Headlines
PEPT Judgment: The Rape of the Judiciary?
- Share
- Tweet /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 69
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Justices.jpg&description=PEPT Judgment: The Rape of the Judiciary?', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
By Eric Elezuo
At the end of such legal wars like the petition instituted by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the February 23, 2019 Presidential Election, Alhaji Atiku Abybakar against the trio of President Muhammadu Buhari, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, emotions are certain to flow. They are shock, indifference and celebration. Shock at the fact that the outcome was totally unexpected; indifference at the fact ‘we know that was how it would end and celebration at victory.
While however, the first two were deeply experienced and expressed, the last was conspicuosly missing.
When the election results were declared on February 25, it was obvious to observers that the PDP and Atiku Abubakar would not let go. In the first instance, they had followed events on the cyberspace to know that more of Nigerians have lost faith with the Buhari administration, and were likely to kick him out via the ballot box. Again, the party and its presidential candidate had received a lot of goodwill from many prominent Nigerians. And so when the election results proved otherwise, tempers were let loose.
PDP and Atiku have alleged that massive electoral fraud were perpetrated in addition to intimidation by security operatives and the infamous use of ‘server’ which INEC claimed was non-existent.
In a unanimous decision by the five judges of the Appeal Court led by Justice Garba Mohammed, Atiku and PDP’s petitions were dismissed ‘in its entirety’ as lacking merit, even as they decribed the evidence presented as ‘a drop in the ocean’.
Atiku’s case, which the APC described as a complete waste of time, was backed by ‘verifiable’ documents and loads of witnesses, with a claim that a server thus exist and that the process was marred by untold irregularities. But alas, the judgment of the five wise men, which took a whopping eight hours to deliver, cleverly dodged the obvious and made pronouncements which some described as voice of the respondent.
In reaction to the judgment, the two political parties said inter alia:
APC: “The APC congratulates the Judiciary for refusing to succumb to the opposition party’s subterfuge. We note the painstaking efforts and thoroughness of the Justices of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in arriving at their decision. Today’s judgment, no doubt, would go down in the annals of our nation as the longest and detailed, spanning almost 10 hours.
PDP: “Nigerians and the international community watched in utter disbelief when the tribunal ruled that one need not provide a copy or certified true copy of educational certificate such individual claimed to possess, contrary to established proof of claims of certification.
Among the ‘landmark’ judgments at the tribunal was the decision of the judges that attaching (academic) certificates to contest election was not necessary, quoting electoral laws, just as it informed that there is no difference between Muhammadu and Mohammed so long as there is a Buhari in it. This has no doubt left Nigerians gaping, wondering the motivation behind such judgment. It is known that once a letter in a name differentiates two documents, the documents are nullified and never tendered. It therefore, becomes an abberation for the judiciary to blatantly declare that there is nothing with Muhammadu being in one document and Mohammed being in another. Its other decision of calling to question the importance of certificates as a prerequisite for election also raises eyebrows to which a cross section of Nigerians allege rape of the law and manipulation of facts.
While the APC wallow in the euphoria of the court victory, it is important that a wholistic approach is employed to examine the extent the so called last hope of the common man has been raped or otherwise, and who actually masterminded and participated in the rape of the judiciary.
Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, has denied saying the Federal government will introduce a fuel tax when the economy stabilises and income levels improve.
In a post on X on Tuesday, Oyedele said his remarks during an interview with ARISE News was misrepresented, insisting that a “fuel tax is not on the table.”
However, during the interview with Rotus Odiri, ARISE News Business Correspondent, on the sidelines of the 2026 International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings in Bangkok, Thailand, Oyedele said the tax would come when income levels improve enough for Nigerians to accommodate it.
He said taxes account for between 20 and 80 percent of pump prices in some countries, while many African countries impose between six and 10 different taxes on fuel products.
He said introducing fuel tax while petrol was still subsidised would have been counterproductive because government would effectively be paying the tax itself.
According to him, imposing the tax immediately after removal of petrol subsidy would be insensitive to Nigerians.
“The objective should be that instead of trying to suppress prices, which hasn’t worked for us, it hasn’t worked for any country in the world, not one. Instead of trying to suppress prices, think about how to grow income faster than prices rise,” Oyedele said.
“That’s how you bring prosperity and grow the middle class and that is exactly what we are doing as led by Mr. President himself.
“At the appropriate time, when the economy has stabilizes and income level will be able to accommodate it, those taxes will come. Not because we want to impose taxes,” he added.
In his Tuesday post, the minister reiterated that introducing a fuel tax at this time would be insensitive following removal of petrol subsidy, describing reports that government will introduce the levy when the economy stabilises as “fake news.”
A chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and Deputy Director of the Presidential Campaign Council, Chief Dele Momodu, has described former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the most nationally formidable and experienced among the leading contenders for the 2027 presidential election.
Momodu said Atiku’s experience at the national level distinguishes him from President Bola Tinubu and former Anambra State Governor, Peter Obi.
He stated this on Wednesday during an interview on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, in Abeokuta.
“If you look at the antecedents of the three major candidates, between Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, you will see that Atiku is the most experienced. He has managed our country at the highest level,” he said.
Momodu traced Atiku’s political journey to the 1992 Social Democratic Party (SDP), presidential primary where he contested against late MKO Abiola and stepped down for him.
He said Atiku accepted the outcome without crisis even after he was not picked as Abiola’s running mate, describing it as a mark of true democratic temperament.
“He is the only one who started from around 1992, contested the SDP primary against Abiola and stepped down with uncommon equanimity. He did not make any noise,” Momodu said.
He noted that Atiku was among the founders of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and served as Vice-President from 1999 to 2007.
Comparing Atiku with Obi, Momodu argued that while Obi’s best was demonstrated in Anambra, Atiku’s was at the presidency level managing the national economy.
“Peter Obi has tried his best in Anambra, while Atiku’s best is at the level of vice president controlling the economy of Nigeria. The difference is clear. He has matured in experience and exposure,” he said.
Momodu also said President Tinubu’s experience was largely limited to Lagos.
“What I’m trying to say is that Tinubu’s experience was limited to Lagos, and that is why when he became president, he thought Nigeria was Lagos. And he has found out now that Nigeria is not Lagos,” he said.
He argued that the current economic hardship under the present administration did not show prosperity, insisting Atiku remained better positioned to lead the country.
“Well, we are yet to see that prosperity, and if yesterday would determine today and tomorrow, it is obvious that Tinubu should retire now and let someone else do it,” Momodu added.
DailyPost
President Bola Tinubu says he has no regrets over the removal of petrol subsidy and other economic reforms introduced by his administration, insisting that Nigeria could not borrow its way to greatness.
Meanwhile, Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, has warned Nigerians against returning to petrol subsidy. He said the backtrack could trigger capital flight, undermining investor confidence and pushing the Naira to N3,000, N3,500 or even N4,000 per dollar.
But the Director of Media and Publicity of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) Presidential Campaign Council (PCC), Kola Ologbondiyan, challenged Oyedele to publish the economic model behind his warning that a return to fuel subsidy could push the naira to N4,000 per dollar.
The President spoke on Monday during the City Boys Movement retreat in Abuja, where he charged members of the group to mobilise support for his administration ahead of the 2027 general elections, insisting that the country’s future mattered more than the ambition of any individual candidate.
“No regrets,” Tinubu said, insisting that his administration would not be pushed back from its reform agenda.
He took a swipe at his political opponents, promising to restore the petrol subsidy, saying Nigeria could no longer afford to pay the fuel subsidy, and warning that reversing the policy would take the country back to an unsustainable economic path.
Defending his decision to remove the subsidy on his first day in office, Tinubu said the country was on the verge of financial collapse and could no longer afford the policy’s cost.
Tinubu also sought to reassure Nigerians about the direction of the economy, arguing that growth was steady and that the sacrifices associated with his reforms would ultimately offer citizens a future worth believing in.
Oyedele disclosed during a press briefing of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Annual Meetings in Bangkok, Thailand, yesterday, that investors had repeatedly questioned whether the government would abandon its reforms ahead of the next election cycle.
Ruling out the reversal of the government’s economic reforms, he maintained that any signal that Tinubu’s administration was contemplating or reinstating the subsidy would immediately affect financial markets, raise borrowing costs and worsen economic pressures on households.
“In all the meetings I have had, I came to a conclusion that the markets, including the domestic market, which you can read from the capital market, and the international market, have largely written off the opposition in Nigeria as unserious.
“If, for any reason, the President were to say we are merely considering the return of fuel subsidy, capital would react immediately, airfares would struggle, the naira would come under severe pressure, potentially moving towards 3,000, 3,500 or even 4,000.
The very fuel people want subsidised would become far more expensive in Naira terms,” Oyedele warned.
However, Ologbondiyan accused the Federal government of using fear to discourage debate on fuel subsidy, insisting that Nigerians deserve evidence, not alarming projections, on the potential economic consequences of restoring the policy.
Speaking to journalists, he described the minister’s warning as scaremongering and demanded that the government explain how it arrived at the projected exchange rate.
“The Minister of Finance is merely scaremongering. He cannot claim that a return to fuel subsidy will cause the naira to depreciate to N4,000 to the dollar without showing Nigerians the model behind that projection,” he said.
He questioned the reliance on investors’ concerns to oppose a subsidy’s return, challenging the government to identify the sources of the projections and disclose their calculations.
