Adeyemi Adebanjo
WHO wrote the judgment delivered on Wednesday 6th September 2023 by five justices of the Court of Appeal is the question on the lips of some Nigerians no thanks to copious watermarks on the certified true copy of the judgment indicating “Tinubu Presidential Legal Team. ”
Eighteen-Eleven Media reports that Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-man panel resolved all the issues presented before it by the candidates of the Labour Party (LP), Mr Peter Obi and his counterpart in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in favour of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
A PDF Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment in possession of Eighteen-Eleven Media also indicates the marks.
Allegations have been rife, particularly on social media, though not confirmed, that each of the justices on that panel was paid a whopping Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00), while the chairman of the panel received Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000.00).
Aside from Justice Haruna Tsammani, other justices on the panel include Justice Stephen Adah, Justice Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Justice Moses Ugo and Justice Abba Mohammed.
Meanwhile, Eighteen-Eleven Media recalls former Minister of Works and Housing, Mr Babatunde Fashola (SAN) threatening to institute legal action against people spreading rumour he was involved in drafting the judgment for the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) judges.
Eighteen-Eleven Media reports that the former Lagos State governor, though a senior lawyer, was never a member of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s legal team.
He however expressed his disappointment with the spread of the alleged false information on social media platforms and called on security agencies to take action against those responsible for spreading the news.
In response to the allegation, Fashola clarified that he had been away from Abuja for an extended period, rendering the claims entirely unfounded. He condemned the individuals behind the allegation, referring to them as agents of destabilization.
Hakeem Bello, Special Adviser on Media to the former Minister, in a release, said his boss had initiated the process of filing formal petitions against the offensive tweets and online reports with the management of the microblogging site, X (formerly known as Twitter), and the National Communications Commission (NCC). He urged the relevant security agencies to treat the matter with utmost seriousness, as it strikes at the heart of judicial independence.
The former Minister believed that these allegations might be part of a wider campaign to undermine the judiciary by those who seek to manipulate the institution for their own gain. He emphasized the importance of unmasking the perpetrators and their sponsors and ensuring that they face the appropriate legal consequences.
Mr Bello in the release urged members of the public to disregard the report and urged them to report any individuals involved in spreading such dangerous fabrications to the relevant security agencies.
Meanwhile, attempts by our correspondent to seek clarification on the watermarks on the judgment delivered from the office of the Chief Registrar, Court of Appeal, Umar M. Bangari, Esq. were unsuccessful as of press time.
Eighteen-Eleven Media