PDP, others must form formidable opposition – Atiku’s aide

Daniel Bwala,  one  of  the spokespersons of the Peoples Democratic Party presidential candidate in the 2023 elections, Atiku Abubakar,  in this interview with ABDULRAHMAN ZAKARIYAU, says there is a need for strong opposition in the country

What is your take on the Supreme Court judgement?

Whether I agree with the judgment or not, it doesn’t matter. If it is the Court of Appeals or High Court or any other court that delivers a judgment you can disagree with it and give your reasons. And the idea is that because the judgment is subject to appeal, it has not been treated by the final court.

You see, there’s this thing we call a settled law. A law is a settled law when it’s a decision by the final court, once it becomes a settled law, it is the law so the opinion of anybody doesn’t count. The good thing about it is that the Supreme Court can make a mistake. That’s why in their famous dictum, they said that the Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible, but it is infallible because it is final, meaning that if the Supreme Court gives a judgment in error, that judgment becomes final, not because the judgment is not full of error. But that is what democracy has given to us. So that is the point in which once a Supreme Court gives a judgment, your opinion doesn’t matter.

The only thing that can happen after the Supreme Court judgment is that lawmakers can try to address whatever the Supreme Court raised in the course of their conversation, like, for example, Justice Okoro, in the course of delivering the judgment noted that INEC by not abiding by what they said they were going to abide by, that they have reduced the confidence of the people. I ask myself the question, the whole gamut of election what is it all about? Is it about confidence? Because the gamut of the election is a popular vote. So an act of INEC reduces the confidence of the people what is the implication in law? But you can’t fault the Supreme Court, because the implication in law is not very clear and clearly stated by the Electoral Act, if INEC does anything wrong, what do you do to them?

If you ask about the reasoning of the Court of Appeals if the Supreme Court agree with the Court of Appeal. I assume that the Supreme Court adopts the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. For example, one that raises my curiosity is regarding the application of section 134 sub 2 regarding the 25%. The Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal that FCT does not have any special status that it is only for election, that 25% is required, but that if you don’t meet it, it is not a violation of the constitution. You know this is also another area that we’re hoping to be further enriched by the court because the same Supreme Court in the past when they were determining a case either in 2007 or 2011 remarked that the reason why they have failed to comment on it, the 25%, it is because all the candidates have met the requirements. So the implication is that if the person has not met the requirement, it will form the basis for the issue to be raised.

Number two is the law about non-compliance, non-compliance with the provisions of the electoral act, and the constitution is what is like bread and butter that we feed on every day, the courts have been cancelling elections for non-compliance even after the court of appeals decisions on Atiku, we saw cases that have come to the court of appeal, people were sacked because INEC didn’t comply with the provision of the law. Or do you also come to the issue of double nomination? We have seen lawmakers in different parts of the country that were sacked because of double nominations.

In all these what lesson is there to learn?

This season of elections has opened up our eyes to see the diversities of the decisions of the court in various cases, hopefully, at the end of the day, this will form the basis for the lawmakers to have a look at it, distil fundamental errors and make amendments against the next time. That’s one side, on the other side is that as a country, the implication of the judgment again was confronted by the same fact. In former Zamfara State Governor, Abdulaziz Yari’s case the Supreme Court ruled that with or without a card reader election stands. The effect of the judgment was that the entire excise around the card reader was nonsense. With all the struggle by INEC and other stakeholders on BVAS and IREV, the Supreme Court said it is not necessary. So again, by the judgment of the Supreme Court IREV and BVAS are not relevant. And it also means INEC can choose to say it is in another case. So the question that we are going to ask ourselves is, at what point will the law be made so clear that no court of law can deviate from that? Because the effect of this judgment is that INEC may choose to abide by IREV, BVAS, or not.

With INEC as a respondent in the case, it means that INEC can choose at any given time not necessarily pandering to APC. It can in some cases pander to the PDP or pander to the Labour party, whichever way they pander then that becomes the judgment of the court. So we’re getting to the point where there would be no need for an election petition because whatever INEC says will be validated, which didn’t used to be so before. I am hoping one day, in our lifetime, the court shall not be bound by technicalities.

All courts on the Supreme Court must be ordered to say this is the point.

 If you look at the last year, you will see that decisions of the same court that set precedents that were departing from technicality to substantial justice have gone back to technicality. I am suggesting that it’s about time as a nation, the judicial system takes a formed position on law and technicality, on substantial justice and technicality, and where they stand; come rain, come high waters.

What do you think PDP leaders need to do to reposition it?

The truth is both the PDP and Labour Party are controlled by President Bola Tinubu through proxies, Nigeria is a one-party state. Let me explain to you, you may have noticed in the build-up to the election, like immediately after the elections in all these major political parties, I am sure you read about, this one has gone to court and the court has sacked the national chairman of that party. This one is going to court, this one is about to go to court. They have sacked the presidential candidate of the New Nigeria People’s Party. Then in PDP, you have one of the individuals who is a cabinet member in this administration that held the party by the balls as we speak today.