Law
PEPC’s judgment was erroneous, Atiku tells Supreme Court
***fails to recognize ‘Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation’
***Says justices exhibited bias through uncomplimentary remarks
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in the last presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court having failed to take into cognisance the “Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation” regarding the failure of INEC to conduct the election in accordance with its own guidelines and the Electoral Act, 2022.
The doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was first developed in English law as a ground of judicial review in administrative law to protect a procedural or substantive interest when a public authority rescinds from a representation made to a person.
In Nigeria, the doctrine of legitimate expectation demands that a public authority shall respect and apply its stated position or sustained practice in exercising its powers on members of the public.
However, Atiku in his Notice of Appeal dated September 18, and filed by his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, submitted that the failure of the tribunal to apply the said doctrine is enough ground for the apex court to set aside the entire decision of the lower court.
Specifically in ground seven of his Notice of Appeal, the former Vice President submitted that, “the lower Court erred in Law when it failed to nullify the presidential election held on February 25, 2023 on the ground of noncompliance with the Electoral Act 2022, when by evidence before the Court, the 1st Respondent (INEC) conducted the election based on very grave and gross misrepresentation contrary to the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, based on the “doctrine of legitimate expectation”.
While pointing out that the Electoral Act 2022, made the use of Bi-modal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) and INEC’s Results Viewing (IReV) portals mandatory in the conduct of the 2023 general elections, adding that, INEC through its Chairman, Professor Yakubu Mahmood, publicly gave guarantees, undertakings, clear and unambiguous representations to candidates and political parties, that polling units results were mandatorily required to be electronically transmitted or transferred directly by the Presiding Officers, he argued that, “there was no evidence before the lower Court that the 1st Respondent altered its aforesaid Guidelines and Regulations to remove the said requirement of electronic transmission of the results of the election directly from the polling units to the 1st Respondent’s Collation System”.
It is the submission of Atiku that, INEC “conducted the said Presidential Election based on the gross misrepresentation to the Appellants and the general voting public that the Presiding Officers were going to electronically transmit the results of the said election directly from the polling units to the 1st Respondent’s Collation System.
He added that, “Contrary to the above unambiguous representations, undertakings and guarantees, the 1st Respondent neither deployed the electronic transmission of election results nor the electronic collation system in the said election, sabotaging the raison d’etre for the enactment of the new Electoral Act 2022 and the introduction of the technological innovations.
“Rather than hold the 1st Respondent (INEC) as a public institution accountable to the representations that it made pursuant to its statutory and constitutional duties which created legitimate expectation on the part of the Appellant’s, the lower court wrongly exonerated the 1st Respondent of any responsibility by holding that the use of the technological innovations to guarantee transparency was not mandatory”.
It was the appellant’s further position that the February 25 poll was “conducted based on very grave and gross misrepresentation and was therefore oppressive to the Appellants and thus not free and fair, and not in accordance with the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, and not protected by the presumption of regularity, as well as the preamble and the fundamental objectives and directive principles of State Policy of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) adopted by the lower court.
“The grave misrepresentation negated the legal presumption of official regularity in favour of the 1st Respondent.
Besides, Atiku told the apex court that INEC as a public institution is not above the law, and not entitled to breach its own regulations with impunity, after clear and unambiguous representations upon which parties have placed reliance and entitled to legitimate expectation.
“The said election ought to have been nullified by reason of the said gross misrepresentation by a public institution based upon the “doctrine of legitimate expectation” as applied by the Supreme Court as a policy Court….”
Accusing the tribunal of bias, the appellants stated in grounds 34 that the “lower Court erred in law in its use of disparaging words against the Appellants in its judgment evincing bias against the Appellants as Petitioners and thereby violating their right to fair hearing and occasioning grave miscarriage of justice.
The justices in their verdicts, while discountenancing the arguments and contentions of the Appellants used expressions such as ‘ludicrous’ (page 721 of the judgment), ‘clever by half’ (page 557 of the judgment), ‘dishonourable practice’ (page
507 of the judgment), ‘smuggle’ (page 557), ‘fallacious’ (page 721
of the judgment); ‘foul play’ (page 560 of the judgment), ‘cross the
line of misconception’ (page 644 of the judgment); ‘collect evidence from the market’ (page 765 of the judgment); ‘those who are not
used to reading preambles’ (page 726 of the judgment); ‘hollowness in the argument of the Petitioners’ (page 727 of the judgment); etc.
It is the position of the appellants that the choice of words and expressions by the lower court shows the
lower Court’s contempt and disdain for the Appellants.
“The lower court failed to use civil, modest, moderate, and temperate language that is befitting of the exalted position of the court in line with the Revised Code for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, promulgated by the National Judicial Council.
“The words against the Appellants in the judgment evince a disposition in the mind of the lower court that was far from objective, which approach demonstrated bias and infringement to the Appellants’ right to fair hearing.
“The Appellants were entitled to approach the Court for the
ventilation of their grievances, which court was set up as the
Presidential Election Petition Court, solely to receive petitions arising from the presidential election.
“The right to present an election petition in respect of a presidential election is a right granted by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022, which right the Appellants merely exercised.
“The use of the said words and expressions substantially affected the lower court’s consideration of the Appellants’ case, peremptorily
striking out their witness statements on oath, their exhibits, their pleadings, and discountenancing the evidence of their witnesses, and thus occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice”, the appellants submitted.
Recall that the five-member panel of the tribunal had on September 6 upheld the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.
The panel in a unanimous decision held that Atiku, as well as other petitioners against the February 25 presidential election, were unable to substantiate their allegations against the poll conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Specifically, the panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani in their judgments held that, the documentary and oral evidences presented before them could not prove claims of irregularities, corrupt practices, non-compliance amongst other claims for which Atiku had asked the court to void Tinubu’s election.
Dissatisfied, Atiku claiming that the lower tribunal erred in law in affirming the outcome of the February 25 poll, has amongst others asked the Supreme Court to set aside the entire decision of the tribunal.
Atiku, in addition, prayed the apex court to after voiding Tinubu’s election, declare him as the authentic winner of the poll.
Atiku, who came second in the poll, is claiming that he and not Tinubu actually won the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election, but the electoral umpire, however, manipulated the process in favour of Tinubu.
“I Might Not Be a Party to This Case, But It’s My Case” — Keren’s Mother Confronts Premiere Academy in Court
In an emotionally charged moment outside the Abuja High Court, sitting in Kwali, Mrs. Vivien Akpagher, the mother of Keren-Happuch Aondoodo Akpagher, lampooned Premiere Academy, the school where her 14-year-old daughter was allegedly raped—an ordeal that led to complications and her tragic death.
Though not formally listed as a party in the legal battle, Mrs. Akpagher described Premiere Academy as insensitive, bereft of empathy and brazen following its N500 Million alleged defamation suit brought against journalist and gender rights activist, Dr. Lemmy Ughegbe, leading the quest for the rapist-killer of her daughter to be fished out and brought to book.
Responding to newsmen who sought to know why she was in court, an emotional Mrs Akpagher said Premiere Academy’s suit against Dr. Lemmy was indirectly aimed at her, wondering how audaciously an institution would want to use legal machination to silence they cry for justice for her daughter.
“Premier Academy had the temerity to bring Lemmy Ughegbe to court—someone who is fighting for my daughter to make sure she gets the justice she deserves. I truly wanted to come and look them in the face—the people that I filed a formal complaint at the police as those who raped and killed my girl—just to see how they live, how they function daily.”
She quizzed: “Is it not ridiculous and laughable that the sole reason for suing Dr. Ughegbe is because at the NBA Law Week he called Premiere Academy suspects in the rape of my daughter? I filed a criminal complaint at the police station against Premiere Academy, stating that my daughter was raped in their school, which compromised her health and led to death. So, are they not suspects by my complaint?”
Her words, raw with grief and fury, underscored the gravity of the case that has captivated national attention. Keren’s mother lamented the fact that, more than three years after her daughter’s death, there has been no concrete resolution.
“Each day I wake up, I think, what was it I did wrong? Was it wrong to have taken my daughter to Premier Academy in pursuit of a good education? Today, I think education is overrated, because it was in the pursuit of an education that led to her death.”
Meanwhile, Premiere Academy has admitted before an Abuja High Court that the relentless #Justice4Keren campaign, spearheaded by Dr. Lemmy Ughegbe, has significantly damaged its reputation and financial standing.
During the proceedings, the school, Mrs Chris Akinsonwon led in evidence by Barrister Olajide Kumuyi from the law firm of Chief Adegboyega Solomon Awomolo (SAN) tendered exhibits in court, including a flash drive containing footage of Ughegbe’s impassioned address at the 2021 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Law Week, where he spoke before 5,000 lawyers about Keren’s case, three years’ worth of admission registers, allegedly showing a sharp decline in student enrolment, with only 59 new applicants in 2022, among others.
While the school argues that Ughegbe’s advocacy has led to financial losses, many see this as an acknowledgment of the power of the #Justice4Keren movement—a campaign that has exposed uncomfortable truths and kept the case in public consciousness.
For many human rights advocates, this case is not just about defamation, but about accountability. Ughegbe, known for his unwavering stance against gender-based violence (GBV) and impunity, has remained steadfast in his call for justice.
His legal representative, Johnbull Adaghe, challenged the admissibility of some of the documents presented by Premiere Academy, arguing that they were not frontloaded in compliance with the rules of court. However, Justice Kayode Agunloye overruled the objections and admitted the documents as exhibits.
With the court set to play the video evidence of Ughegbe’s NBA Law Week speech on March 18, public interest in the case continues to rise, particularly as it touches on critical issues of justice, institutional accountability, and the silencing of human rights defenders.
As the legal battle is adjourned to 18th of March, 2025, Mrs. Akpagher’s words serve as a reminder that this is not just a courtroom drama—it is a fight for justice, dignity, and the right to speak truth to power and demand justice for a rape victim.
END
Law
Supreme Court Drama: Fubara’s Legal Team Withdraws Appeal Against Pro-Wike Lawmakers, Activist Clarifies
In a surprising turn of events, the legal team representing Rivers State Governor Sim Fubara withdrew an appeal before the Supreme Court on Monday, a move that has sparked widespread debate and misinterpretation.
Contrary to reports suggesting the Supreme Court dismissed the case on merit, activist lawyer Deji Adeyanju clarified that the withdrawal was a strategic legal decision, not a judicial dismissal.
The appeal revolved around the controversial re-presentation of the 2024 budget before the 27 pro-Wike lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly. These legislators are aligned with Nyesom Wike, the current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and Fubara’s political rival.
In a brief session, the apex court, led by Justice Musa Uwani-Aba-Aji, acknowledged the withdrawal after Fubara’s lead counsel, Yusuf Ali, SAN, informed the court that the matter had been overtaken by political developments. The court proceeded to dismiss the case based on the withdrawal, not on its legal merits, and awarded N4 million in costs against Governor Fubara, payable to the House of Assembly and its Speaker, Martin Amaewhule.
Legal experts suggest that the withdrawal may signal a behind-the-scenes political realignment or an attempt to de-escalate tensions between the governor and the pro-Wike faction.
Addressing the confusion, Adeyanju took to X (formerly Twitter) to set the record straight:
> “The Supreme Court did not dismiss Fubara’s Appeal. The appeal was withdrawn by lawyers representing the governor because the subject matter has been overtaken by events. This is the correct representation of what happened in court today.”
This development adds a new layer to the political crisis in Rivers State, where the battle for control between Fubara and his predecessor Wike has led to legislative standoffs and legal battles. Observers are now keenly watching how this legal maneuver will impact the ongoing power tussle within the state’s political landscape.
Law
Mambilla Power Dispute: Conflicting Testimonies by Obasanjo, Buhari Deepen Nigeria’s Legal Trouble
***Did Nigeria Unknowingly Admit Guilt at the ICC?
The long-standing legal battle over the $6 billion Mambilla Power Project has taken a dramatic turn as former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari gave conflicting testimonies before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court of Arbitration in Paris.
Their contrasting accounts have raised serious questions about Nigeria’s defense strategy in the case, potentially jeopardizing the country’s chances of avoiding a hefty $2.3 billion compensation claim by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company.
Testifying on January 22, 2025, Obasanjo outrightly dismissed the legitimacy of the 2003 contract, arguing that it was illegally signed by the then Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, despite the Federal Executive Council (FEC) rejecting it.
“The agreement relied on by Sunrise Power was never valid. A minister cannot single-handedly approve a contract after the Federal Executive Council had rejected it,” Obasanjo declared.
He insisted that a minister has no executive power to award such a high-value contract without presidential or FEC approval, implying that Sunrise Power’s claim is baseless.
However, Buhari’s testimony on January 23, 2025, provided a starkly different narrative—one that many believe undermined Nigeria’s defense.
When questioned, Buhari admitted that his administration had recognized and engaged with Sunrise Power over the contract.
“I directed the Attorney General, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and the Minister of Works and Power, Babatunde Fashola (SAN), to negotiate with Sunrise Power,” he stated.
His words contradict Obasanjo’s stance that the contract was invalid from the outset. By acknowledging negotiations, Buhari inadvertently strengthened Sunrise Power’s claim, suggesting that successive administrations recognized the contract, even if it was initially disputed.
Buhari also made a controversial statement, hinting that Nigeria—not Sunrise Power—was the extortionist in the dispute, a remark that further weakened the government’s position.
The contradictory testimonies have put Nigeria’s legal team in a difficult position. If Buhari’s admission is considered valid, it could be interpreted as an official acknowledgment of the contract’s legitimacy, making it harder for Nigeria to argue against paying the $2.3 billion compensation.
Meanwhile, Olu Agunloye, the minister accused of wrongfully awarding the contract, is currently facing trial in Nigeria for forgery, corruption, and abuse of office.
He has denied the allegations, arguing that he is being used as a scapegoat to discredit Sunrise Power’s claim.
With the case nearing its final stages at the ICC, legal experts believe Nigeria faces an uphill battle in proving its innocence. The conflicting testimonies from two former Presidents could be a major setback, as the arbitration panel may now question the credibility of Nigeria’s defense.
As the stakes remain high, observers are left wondering: Did Nigeria just lose its best chance to avoid a multi-billion-dollar payout?
-
Crime1 year agoPolice nabs Killer of Varsity Lecturer in Niger
-
News1 year agoFCT-IRS tells socialite Aisha Achimugu not to forget to file her annual returns
-
Appointment1 year agoTinubu names El-Rufai, Tope Fasua, others in New appointments
-
Kogi1 year agoINEC cancells election in 67 polling units in Ogori-Magongo in Kogi
-
Kogi1 year agoEchocho Challenges Tribunal Judgment ordering rerun in 94 polling units
-
News1 year agoIPOB: Simon Ekpa gives reason for seperatists clamour for Biafra
-
Metro11 months ago‘Listing Simon Ekpa among wanted persons by Nigeria military is rascality, intimidation’
-
News1 year agoKingmakers of Igu/ Koton-Karfe dare Bello, urge him to reverse deposition of Ohimege-Igu