The latest presidential election held on 25th February, 2023 produced Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), as the 16th democratically elected president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Independent National Electoral Commission, through the chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakubu, acting in his capacity as the chief returning officer for the election, declared Senator Bola Tinubu and his party, the APC winner of the keenly contested poll on 1st March, 2023.
However, some opposition candidates and their political parties that had faulted the declaration of Senator Tinubu as the duly elected president have filed petitions at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) to challenge that declaration. The petitioners include Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and his political party, the Peoples Democratic Party and Mr. Peter Obi and his Labour Party. Other political parties that are challenging Tinubu’s election at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) are the Action Alliance (AA), the Action Peoples Party (APP) and Allied Peoples Movement (APM). A five-member panel of justices headed by Justice Haruna Tsammani has since began sitting to arbitrate on the petitioners’ allegations of INEC’s noncompliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of the election and other perceived fraudulent practices by Senator Tinubu as well as non-qualification of Senator Kashim Shetima as a vice presidential candidate on account of his alleged double nomination both as senatorial candidate for Borno Central Senatorial District and as Vice Presidential candidate of the APC.
Given the overwhelming public interest in the proceedings of the court and in keeping with their traditional function of information, education and enlightenment, the orthodox and new media platforms have been churning out daily reports and analysis of the proceedings in the court. Aside from these reports, the media, especially on-line platforms, have been giving vent to torrents of personal opinions of some public commentators including some with vested interests in the proceedings at the court. Unfortunately, these reports and opinions are not only coloured by the biases and political, religious, sectional cum tribal leanings of the commentators and even the media outfits but are also designed to undermine the authority of the court by influencing its final decision in a particular direction. This, obviously, violates the provisions of the law of contempt of court. Dr. Gabriel Nyitse, a lecturer in the Faculty of Communication and Media Studies at Bingham University, Karu, in a recent academic discourse stated that “Contempt of court is any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect or disregard or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants or their witnesses during litigation.” This suggests that the law of contempt of court seeks to protect and preserve the authority of courts, its officials and parties from unjustifiable interference in order to uphold public confidence in the system and also the dignity of the courts. The law also ensures that the due administration of justice is not obstructed.
Unarguably, the media have the unalienable right under the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) especially in the provisions of section 22 to report facts and provide comments upon the proceedings of the PEPC, albeit within the precincts of the law (in this case, the law of contempt). Equally, individuals have the freedom to express their opinions on the proceedings as that is also guaranteed under the constitution but in the exercise of those rights, individuals and the media should endeavour to protect and preserve the authority of the court, its officials and parties from unjustifiable interference so as to uphold public confidence in the system and also the dignity of the court.
Contempt of court can come in several forms however, the ones that command our attention in this discourse include, but are not limited to;
1. Publication of false and inaccurate reports
2. Scandalizing the court or the judges
3. Pre-trial publications
4. Sub-juiced publications (publication of pending cases)
5. Pre-judgment publication.
A perfunctory peek into some of the comments and opinions about the proceedings of the court reveals a terrifying amount of contemptuous statements by members of the public and sometimes even lawyers. For instance, in a tweet about the proceedings of the PEPC, Mike Mofunanya whose twitter handle is @mikeMofunanya concluded that Peter Obi and the Labour party had proved their case beyond reasonable doubts. He therefore called on the judiciary to do the needful, which according to him is ‘to right the wrong done to electorates by INEC and save Nigeria’s image.’ In his exact words @MikeMofunanya said: Whether LP/PO closes its case on Friday or not, they have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt according to the electoral Act and the constitution. The onus is on the judiciary to do the needful, which is to right the wrong done to electorates by INEC and to save Nigeria image’ (sic). This tweet insolently breaches the provisions of the law of contempt as it is not only sub-juiced and prejudicial but also smacks of subtle attempts at influencing the judges to take a particular decision even as they have not heard from the defendants in this case.
Similarly, in his comment during a panel session with the topic “The 2023 Nigerian Election and Lessons from the field: Will the Judiciary Save the Day,” immediate past president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr Olumide Akpata said: “The general perception of the citizens keenly watching the actions of judicial officers including lawyers is that the judiciary is corrupt.”
Such scathing statements on the judiciary, its officials and litigants by no less a personality as the former president of NBA scandalizes the court, the judges, lawyers and infringes the law of contempt of court.
Equally worrisome is the obvious threat by a guest on Atlantic Television Network’s programme, “Open Conversation” to judges to either give a “right” judgment or there will be something that will hurt the nation. This threat becomes more worrisome when weighed against the fact that his analysis of the proceedings was not based on a disinterested stand point but obviously slanted in favour of his preferred candidate who is a party in the matter at the court with the sole aim of influencing the decision of the justices handling the matter.
From the summation of the sampled public comments and opinions about the proceeding in the Presidential Election Petition Court, it is crystal clear that most, if not all, are skewed towards interfering in the proceeding with the tendency of bringing the authority and administration of law into disrespect or disregard. As Oladele Kehinde Emmanuel states, justice and courts do not take such entrances with levity. He actually cited the Supreme Court case of Omoijahe vs Umoru where J. S. C. Corm Mohammed held that “it is justice itself that is flouted by contempt of court, not the individual court or judge who is attempting to administer it.”
Flowing from this discourse, it becomes imperative to caution those commenting on or offering their opinions on the proceedings of the PEPC to exercise their freedom of expression with moderation so as not to pitch such comments or opinions against the law of contempt of court.
