The Advocate By Onikepo Braithwaite Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com The NBA Elections and Issues of Credibility The red flags concerning the NBA elections were already obvious, and I certainly raised them prior to the elections in my piece of 16/6/26 “NBA Elections: That Candidates May Win ‘Fair and Square’ ”. That the company, Mikrodigital Connect selected to conduct the electronic voting was not only low on corporate governance, but had no track record of competence, while there were no public records of registration with NDPC of the other company, Thanelinc, selected as Data Protector. So, that the platform crashed at the beginning of the process and didn’t work seamlessly and efficiently, is no surprise. All I advocated for, was an outcome where, win or lose, participants would be satisfied that the process was fair. Instead, candidates and Lawyers alike, are complaining. Many are complaining that they couldn’t vote. As for me, I don’t think I voted. After several attempts, I received my OTP, made my selections, but when I submitted my choices, the system seemed unresponsive and I didn’t receive any acknowledgment/email that I had voted successfully. I couldn’t get back into the system. In short, I didn’t /couldn’t vote. Voice of Reason I like to think that my voice is sometimes a voice of reason, when there are debates on matters of public interest. Such a voice is necessary to bring clarity to the issues for determination, because the Nigerian court of public opinion usually delivers its judgement based on who may be more popular; ethnicity; religion; emotions; who they perceive to be the underdog, particularly if Government is involved and Government isn’t in their good books; on who has the loudest voice in a situation and speaks first, and not necessarily whether the voice is correct or truthful; and sometimes, on outrightly false information or allegations. Just as crowds are quick to deliver mob justice and physically lynch the innocent, as was done to late 74 year old Mrs Bridget Agbahime in Kano in 2016 over false allegations of blasphemy against Islam, so also does the court of public opinion indulge in reputational lynching, without ample evidence. Court of Law vs Court of Public Opinion The court of public opinion delivers their judgement many a time, not based on the elements of a good judgement that a court of law is mandated to deploy – most importantly, fair hearing of the parties involved – see Section 36(1) of the Constitution – this principle of fair hearing should apply, even in the informal court of public opinion. In Nwokoro & Ors v Ashue (2023) LPELR-59744(SC) per Adamu Jauro, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: “…Irrespective of the style adopted however, the following essential components are expected to be situated somewhere in every good judgement: 1. Introduction of issues between the parties. 2. Cases of either side to the litigation going by the pleadings/processes. 3. Evidence adduced by either side. 4. Resolution of the issues of fact and law. 5. The Court’s decision and reasons for arriving at the decision”. The law obviously plays little or no role, in the court of public opinion’s decision making process, only when it favours them. So, for example, people strongly cite their right to freedom of expression donated by Section 39(1) of the Constitution, but do not cite Section 45 which limits that freedom with laws such as the Cybercrimes Act and Criminal Defamation Laws which exist in various States, and the FCT (see the Penal Code Act). This month, in Ghana, a female Tik Toker, Camilla Alhassan was convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court 1, for making false claims that President John Mahama sacrificed 32 cows to gain political power, and that the Ghanaian Government’s distribution of sanitary pads to flood victims was a cover-up. She pleaded guilty. Her actions breached Section 208(1) of Ghana’s Criminal Code Act 1960 (Act 29) which provides thus: “Any person who publishes or reproduces any statement, rumour, or report which is likely to cause fear and alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace knowing or having reason to believe that the statement, rumour or report is false is guilty of a misdemeanour”. Claiming ignorance that the statement or rumour is false is no defence, unless there is evidence to show that prior to publication, the perpetrator took reasonable measures to verify the accuracy (see Section 208(2) thereof). This defence would obviously not be available to a Defendant, who is the originator and ‘disseminator’ of a false story. Unfortunately, the rational way of decision-making, is not always followed by the courts themselves, let alone the court of public opinion that usually delivers its judgement akin to a lynch mob – they collectively accuse, pursue, take on the role of judge
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
