* For Obasanjo, Inec suppressed evidence, * Mbakwe, Ohakim and me,* Yes, judges compromise justice, * You can't be a good social man and good judge

For suppressing evidence that it did not manipulate results of the 2003 Presidential Eelections even though the Appeal Court asked it to produce it, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), caused former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s to lose the 2003 Presidential Elections.

And even though majority of the other justices agreed on the judgement, the Evidence Act, Section 149, says that “Evidence that is withheld, suppressed, the law presumes that if that evidence was produced, it would be against that person who was suppressing it.”

And if INEC had “brought that result from which it announced the figures scored by the petitioner and the other candidates, that result would show that the petitioner was telling the truth that the figures were manipulated.

So on that ground, the petition must succeed and the respondent must lose. That is a question of fact. So, if the figures were falsified, there was no election and General Buhari should have won and he won by my own assessment and my own appraisal of these facts.”

These are views retired Justice Sylvanus Adiewere Nsofor of the Appeal Court still holds strongly, five years after he read his minority report following the decision of his colleagues to declare Obasanjo winner of the 2003 presidential elections.

Nsofor also explained that though the justices of the Appeal Court met on the judgment, each of them looked at the facts before them personally, and so offered his own opinion. Nsofor said he had a right to look at the case separately. For him, even though majority of the justices agreed on the judgement did not mean that the majority was wise.

The retired Appeal Court Justice was also furious with the way the Imo state government would offer him appointment on the air without a written letter of the appointment.

According to him, such appointment is an insult to him, hence his rejection of such positions. He accused late Dr. Sam Mbakwe, then Imo state governor as well as the present Governor of the state, Chief Ikedi Ohakim of such insults.

Nsofor  made the declaration to Saturday Vanguard in his Oguta residence.  He was reacting to the July I, 2005, Supreme Court verdict on the 2003 presidential legal battle over the presidential election of 2003.

The genesis of this long-drawn legal battle between Buhari and Obasanjo began immediately after the release of the results of the April 2003 presidential polls which declared President Obasanjo the winner.

In a 91-page petition to the Court of Appeal, Buhari challenged the declaration of Obasanjo as president on 42 grounds. The ANPP petitioner in his petition stated that the April 19, 2003 presidential election “was conducted in substantial negation of the fundamental principles of the Electoral Act, which are the substance of democracy, neutrality in the conduct of elections, fairness and allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

The case took 15 months to conclude and a total of 355 witnesses were called by both parties. On February 6, 2005, the Appeal Court sitting in Abuja delivered its judgment upholding the declaration of Obasanjo as duly elected president.

However, a dissenting judgment delivered by Justice Nsofor called for the cancellation of the election. Not satisfied, Buhari took his case to the final court of adjudication in the land, the Supreme Court.

Nsofor in his minority report said, “I find that the substantial non-compliance with the mandatory electoral law amounts to no election. I also find that there was violence perpetrated by President Obasanjo and INEC. In Adamawa State, there was massive rigging, malpractice and violence using law enforcement agencies.”

The justice said deployment of soldiers and police was to intimidate innocent electorate as alleged by the petitioners (Maj. Gen. Buhari and ANPP). ‘‘If not, why is it that no PDP member was killed or shot?

Six innocent Nigerians were shot dead in police station. Others were wounded. All were ANPP members. Why is it that the law enforcement agencies turned their eyes from the various atrocities inflicted on innocent Nigerians by the army and the police?... Why is it that INEC did nothing and said nothing about it too?... May Nigeria never and never again see a black Saturday like April 19, 2003.’’

Obasanjo had won by a landslide victory with a total of 24,456,140 votes while Buhari scored only 12.710,022.            

However, the Supreme Court judgment was unanimously agreed by all the seven justices on the results of the April 19, 2003 presidential election which returned Obasanjo as president by a wide margin over his ANPP opponent, General Muhammadu Buhari.

In a 124-page lead judgment, the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Muhammed Uwais, said that there were “not enough material evidence by the ANPP and Buhari to show that the April 2003 election was rigged in favour of Obasanjo to warrant the vitiation of the election by the court”.

Justice Uwais observed that “election rigging is a criminal offence and that going by the Evidence Act, such offence need to be substantiated fully and not to rely on mere hearsay”. He cited section 135 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2000, which stated that “an election shall not be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act if it appears that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of the Act”.

However, Nsofor, while reviewing his role during the saga, insisted that Obasanjo lost the 2003 election. In his response, he said, “Well, the facts are there. The truth is there. Facts never change. The witness may lie and lie and lie but facts are stubborn. They cannot lie against facts. The truth is a fact and the fact is the truth. So, the same opinion I held then and subject to what the Supreme Court has said, the same opinion I will hold tomorrow. Yes, the facts are clear and the evidence is there.”

Comments (25)