Muhammed Belgore: Post-election cases must be concluded before president, governors assume office ‌

Abuja-based legal practitioner, Muhammed Mustapha Belgore, in this interview with THISDAY, argues that laws need to be amended to ensure election petitions are dispensed with before president and governors are sworn in.

What is your view on the conduct of the 2023 general election and the transition that followed?

Belgore: First of all, I think it is cogent to understand that no election in the world is perfect, even where technology is deployed because it is a human endeavour, it concerns humans and you can’t find perfection in any human exercise. Even in the so-called developed countries, elections are never without loopholes. I am sure that if you cast your mind back to the election in the United States that ousted Donald Trump and returned Joe Biden, you will remember that there were complaints about the legitimacy of the process.

So the 2023 general elections in Nigeria might not have been perfect but I am an incurable pessimist and I believe that we are getting there and that despite the alleged irregularities the legitimate winner of the election with majority of the lawful votes cast was President Bola Tinubu.

The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in an unprecedented 13-hour judgement dismissed the petitions of the PDP, LP and APM for lack of merit and insufficient evidence. What is your legal standpoint on the judgement?

Belgore: I have read the judgement. My legal standpoint on it is that it was a flawless one and the Hon. Justices did a fine job and they made the judiciary proud. What I could notice from the beginning was that the petitions were watery and speculative as they lacked the necessary precise facts in support of the grounds of the petition. The petitions were couched in a generic manner and lady justicia requires you to be specific about your allegations so that both the court and the respondents are not at a loss as regards to what the exact contention is about.

Take the example of the Labour Party’s petition. They alleged that there was a forfeiture order made against the 2nd Respondent which allegedly rendered him unqualified. Now there was no evidence that it was a criminal forfeiture, which is a requirement and that it was pursuant to a conviction. Now let us even assume without conceding that it was a criminal conviction, it was already status barred by the 1999 constitution (as amended) as 10 years had elapsed.

The PDP on its part contended that the 2nd respondent submitted false information to the 1st respondent and that was tantamount to an allegation of forgery which required them to have produced the original document along with the fake one or at least a correspondence from the institution denying the document. None was evidenced before the court and so it made their pleading result in pouring water in a basket.

As for APM, the Supreme Court had cleared Shettima of the allegation of double nomination. The infallible Supreme Court had delivered a judgement to the effect that he had relinquished his senatorial nomination before being nominated for Vice-President and the Court of Appeal was bound by the decision on the basis of stare decices. So that allegation was dead on arrival.

The 25 percent Abuja matter has refused to go away despite the pronouncement of the court. Were you surprised at how the Tribunal interpreted section 134 of the 1999 Constitution?

Belgore: I am not surprised that it has refused to go away. With due respect, Nigerians can be very gullible as they latch onto what is a non-issue just to tie their inability to achieve their desire to something that is not commonsensical.

What I could glean with a bird’s eye view of the situation was that the moment President Tinubu won the election, Atiku’s supporters and especially the Obidients did not keep quiet about it, in fact they tried to make it the sole ground in the court of public opinion for why the return of Tinubu as President was an illegitimate one. They exhibited all manner of bullying and embarked on a mission to brainwash Nigerians as they did during the campaigns. It was an unfortunate event to find a billboard located in the Federal Capital Territory saying “all eyes on the judiciary.”

So, they not only tried to brainwash Nigerians, they despicably tried to blackmail the judiciary and paint it in disrepute.

I thought that was really unfortunate. To have made it a mission to crush the dignity of the third arm of government was a no no, and I felt the sponsors of such a billboard should have been prosecuted and brought to book. These were laymen who understood nothing about the law, like a striker in a football pitch suddenly believing he has the skill to be a goalkeeper.

Now to the issue of Section 134 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) which I do not need to reproduce here. It was not a provision drafted by the lawmakers so as to make the Federal Capital Territory superior to every other state. The contention was that the provision had the term “and” in it which meant it was conjunctive.

However the Justices of the PEPT and judicial officers generally in their wisdom interpret laws not by the letters but by trying to understand the wisdom of the draftsmen. There are three main rules which judicial officers employ in their wisdom to interpret laws. They are the Literal rule, the Golden rule and the Mischief rule.

Now the most learned justices of the PEPT in their wisdom must have applied the golden rule of interpretation in order to arrive at the decision that having 25% of votes in the FCT is not sacrosanct to win a presidential election, and they had the full judicial discretion to interpret is as such.

I therefore in my humble view find that the Tribunal’s decision was the right one.

Some opposition figures and Abuja residents are saying that if the Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the Appellate Court on Abuja’s status, they will seek further judicial interpretation on whether the city should also have a governor, House of Assembly and three senators.

Belgore: I am glad you said opposition figures. How do they even want to achieve that, will the Senate and the Members of the House of Representatives listen to them, will they amend the law simply because some citizens are crying foul over what is a non-issue? I think they should find other things to focus on as they will only be wasting their time.

The Tribunal also gave INEC the discretionary powers to choose when and how to transmit election results to the IREV portal. Won’t this precedent be a clog in the wheel of the progress we want to make in the use of technology to promote transparency?

Belgore: Well I think you can argue that it will and you can also argue that it won’t. I am in favour of INEC being able to choose when and how to transmit election results to the IREV portal, this is because our nation is at a point where we need to empower our institutions more and not individuals. Nigerians love to always see the negative side of things, but I think INEC should enjoy that discretion. It is not about the size of Nigeria, if we have the right people heading our institutions, such as a competent INEC chairman with the yearning to do right by the people, INEC’s independence is very paramount.

Don’t forget that even technology is not entirely without its own vulnerabilities and the INEC portal can be hacked. Technology is not as foolproof as people would like to believe.

With the fact that petitioners have to file their cases within 21 days of the announcement of the election results and the size of Nigeria, do you think a presidential election petition can ever succeed in this country with the existing laws?

Belgore: Why not? If the lawyers have sufficient grounds for the petitions and not just watery issues for which they are happy to have their briefs perfected, 21 days is enough time.

I have practised in a firm of over 40 lawyers, most of these senior lawyers have the requisite learned human ammunition in terms of numbers, of course 21 days is very sufficient. Besides, the petitions are handled by a team of senior lawyers who each have junior lawyers in their firms, so they work as a team. Of course 21 days is very sufficient.

From your experience and reading of the Tribunal judgement, how many witnesses and polling unit results can petitioners bring to convince the court to give judgement in their favour after a presidential election?

It is not an issue of specificity as regards the number of witnesses. You are only required to call the witnesses that you are talking about in each of the polling units, wards and states that you are alleging infractions about. The law requires direct and positive testimony from individuals that were present when these infractions happened.

In view of the controversy the election results and the litigation have generated, what reforms and constitutional amendments will you recommend to INEC and National Assembly respectively?

Belgore: Just one and it is very simple. But first of all let me paint you a picture, imagine swearing-in a President, he appoints Ministers, he signs Bills, appoints Service Chiefs, special advisers, the IGP, sends bills to the National Assembly, attends international functions like UNGA, the African Union and is even in the present scenario, the chairman of ECOWAS and then a tribunal gives a judgement that nullifies his election, what you will have is a full blown anarchy and that is a situation that is worse than it sounds.

This is why my recommendation to INEC and the National Assembly in the interest of giving undoubtable legitimacy to whoever is returned as President is to ensure that election petitions are concluded before the President is sworn-in. I think the Election Petition Tribunals for both the State and the Presidential poll should be concluded before the President and governors are sworn-in. I think this will reduce post-election rancour in the country.

As a lawyer, what judicial reforms will you recommend to the new Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice?

Belgore: Well, as for the new AG, I believe that being the number one law officer, his primary goal should be taking it as a responsibility to act as the link between the Judiciary and Executive, to advise and encourage the executive on respect for the rule of law and compliance with court orders.

He also has to discourage interferences with the judiciary when they carry out their functions. He should also push for the autonomy of the judiciary so that they are not vulnerable to manipulation by the Executive. He should be at the forefront of the upward review of their remuneration package.

Finally, he must make sure that every executive step or action to be taken by the executive should be guided strictly by legal requirements, the constitution and relevant statutes.

President Bola Tinubu has spent over hundred days in office. How will you rate his performance so far?

Belgore: In fact, he has done exactly what he said he would do. Although campaigns are in poetic forms while governance is a matter of prose. He said he would hit the ground running. He inherited a mess, a full blown mess but what has captured my attention the most is the fact that unlike his predecessor who kept blaming previous administrations for the regression of the Nigerian economy while showing no zeal to fix the situation, President Tinubu has rather said several times that things are bad but he cannot complain afterall he campaigned for the job. Now that is how a leader sounds.

Fuel subsidy had to go, Buhari who was a military general did not have the impetus to do it but President Tinubu has shown that whatever it will take, even though Nigerians must imbibe patience, he is indeed determined to move the country forward.

He has appointed some very capable people as ministers as well and unlike President Buhari, I believe that non-performing ministers will be shown the door. I have faith in his administration.