Head of the Presidential Anti-Corruption Committee, Prof Itse Sagayn yesterday stated that the Supreme Court rulings on last year’s governorship elections, particularly those of Rivers and Akwa Ibom states are perverse as it was obvious that election did not take place in the states.
He warned that the rulings, which gave victory to candidates regardless of copious evidence of irregularities and heavy human and material casualties, constituted a dangerous precedence in the history of elections.
Sagay, who disclosed this while interacting with newsmen at the Palace of the Olu of Warri in Delta State, said; “the judgements are very perverse, particularly relating to Akwa Ibom and Rivers. Everybody knows that there were no elections in those two states.
“Everybody knows that people like Wike climbed into the governorship seat over dead bodies and over blood of human beings. There were no elections, they wrote the results; the evidence is there.
“So, what the Supreme Court has done is to set the clock of electoral excellence and fairness and credibility back by, I do not want to say a thousand years, but certainly it is taking us back to where we were before Jega came in and sanitised the system.
“We are going to have primitive and barbaric electoral culture; ‘kill as much as you can, destroy as much as you can, create as much catastrophe, but if you can find yourself on that seat, you are confirmed, regardless of the means by which you got there’.
“That is a very major setback to democracy and the rule of law,” he stated.
Sagay, while comparing the present Justices of the apex court to their predecessors, said: “I remember 15, 20 years ago we had a Supreme Court that was the best in the world – better than the one you have in the US.
“That was when you had Justices (Kayode) Eso, (Andrew) Obaseki, (Adolphous) Karibe-Whyte, Bello (Muhammed) and so on. Those people brought a culture to the Supreme Court and most of us thought when they left the culture would remain but it hasn’t.
“New people have come, much younger people, and they have different approach to life because I don’t understand why you would have law, which is in conflict with justice and you prefer to apply that law – technical law, which is in conflict with justice, as we have seen in the case of Akwa Ibom and Rivers and a few other cases.
“So, I think their orientations are different. I think the older ones who are gone believed that justice was number one. In such a case, you ask where does justice lie? They now interpreted the law in line with justice.
“But now what we have is a group of people in the Supreme Court, who do not care where their legal interpretation is leading them. Once you have a divorce between law and justice, the whole legal system will break down and that is what has happened,” he averred.
Comments