Lemmy Ughegbe, a veteran journalist and public affairs analyst, has spoken out in response to President Bola Tinubu’s request that the Election Petitions Tribunal refrain from annulling the February 25 presidential elections on the grounds that he did not receive 25% of the votes cast in the country’s Federal Capital Territory (FCT), to emphasize the need for the court to correctly and flexible interpret the Constitution to resolve the vote-in Abuja issue.
On Monday, July 17, Ughegbe expressed his opinion during an interview on Africa Independent Television’s “Kaakaki” program. He stated that while the President’s message to the tribunal is appropriate, it is crucial for the five-person panel of Appeal Court Justices to take into account the intentions of the legislators who drafted the constitutional provision for electoral votes in the FCT.
The seasoned journalist went on to say that he thought it was rather ridiculous that an election result should be thrown out because of just one state, particularly if a candidate is successful in winning in 30 states.
He said; “That provision of the Constitution that refers to twenty-five percent of the votes in the FCT is a provision that is subject to interpretation. In football, certain rules are interpreted differently by referees. If a ball hits a player’s hand, one referee might interpret it as ‘handball’, while another might see it as ‘ball to hand’. So, we hope that the panel of tribunal justices, having listened to all the arguments before now, will be able to decipher and interpret the law.
But keep in mind that the legislation is not meant to cause misunderstanding, no law has been established, in my opinion, that is intended to be illogical. For example, if a man received 25% of the vote in 30 states, but you now come to the FCT and claim that because he received 25%, he is ineligible to win. It seems a little strange.
This is where the Justices must consider the goals of the sage men who crafted the Constitution while examining particular provisions of the legislation. What did they have in mind when they made such provisions? In my opinion, the statute requiring twenty-five percent FCT votes should be construed broadly because its intention is not to create ambiguity.
Davsim (
)
