Since the controversial declaration of Usman Ahmed Ododo of the All Progressive Party (APC) by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner of the Kogi November 2023 Gubernatorial election, there has been a legal tussle between the gubernatorial candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Muritala Yakubu Ajaka, and the candidate of the APC, Usman Ahmed Ododo, at the Tribunal.
Some analysts claim the judiciary is as corrupt as INEC and that nothing good can come from it. However, others argue that the Kogi Tribunal case is different because the overwhelming evidence of overvoting in Kogi Central (Okene, Adavi, Okehi, Ajaokuta, and Ogori Magongo) is too glaring to ignore.
Public affairs analyst Sani Michael Omakoji (SMO) addresses this issue in his piece titled “Kogi Tribunal Final Verdict: All Eyes on Judiciary To Make or Mar Wheel of Justice.”
Let’s delve into what SMO has to say:
“The phrase ‘Kogi Tribunal Final Verdict: All Eyes on Judiciary To Make or Mar Wheel of Justice’ encapsulates a pivotal moment in the legal and political landscape of Kogi State, Nigeria.
This statement underscores the significant public scrutiny and the critical role of the judiciary in upholding the principles of justice.
The final verdict of the Kogi tribunal carries weighty implications not only for the immediate parties involved but also for the broader societal perception of the legal system’s integrity. Kogi State, situated in central Nigeria, has often been a focal point for political activities and legal contests.
The tribunal pertains to a high-stakes electoral dispute in Kogi’s most controversial election, which took place in November 2023 between Muritala Yakubu Ajaka of the SDP and Usman Ahmed Ododo of the APC.
The ‘final verdict’ in this context implies the culmination of an extended judicial process, during which evidence has been weighed, testimonies heard, and legal arguments rigorously examined.
The phrase ‘All Eyes on Judiciary’ highlights the intense public and media attention directed at the judicial proceedings.
In a society where legal outcomes can significantly impact public trust and social stability, the role of the judiciary transcends mere adjudication; it becomes a beacon of fairness and impartiality. The heightened scrutiny suggests that the public holds high expectations for the judiciary to deliver a just and equitable verdict.
This level of attention often arises in cases where the stakes are perceived to affect not just the immediate litigants but the broader community and the integrity of democratic processes.
The ‘Wheel of Justice’ represents the broader judicial system’s function of maintaining balance and fairness. The wheel symbolizes the cyclical nature of justice, where each decision influences future perceptions and practices within the legal framework. The phrase ‘to make or mar’ poignantly captures the dual potential outcomes of the tribunal’s decision.
A well-founded and impartial verdict can ‘make’ the wheel of justice, reinforcing public confidence in the legal system’s ability to uphold truth and fairness. Conversely, a decision perceived as biased or unjust can ‘mar’ the wheel, eroding trust and casting doubt on the judiciary’s credibility.
The final verdict of the Kogi tribunal holds profound implications. A decision seen as fair and just will bolster the judiciary’s reputation, affirming its role as an independent arbiter capable of withstanding political pressures and societal biases.
This outcome can enhance public faith in the legal process, encouraging citizens to view the judiciary as a reliable pillar of democracy and governance. On the other hand, a verdict perceived as unjust or influenced by external factors can have deleterious effects.
It can lead to public disillusionment, diminishing respect for legal institutions and potentially inciting unrest or dissatisfaction among the populace. Such a scenario underscores the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain to ensure its decisions are both legally sound and publicly perceived as fair.
It is worth noting that, for the first time in the history of Nigeria, the legal team of Alhaji Muritala Yakubu Ajaka, led by Samuel Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was overvoting in Kogi Central, which the opposing legal team of Ahmed Usman Ododo has conceded. Additionally, there are issues of age falsification by Ahmed Usman Ododo of the APC.
In another development, although former Governor Yahaya Bello was not a contestant, his name has been mentioned due to his alleged masterminding of the overvoting, electoral violence, and result falsification that brought the election into disrepute. Bello has allegedly used thugs to attack the judiciary both in Lokoja and Abuja to instill fear and influence the judiciary not to deliver a fair judgment.
Yahaya Bello has, in the past, mocked the current President of Nigeria, Ahmed Bola Tinubu, claiming he is too old and incompetent to govern. Bello has also refused to honor the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to answer queries about his involvement in the embezzlement of N84 billion, among other looting incidents that occurred during his tenure as Governor of Kogi State.
Bello has, on many occasions, insulted the presidency and threatened to make Kogi ungovernable if the Tribunal’s decision does not favor his candidate, Usman Ododo. To further his alleged corrupt practices, he is reported to have bribed the judiciary with a whopping sum of N6 billion in hard currency.
If Bello’s wishes come to pass after all these allegations, it will signify that the judiciary is not just completely compromised but has once again shattered the hopes and expectations of the people of Kogi State and other Nigerians interested in the Kogi Tribunal case.
The Kogi Tribunal case should serve as a deterrent to greedy politicians like Yahaya Bello, emphasizing that elections should be won by the majority vote, not manipulation.
As all eyes are on the judiciary, the world is also watching to see if President Ahmed Bola Tinubu will tolerate or patronize corruption at this level, as was done under his predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari.”
