By Joseph Odok|5 August 2015|5:19am
It is unfortunate when the law is perverted for wants of peanuts. I cry at the paucity of analysis on the judgement between Ayade and Agi. To inform our teaming youths and the general public as well, I am compelled to give a response in the bid to put the Agi Vs Ayade suit into context.
It is worthy of note that Agi instituted a purely pre-election matter. Pre-election matters are civil matters and not criminal matters. In Nigerian Law School Curriculum, elections matters are treated under civil law and not under criminal law. Though elections matters could have a criminal bent, Joe Agi SAN sought the interpretation of Electoral Act,
PDP guidelines and Nigerian Constitution based on the evidence he brought showing the disparities in Ayade's age declaration. His case was therefore purely a civil case with no criminal bent.
It is worthy of note that Paul Erokoro, counsel to Ben Ayade, helped Joe Agi SAN's case by building the arguments that
established the perjury case against Ayade. He argued that it was Ayade's aide that filled
Ayade's document and the perjury is only an innocent mistake. But there are plethora of cases that the court has held that a document belongs to
the person that signs it. A principal bears vicarious liabilities if an agent acts under his authority. Ayade's arguments that he did not notice the
mistake when he signed his document could not in any way exonerate him from the liability as it
amounts to gross and culpable mistake: such a gross error can't qualify as 'innocent mistake'. The
act of Ayade signing a document on oath is a gross negligence that leaves appropriate liabilities. At this
point the court was left with no option than to disqualify the candidature of Benedict Ayade and declare Joe Agi the winner as it was in the case of Rotimi Amaechi and Omeiah .
In Joe Agi and Ben Ayade's case above, a clear case of perjury has been established by both counsels to Ayade and Agi; accordingly, what the court was to do was simply to apply the law to available evidence. The judge, namely Justice Kufre Atti, erred in law when he introduced police investigation into a matter that is purely civil. This is the ground for appeal by counsel to Joe Agi. In the Joe Agi SAN and Sen. Prof. Benedict Ayade's case, the
federal high court had before it the duty of determining whether a candidate is qualified for an
election or not from available evidence before it. Agi sought the court to determine the qualifications
of Ayade to contest the Cross River gubernatorial elections based on disparities of his age sworn under oath. It is trite law that only a qualified candidate can contest election.
For instance, In a recent case in Benue State, a legislature of the 'green house' was disqualified in the Idoma speaking region for forgery of certificates and by such disqualification the court ordered that he be substituted with the second runner in the same party with the highest number of votes. In the pre-election matter above, the court did not decline jurisdiction to entertain the suit, nor did the court
adjudged the matter as purely as an internal party affair. Again, the Amaechi Vs Omeiah precedents are
purely pre-election matters that showed how the court exercised it's jurisdiction in determining the
qualification of a candidate by the interpretation of relevant statutes.
In his suit, Joe Agi SAN, sought the court to interpret available evidence of Ayade's disparities in age based on the existing electoral laws. Could the court be right in declining jurisdiction to determine the
qualifications of a candidate based on the relevant laws?
My greatest worry is were the issue of police investigation came from. What is the business of the police in the interpretation of statutes? The fact of the perjury were never contradicted by counsels to both
Ayade or Agi. My worry is the importation of the requirements of police investigation in a matter that
is purely a civil matter with facts sufficiently established. Police investigation is therefore not needed in the interpretation of statutes by the court. Matters concerning the qualifications of candidates are matters clearly stated in our relevant laws and they are not internal party issues. The Constitution, the electoral Act, PDP Guidelines specifies criteria for the determination of the qualifications of candidate and any one who fails to meet these qualifications will be treated as been disqualified.
The law does not build on emptiness. Nemo dat quod non harbet. Justice Kufre Atti's judgement can be set aside by a superior court, the reason for the appeal. Therefore the court declined jurisdiction in error. Could a court truly deny jurisdiction in the
interpretation of a statute when evidence have been duly established? The nemo dat quod non harbet argument is based on the qualification argument. In summary, the court cannot give powers to a candidate that is not qualified to occupy a particular position.
