Supreme Court Gives Atiku Nod To Quiz Iwu

Lanre Adewole, Abuja - 26.01.2006

The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously held that the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Maurice Iwu, must answer 27 questions posed to him by the presidential candidate of the Action Congress {AC}, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, on the conduct of the April 21, 2007 presidential poll.

It, however, upheld the decision of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, sitting in Abuja, to allow INEC call additional 231 witnesses in its defence of the conduct of the poll.

The apex court also overruled Abubakar on his request to ask President Umaru Yar’adua and Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan specific questions on the preparation for and conduct of the said poll.

Iwu, speaking through his counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, promised to comply with the judgment.
A five-man panel of the court made the pronouncements in its judgment in a consolidated interlocutory appeal filed by Abubakar against three rulings of the presidential election petitions tribunal in the hearing of his petition against the election of Yar’Adua.

The tribunal had overruled Abubakar on the three issues of quizzing Iwu on the conduct of the election, asking Yar’Adua and Jonathan issues surrounding the conduct of the poll and stopping INEC from bringing additional witnesses.

Delivering the lead judgment in the consolidated appeal, Justice Niki Tobi held that the 27 questions formulated by Abubakar in his interrogatories were relevant and related to matters in the appeal, adding that the questions were within the knowledge of Iwu.

He further held that the law requires that Iwu should provide answers to the questions, though the answers need not be conclusive.

Tobi subsequently ordered Iwu to answer, under oath, the questions formulated in the interrogatories, which would make them to be packaged in an affidavit.

According to Tobi, “The answers to interrogatories are always given under oath, which means they are true.

“They are never at large and they must relate to matters in issue, though the answers need not be conclusive.

“The questions raised by appellant (Abubakar) are relevant and the may help his case or not. “The questions are within the knowledge of Iwu and our law requires that he provides answers to the questions and I so order.

“Justice and fair hearing cannot be sacrificed on the altar of speed. “It is ordered that interrogatories be administered on Iwu as couched in the 27 questions.”

On the further and better particulars of the making of the election being sought from Yar’Adua and his deputy, Tobi said the questions should have been directed to the person that organised the election, adding, “It (question) should be directed to someone I know but I will not say.”

On the additional witnesses of INEC, Tobi said the list not accompanying the respondents’ briefs was a mere irregularity, which should be waived, adding that the justice delivery system should be beyond technicalities.

Among the questions put forward were issues relating to the award of contracts for the printing of ballot papers to an unnamed South African firm five days to the election even though the company had earlier expressed its inability to deliver such papers on schedule.

The former vice-president wants the tribunal to help him ascertain whether or not it was true the company in question had expressed its capabilities “on the ground that delivery deadline was unrealistic if the ballots must carry serial numbers and be in booklet form with counterfoils.”

In his reaction, Abubakar hailed the judgment of the Supreme Court. A statement by the Atiku Abubakar Campaign Organisation (AACO) on Friday said that the judiciary had, once again, advanced the course of democracy in the country.

The statement read in part, “The Nigerian judiciary has shown once again that it is capable of protecting our young democracy by its decision yesterday not to sacrifice justice on the altar of technicalities.

“I sincerely believe that putting INEC chairman, Maurice Iwu in the dock to answer some simple questions will be crucial to unraveling what really happened in April 2007.”