We must respect institutions to move Nigeria forward – Akuma

What prompted you to say only experts should handle election petition cases? Election cases are a special brand of civil litigation. If you don’t have experience in it, you could jeopardise the proceedings or take certain steps that can affect your clients. Election cases are not the type of litigation that can be handled by […]

What prompted you to say only experts should handle election petition cases?
Election cases are a special brand of civil litigation. If you don’t have experience in it, you could jeopardise the proceedings or take certain steps that can affect your clients. Election cases are not the type of litigation that can be handled by any lawyer. Most of us handling election petition cases had to learn how to do it from 1991 when we had civil administration. You had to understudy some people before you acquired the experience. If you are experienced enough in election petition matters, you will help your client and the court in the administration of justice because the procedure will not be strange to you and you will be used to the crucial time lined nature.
 You could bungle it if you have little experience, which is why I suggest only the experts should handle election petitions and this includes those selected as judges at the tribunal. At least two members of the tribunal must be those who have participated in election tribunals so they can carry the third person along without dislocating the proceedings. The president of the Court of Appeal that constitutes the members of the tribunal should select those who have cognate experience in election petition tribunals.

What is your response to those who say that seasoned lawyers with valuable skills should be allowed to try election petition cases without having to specialise in that area?
I know there are people at the bar who may be more than 40 years but they detest election petition matters; they don’t go near it no matter what you tell them. It’s because of the nature of the proceedings. So they try to keep off and with the way the practice is going, some people are trying to specialise in certain areas of practice so they don’t just go out doing any type of case that comes there way. You will find that those lawyers will recommend specialists if you come to them. We should have specialists working on election petitions because it is not the same as any other civil litigation.

Have you noticed any inconsistences in the handling of some election petition cases?
The nature of election petition cases is such that it does not sit well with time wasting. Time wasting is a huge problem and translates inconsistency. In addition, if you bring someone who is inexperienced in election petition matters, you will run into trouble, the person will not be able to cope with what is involved in the necessary preparations for proceedings to take off. 
On the part of the judgment, because it is not a criminal matter, they may not know that election petitions are in a special class of their own. The procedure is different from procedures in ordinary civil matters. So, some of the technicalities in civil matters that can be waved may not be waved in election petition matters. That is why it is a different and special case of its own. There are certain technicalities in civil matters that if you do them the court may overlook it and carry on. The same thing does not apply in election petition matters.

Some politicians have criticised some of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court regarding election disputes. A civil lawyer and civil rights activist, Kayode Ajulo, told Daily Trust that he had written to the Attorney General of the Federation asking for the politicians criticisIng those judgments to be prosecuted. What is your position on this argument?
My take on this is that before you criticise any judgment, you must first get a copy of the judgment, look at it, check the reasons why that judgment was given and if you want to criticise a judgment you can come out and do an article which will be published. It’s not right to criticize because the judgment did not favour you or your party. The justices of the Supreme Court are experienced people who have no particular interest in any matter. Most of them on the panel at that level may not come from the states where the issue arose. It’s only matters concerning the governorship and the presidency that go to Supreme Court in election petitions. How many of them have read the full judgment? Have those judgments come out in the law reports? Have those who are criticising the judgments seen a copy of such judgments? They haven’t, most of them haven’t. It’s just the summary given by the press upon the delivery of judgments.
Those concise summaries may not contain the reason because it is more of the conclusion. There are reasons given by the Supreme Court for allowing the appeal or for dismissing the appeal. Most of them may not understand why the appeal was allowed or dismissed but because it did not favour them then they say the Supreme Court has not done the right thing. I condemn those that criticise the Supreme Court. It’s not fair to them because those justices may not say something; they’ll just ignore it because of the nature of their work. We should learn how to respect our institutions. The Supreme Court is an institution and it has to be respected if we want to move this country forward. If Kayode had made available to the Attorney General the nature of offences they have committed yes, the Attorney General can go ahead.