse judgements instead, when the court doesn’t find in their favour. And, because invectives are poured on the Judiciary regularly, they are all believed to be true. This is not to say that there are no bad eggs in the Judiciary – there are. But, it is wrong to generalise, tar everyone with the brush of iniquity, and tarnish the reputation of the Judiciary globally knowing that they have done no wrong in a particular case. In Matthew v State (2018) LPELR-43716(SC) per Ejembi Eko, JSC, the Apex Court held that “…facts not disputed, challenged or contradicted are taken as established…”. Was it then for the Supreme Court to manufacture its own evidence to challenge the results that were presented by the Police for the 388 polling units, in order to be able to declare them a forgery? I think not.
In Emeka v State (2014) LPELR-23020(SC) per Suleiman Galadima, JSC, the Supreme Court held inter alia that “A decision will be regarded as perverse where it is speculative and not based on any evidence….or the Court shuts its eyes to the obvious”. I submit that, as unfortunate or difficult as it may be, if the Supreme Court had come to any other decision than the one it came to in Uzodinma & Anor v Ihedioha & Ors (2020) LPELR-50260(SC) per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC (now CJN) (also see Uche Nwosu v Action People’s Party & Ors 2020 16 N.W.L.R. Part 1749 Page 28-42 per Amina Adamu Augie, JSC) and found in favour of the 1st Respondent, Emeka Ihedioha, it would have been tantamount to handing down a perverse decision, not based upon evidence. Also see the case of Iteogu v LPDC (2018) LPELR-43845(SC).
Conclusion
Unfortunately, as the years go on, it appears that our values continue on a downward spiral. We all definitely require a moral rearmament in Nigeria. Fake news, false baseless news that disparages others, that may have lasting, negative consequences on others and their reputation, are disseminated deliberately, with gusto and aplomb, simply because some people somewhere are dissatisfied about a particular state of affairs. As Lawyers who are trained in the law and legal process, we must not be part of spreading bile as the truth, because when we partake in it, we are simply exposing our profession to ridicule for no just reason. Instead, we must examine issues dispassionately, using the correct principles of law that are applicable to arrive at the answer, as opposed to spreading unsubstantiated inaccuracies. Though I do not know Emeka Ihedioha either, and he may have been an attractive choice for many Imolites, the evidence presented to the court appeared to prove otherwise, and we know that law is about evidence, not emotions or the voices in the marketplace. At the end of the day, the story brings us back to INEC, and how well it is playing its constitutional role that certainly mandates the conduct of credible elections.