Moving, mysterious and compelling movie from Rivers

So far, the Rivers State Election Petition Tribunal is like a thriller. We’ve had moments of uncertainty, surprise, anxiety and terror. We’ve seen the protagonist and antagonist battled each other not just on physical level, but on mental and spiritual levels too. We’ve heard the soundtracks from the police, army, INEC and the blind witnesses.

We’ll all find out soon enough that this film will have a surprise ending too.  I cannot certainly predict how things will pan out at the end of the sitting of the tribunal led by Justice Suleiman Ambursa, but we certainly expect the judgment day to come by the end of this month.

But before the depressing and bleak ending of this thriller, when the main actor/protagonist is expected to die, let us go over the script to find out why the protagonist would die. The little knowledge I have about script writing tells me that there are many reasons writers decide to kill off their protagonist. The trick is to do it for the right reasons and in a way that won’t put the fans in a bad mood.

For instance, fans may find it hard to swallow if your main character survives what no one should be able to. One good example is this: when a jumbo jet crashes in the desert but your hero, Don, walks away unscathed, thanks to his skill with using artificial wing to fly, you can practically hear your readers moan.

Now, the complex issue that Justice Suleiman Ambursa is trying to resolve in Rivers State gubernatorial election through the tribunal remains whether the current governor of the state, Nyesom Wike is a fake occupant of the seat or he’s the right man on the seat. For that, he cannot make guesswork. And though, several observer reports coming out of the election would have made his guess a perfect guess, Justice Ambursa appears to me as a man who understand the intricacies of his work. Ambursa will rely more on prima facie evidence in deciding who won the Rivers State election during the April poll. In legal practice, the termgenerally is used to describe two things: the presentation ofsufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (aprima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facieevidence).

Accordingly, the petitioner must produce enough evidence on allelements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden ofevidence production to the respondent. We have seen the gubernatorial candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), during the April poll in Rivers State, Dr. Dakuku Peterside, presented compelling evidence against Governor Wike at the tribunal. Dakuku simply did what was expected of him, if he must unseat Wike.

He brought not less than 56 business-minded people that included soldiers, police, INEC officials, traditional leaders and grassroots politicians to speak and demonstrate how that there was no election in Rivers State.

For instance, the soldiers, who spoke for Dakuku and the APC, in their separate statements, told the tribunal that the election was marred by violence and sporadic gunshots by thugs believed to have been sponsored by the PDP, a situation they said scared voters away. They did that with the aid of photographs and video recordings.

And when the INEC data custodian showed up to speak for APC, she gave her testimonies with the aid of statistics. As an assistant director in the ICT department of INEC in Abuja, Mrs. Abimbola Oladunjoye, told the tribunal that only 293, 072 voters were electronically accredited for the governorship election in Rivers State on April 11, 2015.

There were many other indisputable evidences brought by Dakuku. But I was amazed to see the witnesses brought by Wike unable to act with seriousness in a situation where the tribunal requires convincing statements and superior arguments over what is currently before it. How do you explain the idea behind choosing blind men to counter evidences in video and photograph format?  Did Wike understand this is not a hide and seek game but that he needs to prove a point that he made it to the Brick House through credible votes?

When they were being cross-examined, seven witnesses brought to the tribunal by Wike last Wednesday claimed that they had forgotten their reading glasses and so could not read. Strangely, whilst been led by their counsel, they read the oath of affirmation and identified their written statements unaided. These set of witnesses I think had done damage to Wike than doing him any good. For a lawyer and former education minister, I had expected that this tribunal will be walkover for Wike, now I get the message that it’s fraud to conceal fraud.

And this one more thing, Wike’s decision not to appear to speak for himself when he closed his defence calls to question his interest in how this game of throne will turn out. He may have heeded the advice of the spokesperson of his party, Chief Olisa Metuh, whose admission that Wike will lose at the tribunal was evident in his recent clever message to his party about the possibility of election rerun in Rivers State, when the tribunal delivers its judgment.

Honestly, I do not expect so much of a defence from the PDP now that it opened its own defence yesterday at the tribunal. The PDP counsel already wasted one day out of the six days allotted to the party to bring its witnesses.

To be certain, the counsel to the PDP, Chief Chris Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria told the tribunal, “We have seen how hard the tribunal is working, so we wish to donate our tomorrow…to the tribunal…”

If you ask me, I will say it’s for lack of ideas. No go-getting individual ever donates his tomorrow!

This article first appeared in THISDAY