Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), A former president of the Nigerian Bar Association has said that the petitions of Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar at the Supreme Court, are not the same.
He said this on Twitter in a bid to clarify an earlier tweet which he made in response to an Interview by Labour party’s spokesperson, Dr Yunusa Tanko.
Dr Yunusa in the interview on December 4, had accused the Supreme Court of not delivering judgement in Obi’s petition but asked them to abide by the judgement of PDP’s Atiku which was different from theirs.
He noted that the only area where their petition correlates is the issue of 25% of votes in Abuja.
Yunusa said it is appalling for the Supreme Court to be breaking the law it’s meant to enforce.
He said not furnishing them with the CTC of the judgement after 40 days is against the provisions of the law.
Dr Yunusa’s interview
Dr Yunusa said even by numbering, both petions are different as their own reads SC/CV/937/2024.
He said “The judge said the Labour Party is to abide by the judgement that will be passed by the PDP. Unilaterally took the decision without any consultation with our lawyers whether we have consolidated on this particular matter or not.
“The only area where there seems to be any form of Corrolation is on the issue of 25% of votes in Abuja.
“Our case is very clear, we took the issue of forfeiture, secondly we took the issue of double nomination, thirdly we talked about section 73{2) which nullifies the election where records are not being put according to provisions of the law. Finally, there is the issue that we raised about 18,183,000 void results that was recorded on the IREF which is a certified true copy of those particular result of elections.
“The Supreme Court in its own thinking, just ignored the issues we raised and passed a judgemnt on us on the PDP judgemnt alone without even giving us the Certified True Copy of the judgement.
“According to the constitution, Section 294(1) says if you pass a judgemnt you will give the judgemnt to the concerned parties two weeks after the delivery. Today as of now we are almost like 40 days difference.
“It is very appalling for us to see that those who are supposed to be who adjudicate and enforces the law, are the once who seems to be breaking the law.
“And if that should be the case, if the Supreme Court of the land, which supposed to be the major area where laws should be kept and followed according with due delligent, is flouting the position of the constitution which is seriously unconstitutional, then I wonder where we will go as a people.
“This is the situation which we find ourselves. As we speak, we don’t have the CTC of that judgement”.
Read also : EFCC arraigns businessman over alledged N105m fraud
Agbadoka’s response
Responding to the interview, Agbadako said the Supreme Court had power to apply the abide by judgment principle.
He advised Dr Yunusa to focus on the differences in the 2 appeals, and not whether the abide principle exists.
The tweet reads “I have just read a tweet on this matter. I was actually trying to help Dr Yunusa on the issue of abide by judgement principle. Dr Yunusa was concerned that the Supreme Court did not actually deliver a judgement in the Labour Party appeal.
“He questioned whether the Supreme Court even had power to apply a judgment delivered in another petition appeal to the Labor Party petition appeal. My response was that the Supreme Court had power to apply the abide by judgment principle.
The abide by judgement principle simply means that the Supreme Court can decide a particular appeal and then apply the same judgment to another appeal without actually delivering a judgement in the second appeal. The basis for the abide by principle is that the appeals are the same and one appeal decides the other.
“Dr Yunusa was not quite clear whether this power existed. Having practiced extensively in the Supreme Court myself, I know that the abide by judgement principle indeed exists. I have involved in many cases concerning the abide by judgment principle. So the issue I intervened to clarify was that, the abide by judgement principle does exist.
“The main issue I raised for Dr Yunusa’s attention was his concern that the Supreme Court did not notify them that the abide by judgement principle will be used to decide the Labour Party appeal. So my advice was that he should seek clarification from the Supreme Court.
“I am surprised that I am being misquoted as Dr Yunusa himself did not challenge the point I raised. I understand the risk of being misquoted but having practised for years, I will continue to make comments if necessary.
The second tweet reads “Aww!!! That is my point!!! The 2 Appeals are not the same!!!
“That is why I advised Dr Yunusu to focus on the differences in the 2 appeals, and not whether the abide principle exists!!!
