As a lawyer, I have struggled to make an epistemological preemption of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal’s judgment that is reserved for Wednesday the 6th of September.
We are all oblivious of the electoral infractions, irregularities, and the INEC’s rescality. We are also aware of the legal bottlenecks in the course of the hearing. INEC chose to call it glitches in the real-time transmission of the results (I doubt if there were any glitches).
What are the wholistic legal effects of these irregularities? What inferences will the tribunal make of these irregularities?
The above are the issues for determination before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal/Supreme Court.
The Presidential Tribunal will not necessarily decide this petition strictly on the application of the letters of the law where the Labour Party will enjoy a comparative evidential advantage.
The matter will be decided on strictly administrative convenience and policy and NOT on the Electoral Act, Constitutional provisions, or on procedural improprieties per se.
The policy and administrative convenience will be as framed by the Tribunal.
For the DSS to sound a note of warning to protesters, it means that the status quo ante remains. For Tinubu to travel comfortably to India for the G20 conference, it also signifies that no cause for alarm.
It will be interesting to see the grounds for the Supreme Court appeal.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Harry Fanon is a philosopher and a jurisprudence attorney writing from his Ahiazu Cave.
