It was just appropriate that the final word on the Nigerian 2007 general elections, (specifically the Presidential election) came from the Supreme Court only a week after the fratricidal killings in Jos, Plateau State over disputed result of a local government chairmanship election. For a start, following the Supreme Court ruling, we must all acclaim Umar Yar’Adua, the duly elected president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

That is the position of rule of law anywhere in the world, especially, (as mention in this column in the past) because he (Yar’Adua) did not organise the 2007 elections. He simply found himself in the controversy generated by the blatantly rigged elections. The concern of Nigerians henceforth and in the future will be what Yar’Adua makes of his government in terms of improving on socially and economic situation he inherited and how he conducts any election(s).

On the conduct of free and fair elections in the country, especially under Umar Yar’Adua, the signs are not encouraging. Never mind the promises of electoral reforms. The situation is not helped for two reasons. Apart from the verdict, the language and comportment of the majority verdict of the Supreme Court, to put it mildly, were far, far below the dignity and neutrality with which the bench should be regarded.
Anyone in doubt should go through the report of the court verdict as excellently carried by a section of the media, The Compass. The impression created by the majority verdict is undisguised tempestuous language was that appellants lacked spirit of sportsmanship to accept election results (even when generally seen to have been rigged) and (that is appellants) were out to blackmail the bench.

And that exactly is the relationship between the Jos riots and the Supreme Court verdict. In 2007, there were no violent protests against the rigged elections as the cheated electorate put their faith in the judiciary to remedy their grievances. Meanwhile, politicians, arrogantly, defiantly and provocatively boasted their determination to rule Nigeria for the next 60 years whatever voters might decide differently.
Clearly in pursuance of that boast, politicians burnt their fingers in Jos over the council elections. Jos was just a testing ground. Most unfortunately, the protesters lost the focus of their action and politicians, bent on ruling the country for 60 years, exploited the situation to portray a self-serving picture of inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflict.

The protesters against rigged local council elections lost their cause the moment they started burning churches and mosques in mutual retaliation and killed themselves as Biroms, Hausa, Christians and Moslems. In the confusion, even innocent ones like youth corp members and southerners were murdered for no reason other than being suspected to be Christians or Moslems.
Did Nigerians on the Plateau just wake up one morning and started killing themselves along religious and ethnic lines or as indigenes against so-called settlers or non-indigenes? Without the rigged local government council elections, there might not have been the anarchy.
And for the rioters, how should they have got into their heads that PDP membership in Plateau state comprised only Christians and the ANPP is completely a Muslim party?

Nigeria is suffering from political retardation in which ordinary people are denied the inalienable right to choose their leaders. There is an under current determination to muscle the entire federation under the control of one party.
In Kenya and Zimbabwe last time, losing presidents of both countries reversed, overnight, the election results to keep themselves in power. Not unaware of its own political plague contacted from the 2007 elections and probably unwilling to be treated for that plague, Nigeria could not utter a word against Kenya’s Kibaki and Zimbabwe’s Mugabe.

In Jos, Nigeria, election results were similarly reversed overnight to give victory to the party, which is losing the elections.
It is frightening to imagine Jos being repeated throughout Nigeria’s seven hundred and seventy-four local governments.
That is why the posture of the majority verdict of the Supreme Court in the appeal against the election of President Yar’Adua is even alarming. The Supreme Court impliedly told off Nigerians to learn to be good losers and stop complaining against rigged elections. The majority verdict also fought off what is considered some blackmail.

What was the blackmail? The legitimacy of a government was being challenged before a panel of Supreme Court judges. While the verdict was being awaited, a party to the legal dispute, in fact, the defendant, the very same government, whose legitimacy was being challenged, offered a facility trip, on pilgrimage to Mecca, to one of the presiding judges.
Was that proper? If the government did not have the sense not to have offered such gesture, should the Supreme Court also not have had the sense to politely reject the offer? Was there no other Muslim Supreme Court judge, not serving on the 2007 election petition appeal panel, who could have been chosen?
And since that did not happen, the criticism against the election petition appeal panel members’ trip was legitimate. Eventually, the man withdrew. He voted for the majority verdict, a position, which could have been criticized had he gone on the trip to Mecca. The resultant lesson therefore is that the bench itself, especially Supreme Court, should, on its own, not open itself to blackmail, if such ever existed.

The majority verdict of the Supreme Court on the 2007 Presidential election must have relocated on holidays to the North Pole when the elections were being held. Otherwise, why would any presiding judge or judges on such elections be angry that petitions were filed against the elections? Okay, what was the reason for warning Nigerians to be good losers or that every election in Nigeria always generated petitions.
If the major beneficiary of the 2007 elections, Yar’Adua, publicly conceded the rigging, (in his May 29, 2007 inaugural address) though tactfully described it as a flaw, which he promised to reform, what was wrong in challenging his election before a law court?

The majority decision of the Supreme Court was therefore, reckless to have ticked off Nigerians petitioning against (especially) blatantly rigged elections.
If, as the majority verdict of the Supreme Court warned, concocted losers of 2007 elections had taken the insult as good losers, how could the Supreme Court have discovered that Rotimi Amaechi was rigged of the PDP nomination and eventually governorship of Rivers State?
How did the election appeal tribunal discover that there was no election, repeat no election, (that is governorship and presidential) in Bayelsa State, a discovery, which led to the nullification of the purported election of Governor Sylva of Bayelsa State?

As no election took place in Bayelsa State, how did the INEC come about the votes recorded for Yar’Adua in Bayelsa State?
In Ondo State, governorship elections were held and the result was ready to be announced at the state capital, Akure, strictly in line with the electoral regulations. Somebody in Aso Rock allegedly said only on his dead body would Segun Mimiko be announced as elected governor of Ondo State. The returning officer kept anxious Ondo State people waiting on the excuse of some consultations. Then suddenly, the Ondo State governorship election result was announced far away in Abuja.

Yet, Nigerian Supreme Court by majority verdict would expect such fraud to be taken in the spirit of fair contest and not petitioned against?
Judges, especially at the highest level, must watch their language, so as not to be misconstrued as taking side.
Anywhere in the democratic and judicial world, minority verdict in this case, based strictly on the nullity of unserialised ballot papers, (moreso as admitted by INEC) will be supreme and more respected.