RE: “HOW DOES WIKE ALREADY KNOW WHAT INEC WILL DO?” — ON THE POINT OF LAW, THERE IS NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT IT!

By Dahiru Yusuf Yabo,

PGD-CMPC, MCM, MPPA

The current attempt by some Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and political actors to portray the statement credited to Chief Nyesom Wike as evidence of prior knowledge of INEC’s decisions is either a deliberate distortion of facts or a calculated effort to confuse members of the public.

There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about a lawyer, politician, litigant, or even an ordinary observer predicting the likely outcome of a legal process after studying existing judgments and applicable laws.

The fundamental question is not whether Wike knows what INEC will do. The real question is whether INEC is bound by existing court judgments and established legal principles.

If a court of competent jurisdiction has already pronounced on a matter and all appellate remedies have been exhausted, what exactly is INEC expected to do apart from complying with the law?

Those attempting to create a conspiracy theory around Wike’s comments appear to be taking undue advantage of the knowledge gap that exists between complex legal proceedings and public understanding.

A judgment does not become invalid simply because political supporters dislike its implications. Neither does wishful thinking substitute for legal reality.

The persistent practice of some lawyers appearing on television, radio stations and social media platforms to sell political optimism in place of legal substance is gradually becoming a threat to public confidence in the justice system. A lawyer’s duty is to interpret the law, not manufacture hope where none legally exists.

Where a matter has been conclusively settled by the courts, continuing to market alternative interpretations merely because they serve political interests amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

Chief Wike’s confidence may not necessarily arise from privileged information. It may simply arise from a proper understanding of the legal consequences of the judgments already delivered.

Indeed, many experienced lawyers can often predict judicial and administrative outcomes with remarkable accuracy because law is governed by precedent, statutory provisions and established principles—not by emotions or social media sentiments.

Those asking how Wike knows what INEC will do should equally ask whether INEC possesses the power to disregard valid court orders and judicial pronouncements. The answer is obvious.

INEC is a creation of law and remains subject to the law.

Consequently, if existing judgments dictate a particular legal position, compliance by INEC would not amount to political interference. It would amount to obedience to the rule of law.

The growing tendency to attack every legal interpretation that is politically inconvenient is dangerous for democracy. Courts are not established to satisfy political expectations. They are established to interpret and enforce the law.

Those who continue to exploit judicial ambiguities, procedural gaps and technical arguments to sustain false political expectations may eventually discover that legal reality is often more stubborn than political propaganda.

As for who eventually appears on the ballot, Nigerians need not rely on political rhetoric from any side. INEC will publish its list in accordance with the law and the applicable court decisions.

When that happens, the debate will no longer be settled by television lawyers, partisan commentators or political loyalists. It will be settled by facts. And facts, unlike political emotions, are usually very difficult to appeal against.