Prominent Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Robert Clarke, has expressed strong criticism of the legal strategy employed by the legal teams representing Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi in their challenge against President Bola Tinubu’s victory in the 2023 election. Clarke voiced his concerns during an appearance on the Thursday edition of Channels Television’s “Politics Today.”
His comments came in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold President Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 presidential election. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals made by Atiku, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and his Labour Party (LP) counterpart, Peter Obi.
A seven-judge panel at the apex court rejected the opposition’s appeals, which revolved around allegations of fraud, violations of electoral laws, and questions about Tinubu’s eligibility to run for the presidency.
Clarke, a senior lawyer with extensive experience, criticized the lack of due diligence in the appeals, emphasizing that the legal representation of Atiku and Obi could have been more effective. He went as far as to state that he would not even permit a junior member of his law firm to present such a brief before the Supreme Court.
Clarke noted, “Where the law is not allowed to put its heads up in a proceeding, it means that there is another law which prohibits their lawyers to have brought such. They know it, they still decided — either to please their supporters and allow such a matter to come before the Supreme Court.”
He continued, “I will not allow any junior in my chambers, even one or two years old to carry such a brief to go and argue in court when I have looked into all the facts and the facts are very clear. There is a limitation of time in election matters. You cannot do certain things.”
Clarke pointed out that Atiku and Obi’s legal teams had the opportunity to present their evidence at a lower court but failed to do so. He explained, “They had the opportunity as a pre-election matter but they never brought it out. They had the opportunity as a matter within a tribunal’s case but they never brought it. They are now coming and bringing matters that should have been argued in the lower tribunal, and the Supreme Court will now be reviewing such evidence as an appellate matter and not as an original jurisdictional matter.”
In conclusion, Clarke stressed that he was not blaming the lawyers involved, but he believed that they could have done a better job in handling the case. He cited the Supreme Court’s position that if evidence was available before the trial commenced and was not presented, it could not be introduced later, emphasizing the importance of proper legal procedure in such matters.
