By Omorodion Omoregie
The press release apparently issued by the Media Office of the Governor of Edo State, titled “PDP’s Misstep At Tribunal: Legal Oversight Exposes APC’s Victory In Edo Governorship Election”, raises critical questions about the propriety of public commentary on subjudice matters in Nigeria.
While it is natural for political actors to seek to shape public narratives, this release is treading on very thin legal ice, and violates the principles that guide commentary on ongoing judicial proceedings.
Here, the APC which usually knows no bounds, has outdone itself in throwing all caution to the wind and crossing the line.
The subjudice rule, a principle enshrined in Nigerian legal practice, aims to protect the sanctity and impartiality of ongoing judicial proceedings by limiting public commentary that could prejudice the outcome. Section 133 of the Nigerian Criminal Code explicitly prohibits publications or statements that create a substantial risk of prejudicing the fairness of a trial. Courts have also underscored the importance of this rule, especially in cases of high public interest, such as the one before the Edo State Election Tribunal.
In this context, Monday Okpebholo’s media office press release is problematic on several fronts.
First, it prejudges the Tribunal’s outcome by unequivocally but falsely declaring that the APC has been confirmed the winner of the governorship election, attributing the outcome to a supposed legal oversight by the opposition PDP.
The assertion is disingenuous and misrepresents the tribunal’s role, which is to deliberate on the merit of petitions before issuing a final judgment. Publicly stating that the tribunal has vindicated one party undermines judicial independence and gives the false and misleading impression of a foregone conclusion.
Secondly, it mischaracterises the operative legal standards, by attempting to offer a legal interpretation of the BVAS (Bimodal Voter Accreditation System) and its role in determining voter turnout. While it cites the Supreme Court’s position on voter reports from units and wards, this legal analysis is a matter for the tribunal to assess, not the media office. Offering such commentary is a brazen effort to mislead the public and encroach on the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Thirdly the tone of the release, which describes the opposition as engaging in a “wild goose chase” and admonishes them to “allow peace reign,” is clearly inflammatory. This type of rhetoric can only heighten tensions in an already polarized political environment.
Public officials, particularly those holding executive office, bear a high burden responsibility to respect judicial processes. By issuing this release, Monday Okpebholo’s media office has cast an even deeper shadow on the administration’s already questionable record with regards to the rule of law.
To paraphrase the words of Shakespeare, “the APC doth protest too much, methinks.” The vehemence of this release betrays a defensiveness that undermines its intended purpose of bravado and reassurance in a case they claim is weak, but the strength of which clearly has the respondents extremely worried.
… Omorodion Omoregie, a public affairs analyst, writes from Benin City.
