Nkiruka
In Igbo it means that what is in front is bigger (sorry to disappoint those who expected me to add Azuka). This was how Mike Ahamba (SAN), a legal luminary and General Buhari's lead counsel, summed up the Supreme Court’s judgement on President Umaru Yar'Adua's April 2007 election victory.
According to him it was a close call – 4/3 in favour of Yardy. Three judges ‘apparently’ didn’t believe there was a fair and free election. In Ahamba’s assessment therefore, the fact that there were three disloyal voices out of seven means tomorrow is brighter. I don’t quite buy that logic; I think it was a handy ruling, very convenient – The type that gets worked out in smoky rooms. A unanimous verdict would have conclusively picked holes in our faith in justice.
Now that Yardy has won - in boxing jargon - a majority decision, I guess the expected call will be to allow him maintain his clueless headship to nowhere. Nevertheless a day before the judgment, Yardy astounded me. He called for the removal of immunity from most serving officials. Yardy, the EFCC, Ibori and our other rulers have this recurring style of trying to make one believe that they have our interests at heart. It’s an orthodox misleading ploy - the fanfare about the rule of law and due process, the periodic press statements decrying corrupt etc quickly string to mind.
But on this day, our ailing President seemed genuine, and if he can pull this off he would have us on the right part. I couldn’t quite say the same about Ms Waziri, her assault on her chewing gum during the EFCC organised conference would have made Sir Alex Ferguson wince. I guess that doesn't matter, she might just be a fan of Bazooka Joe.
I don’t want to belabour this; I just wonder - Is what is in front bigger and possibly better? Does this judgement mean that in future we could see a sitting president toppled by judges of the Supreme Court? Why can’t we get all appeals out of the way before anyone is allowed to assume office?
Questions?
According to him it was a close call – 4/3 in favour of Yardy. Three judges ‘apparently’ didn’t believe there was a fair and free election. In Ahamba’s assessment therefore, the fact that there were three disloyal voices out of seven means tomorrow is brighter. I don’t quite buy that logic; I think it was a handy ruling, very convenient – The type that gets worked out in smoky rooms. A unanimous verdict would have conclusively picked holes in our faith in justice.
Now that Yardy has won - in boxing jargon - a majority decision, I guess the expected call will be to allow him maintain his clueless headship to nowhere. Nevertheless a day before the judgment, Yardy astounded me. He called for the removal of immunity from most serving officials. Yardy, the EFCC, Ibori and our other rulers have this recurring style of trying to make one believe that they have our interests at heart. It’s an orthodox misleading ploy - the fanfare about the rule of law and due process, the periodic press statements decrying corrupt etc quickly string to mind.
But on this day, our ailing President seemed genuine, and if he can pull this off he would have us on the right part. I couldn’t quite say the same about Ms Waziri, her assault on her chewing gum during the EFCC organised conference would have made Sir Alex Ferguson wince. I guess that doesn't matter, she might just be a fan of Bazooka Joe.
I don’t want to belabour this; I just wonder - Is what is in front bigger and possibly better? Does this judgement mean that in future we could see a sitting president toppled by judges of the Supreme Court? Why can’t we get all appeals out of the way before anyone is allowed to assume office?
Questions?
posted by ababoypart2 at 9:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home