APC Never Tendered Proof of Violence, Over-Voting, Says Wike
The Rivers State Governor, Nyesome Wike told THISDAY in an exclusive interview, Thursday night, that the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its gov- ernorship candidate, Dakuku Peterside could not produce a shred of evidence of violence and over-voting during the 2015 governorship election in Rivers State at the courts “despite all the propaganda to smear” his victory.
Wike spurned the claims of fraudulent conduct during the election by the APC and its candidate, describing as unfounded and mere propaganda to discredit the popular choice of the people.
Speaking in an exclusive interview with THISDAY in Abuja, Wike said if the elections were to be conducted 30 times, he would defeat the APC and its candidate in the state.
"In their petition, they said they would show in the course of trial, video coverage where people were thumb-printing, where people were killed and that they would use forensic examination to show that there was multiple thumb-printing but not one was shown even by the forensic expert.
"The Tribunal granted them leave to go and inspect. Ask
them what was the result of the inspection? Did they tender any document to show that this was the result of our inspection?
"If you say that there was violence, if you say people died in the course of the election, if you say that some people were kidnapped, does it not dawn on you to show evidence of those who died in that election. That you need to let the tribunal know that these are the people that were kidnapped.
“As I speak to you, let them mention one death certificate that was tendered at the Tribunal to show that during this election that Mr. Z died or Mr. Y was kidnapped," he said.
While reacting angrily to the allegations by Peterside that one of the Supreme Court Justices, Mary Odili influenced her colleagues to deliver favourable judgment for the PDP, Wike said it was mischievous and lacks logic.
Wike who described the allegation of compromise against the Supreme Court Judges as the height of insanity, said Peterside would need to urgently visit a psychiatric hospital for mental examination.
The Rivers state governor said that it was unimaginable that Dakuku who benefitted from mentorship of former Governor Peter Odili as a toddler will now turn round to mess up with his wife.
Wike said that it amounted to double standard for a man who with his party, the APC rejoiced and extolled qualities of the Supreme Court judges when the apex court gave them judgement dismissing PDP's application to stop movement of the governorship petition Tribunal from Port Harcourt to Abuja.
"Justice Mary Odili was a member of the Supreme Court panel that sat on that matter and the matter was dismissed against me. Dakuku Peterside and APC never saw anything fundamentally wrong, Supreme Court gave them judgement dismissing my matter but did anybody hear them say that she was this and that; no because the judgement was in their favour.
"Justice Odili didn’t procure the judgement with the husband or she didn’t compromise the judgement of the Supreme Court with the husband. We are happy the Supreme Court has spoken, and judiciary is for the common man," he said.
To buttress his point on the fallacy contained in the allegation, Wike said that whereas Justice Odili was on the panel of judges that gave judgement against him on the tribunal venue adjudication, she was not among the judges that ruled on the substantive matter when it came to Supreme Court.
"Whereas Justice Odili wasn’t even a member of the panel, the same Dakuku Peterside had the guts to say that Dr. Odili and Justice Odili helped me in procuring the judgement; that tells you the kind of country we are in.
"I had a thanksgiving which was on live TV and I named people who had given me support from time. I named some clergy, so many leaders and he said that I said Dr. Peter Odili and his wife were my advisers. Can you see how these people would behave by trying to hide the truth?
"Dakuku Peterside knows that if election is to be done in Rivers state 30 times there is no way they will win," he said.
Rivers State has been in the news lately for several reasons including the outcome of the elections petitions in the state resolved in favour of Governor Nyesom Wike who is on a victory lap. In this exclusive interview with Onyebuchi Ezigbo, he spoke on several touchy issues including his experiences at the petitions and courts, allegations of looting $150 million made against his predecessor, Rotimi Amaechi, the allegations leveled against him by APC governorship candidate Dakuku Peterside concerning the Supreme Court ruling, the dwindling price of crude oil, the stalled Mono-rail project, the loans he took from banks and other topical issues
The Supreme Court has affirmed your mandate as the elected governor. How does it feel now that you don’t have to look forward to a rerun?
Thank you for the opportunity to express how I feel after the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is like asking me how do I feel when I have succeeded in my studies after passing through the university and the university has confirmed me as being worthy in character. What I am saying is that the judgment of the Supreme Court has made me to be more committed to God because God indeed came down to manifest Himself and to say I am in charge of the affairs of every man. The Supreme Court judgment reaffirmed our commitment, gave hope to Nigerians that all hope is not lost. The judgment of the Supreme Court saved this nation from the kind of crises that would have occurred if there was an order for rerun. Not neccessarily because of the order for a rerun but if it were to be the right order, rather from the desperation of the ruling party at the national level. We know this from our experience and looking at what happened in Baylesa.
Some of the states that they consider a-must-take are Rivers State and Akwa Ibom State. So, if you take it from that perspective, there was desperation, and a feeling of “We must take Rivers state” which was confirmed by the national chairman of the All Progressive Congress (APC). The National chairman did state this when the Court of Appeal annulled our election. He came out and said they are also going to take Akwa Ibom, as at that time Akwa Ibom hadn’t been annulled. When the Supreme Court gave this judgment, you saw how he was agitated and how he reacted that the judgment was so astonishing to them and, why it was so to them was because, by their own calculation, the takeover of Rivers state had been concluded, the takeover of Akwa Ibom state had been concluded and so since that wasn’t the case, they said it was not a reality; that it is a drama, but indeed they didn’t take into consideration that God has the final say. That man can propose but God can dispose. For me, it was happiness and joy and it should not be because of me that there would be bloodshed and I told those who are close to me that I know my people will resist any attempt by anybody to rig an election and if they are resisting then that will lead to violence and that will lead to bloodshed. It gives me happiness that God said no it won’t be because of you that there would be bloodshed in Rivers state. When the ruling party at the national level was crying out, it showed that if there was anything they wanted to do then that thing had already been done. In fact, I can even tell you that when Dr. Chris Ngige’s father died; during the burial ceremony in Church, Dakuku Peterside was introduced as the incoming governor of Rivers state not minding that the matter was still before the Supreme Court. So, to them that was fiat accompli, the matter had been concluded. In fact, INEC had gone ahead to fix February 6th as date for a re-run election. Yes I said so because before the judgement of the Supreme Court, INEC had invited my party chairman and other political parties to prepare for a re-run on the 6th of February and I asked why would we have a re-run when we are expecting the Supreme Court’s judgement? Is it that we are going to do a re-run now and if the governorship election is annulled by the Supreme Court, then you do another election and they said no but that they believe because the tribunal, the Court of Appeal had upheld the annulment that it would be difficult for the Supreme Court not to follow suit. Therefore, they have put February 6 as re-run date. So, that shocked me. After the Supreme Court judgement, you should have seen the reaction in the state; everybody was happy and joyful in the state which goes to confirm to you that indeed God used the Supreme Court to avert bloodshed; to bring peace to the state, to say there won’t be bloodbath and so, asking me how I feel, I feel like dancing everyday and giving thanks to God that it is not because of me and it won’t be during my time that there would be blood bath.
Talking about bloodshed, one of the reasons APC advanced in seeking to nullify your election was that there was violence and massive bloodshed during the Rivers state election. In fact, they mentioned that about 100 people were killed.
I thank you for that question. I will expose their ignorance and the kind of lies they tell. If you say that there was violence, if you say people died in the course of the election, if you say that some people were kidnapped, is it not their responsibility to show evidence of those who died in that election. They needed to let the tribunal know the people that were kidnapped. As I speak to you, let them mention one death certificate that was tendered at the Tribunal to show that during the election that Mr. Z died, look at the death certificate. In the course of this election, look at the dead bodies, look at those that were kidnapped, look at those arrested perpetrating the violence, not one was shown. So, it is not enough for you to say there was violence and you say people died, people were kidnapped and you didn’t show the Tribunal evidence
that people died, that people were kidnapped during the election and it will now be left to the Tribunal to make up their mind and say look, having shown us this death certificate, having shown us these people that were kidnapped, those that were arrested and injured then we are truly
The Supreme Court gave a judgement against me when the issue of venue came up because we had been to the Supreme Court to complain that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction here. Justice Mary Odili was a member of the Supreme Court panel that sat on that matter and the matter was dismissed against me. Dakuku Peterside and APC never saw anything fundamentally wrong when the Supreme Court gave them judgement, dismissing my matter. Did anybody hear them say that she was this and that; no because the judgement was in their favour. Justice Odili didn’t procure the judgement with the husband or she didn’t compromise the judgement of the Supreme Court with the husband. They were happy then. Now when the substantive matter came to Supreme Court where Justice Mary Odili wasn’t even a member of the panel, the same Dakuku Peterside had the guts to say that Dr. Peter Odili and Justice Mary Odili helped me…
convinced that this people died during the course of the election, but not one was tendered in evidence. It is not even enough to say I have brought video coverage of people who died, because assuming that there was video coverage and the coverage shows people being killed, you must go beyond this to say yes this death occurred during the election; not to talk of a situation where it wasn’t shown at all. Now, how did the Tribunal come to the conclusion that there was violence in the election? Rather, what they did was to base their argument on hearsay. Not even newspapers were tendered to show as evidence. The army came, even those that weren’t part of the election, came to testify and they said they didn’t arrest anybody, the police came and also said they didn’t arrest anybody. They also confirmed they didn’t see anybody thumb-printing, that they didn’t arrest anyone with electoral materials. So, how was the election violent? They only said that they were hearing shootings but they couldn’t arrest one person. Ask the SSS what happened? We were told that election didn’t take place in some areas. Now, tell me, is that enough for the Tribunal to say yes, there was violence. So you see the entire trial was based on propaganda, on nonexistent facts. In their petition they said they will show in the course of the trial video coverage where people were thumb-printing, where people were killed and they will use forensic examination to show that there were multiple thumb-printing but not one was shown, not even the forensic expert, not one. The Tribunal granted them leave to go and inspect. Ask them what the result of the inspection was. Did they tender any document to show that this was the result of our inspection? So, it is not just to say, Army said there was no election, SSS said there was no election, Police said there was no election; did you tender any security report be it from the Army, SSS or police saying this is our security report, that election wasn’t conducted. All they did is wear black shirts and say those people who killed our people God will pay them back, where are these people that were killed? Who made statement to the police that their person was killed? Who has seen their dead body?
What was it like when the election was annulled at the Tribunal and upheld at the Appeal court?
Now, let me tell you, from my experience in election petition I was chairman of council and I contested Local Government Chairmanship election. My case got to the Supreme Court; so it is not the first time and I have always passed through this process so we knew what was going on from my discussion with my lawyers. How did we know? As the Tribunal was going on we got information that the Tribunal chairman would be changed. From what we heard, he wasn’t co-operating with the petitioners which is the APC. We wrote to the president of the Court of Appeal that this is what we are hearing, that this is what is going to take place. Just assume that we sent that petition today, tomorrow morning at the Tribunal we saw a new chairman. Now, the Tribunal chairman wasn’t removed for any offense because if he committed any offense they wouldn’t have made him the chairman National Assembly Tribunal of Rivers state. Why did they send him to be the chairman of the National Assembly Tribunal? If, for example, he committed any offense but he didn’t, they made him chairman of National Assembly Tribunal of the same Rivers state; removed him from governorship to National Assembly Tribunal chairman. If he committed any offence he would have been removed totally but they removed him from the governorship tribunal and put him in the National Assembly tribunal of the same state and our lawyer raised opposition to it and the Chairman said he was aware of this matter and that he has being following it and nobody will tell him what to do..
In Lagos state, they said the card reader was not part of the electoral act, therefore it doesn’t stand, in Kaduna, the court ruled that card reader can’t be used as a proof of over-voting, in Oyo state the same thing, in Zamfara the same thing but it became applicable only in Rivers state and we asked ourselves what is so peculiar about Rivers state? Why is it that Rivers state has a different application of laws.
What was that major turning point in your argument that you think swayed the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court Justices haven’t brought out their reason but I think firstly, that the application of proof, the reason for holding that the mere fact that they didn’t use the card reader didn’t comply to the electoral act was one of the reasons because there are principles. The Supreme Court had laid down the principles of how you can prove over-voting and if you say there was over-voting you must use the voter register, you must tender the relevant result that is, polling unit by polling unit to show over-voting.
You mean all these were not tendered?
Never! They weren’t. But you see the power of propaganda. Again, where is the proof of this criminal allegation? Before now, the Tribunal struck out all the paragraphs that had to do with the issues of criminal allegations, the burden of proof on security men, of those that weren’t at the voting point. Meanwhile, the same Tribunal relied on all those security men; on allegations that bothered on criminality. So, for me the Supreme Court said where did you arrive at this violence when the paragraphs were struck out? My lawyer also told me what he complained of on the quorum of the Tribunal to give its ruling. Is it by chairman and one member or by two members without a chairman? Those who were still in that panel were two members without a chairman initially. So for you to form a quorum there must be a chairman and, the chairman who gave that ruling wasn’t the chairman who heard the matter. He never participated; so the whole thing was the power of propaganda on newspapers; there was no election in Rivers state, there was violence in Rivers state but nobody bothered to say ‘where was this violence? What polling units?’ The Supreme Court had laid a number of cases for you to know when there was no election; you must call each voter in each of the polling units. As I speak to you they called only three voters, including the petitioner himself; majority of their witnesses were security agencies, security men and not the voters. How many agents were at the polling units? Most of their agents were merely collation agents, not even polling unit agents; so you can see what were are talking about. They are the government in power and there was nothing they didn’t do to us. In fact, to show that they had concluded the matter, the security apparatus of the state was taken over, they were arresting PDP people, alleging they were militants and cultists and I laughed and I said don’t bother let’s wait for Supreme Court judgement. The APC candidate was walking as a governor in Rivers state; they gave him the kind of security which I don’t even have as a sitting governor.
You mean Dakuku Peterside?
Yes. The SSS gave him excess men, the police did the same. You can see me as a governor I was watching the security operatives in the state and I was laughing. I told them look at what you are doing, look at the security you are giving to someone who is not a governor because you believe you have been told by your hierarchy that the man will win, that my election will be annulled and, that is why he lost, he couldn’t believe it. The shock hasn’t left him and that is why they are confused and are saying; this is not what we planned, this is not what they told us.
Would you react to Dakuku’s allegation that you compromised the Supreme Court through Justice