Senate seat: Why Supreme Court judges in favour of Lawan – Ajulo

Re: Machina Vs Lawan
Those that can’t distinguish Dane Gun from Pump Action are those rushing to analyze the substantiality and destructiveness of the American M16 to that of its Russian counterpart AK-47 when fired at short range into clay blocks, despite the fact that the AK-47 is of larger calibre and fires a much heavier bullet with kinetic energy (muzzle) 25% greater when compared to the M-16.

Let’s be real and reason like lawyers, most of these comments targeted against the Supreme Court’s decision under reference are misconceived, particularly from the perspective of the law.

The Supreme Court only delivered judgement based on the case presented before them. And it is a sound judgement.

The concept of justice is not about a crying baby who runs to his sweet mother. Unlike the empathetic mother, the Supreme Court has the obligation to decide any matter based on its peculiarities.

The Supreme Court only delivered judgement based on the case presented before them

To say in public, like some have been doing, that the judgement is ridiculous is contemptuous. A better appreciation of our justice system will reveal that what the Court considers is cold facts and not emotions.

If anyone should be blamed for the controversy this decision has generated, it is the political party, APC.

The whole world is aware that Ahmed Lawan participated in the APC presidential primaries. And pursuant to section 115(d) of the Electoral Act, a candidate cannot be nominated in two elections. So, it was the party that decided to forward Ahmed Lawan’s name to INEC, that ironically Ahmed Lawan as the Senate president and other law makers created.

What the Court considers is cold facts and not emotions

Bashir Machina, feeling cheated, was within his right to recover his mandate. However, the facts of the case remains that the grouse of Bashir Machina deals with fraud and should have been instituted by way of Writ of Summons and not Originating Summons like Bashir Machina did.

Although the Federal High Court practice direction says that Pre-election matters be instituted by way of Originating Summons, the Supreme Court has held in a plethora of authorities that the Rules of Court supersedes a practice direction. And by the rules of Court, an allegation of fraud should be brought by way of Writ of Summons.

This has been the consistent holding of the supreme Court in a plethora of matters and it won’t stop now.