THE LEGALITY OF SYLVA/DICKSON'S JUDGEMENT AND WHY AN APPEAL WON'T WORK -BARR. D.D FIDERIKUMO

- IT WAS A FLAW ON CHIEF TIMIPRE SYLVA AND HIS LAWYER.

- IT'S A DAMAGED CASE, AN APPELLATE COURT WON'T WORK.

The appeal court judgement passed on Tuesday the 26th July,2016 in the case of Chief Timipre Sylva (Apc) vs Henry Seriake Dickson (pdp) has raised lots of legal opinions with stated constitutional backings in the public domain. In an interview with Barr. D.D Femerekumo he gave his candid opinion why Sylva lost.

''In furtherance to our general rights to free speech we can make public issues like this even if they are going on appeal, with regards to election petitions the initial burden like in civil cases of proof is dependent on the state of the pleadings , what Sylva (Apc) has said and what Dickson (pdp) has said (ie)  the person who has initial responsibility of proving his case ,the law states general that it is the person who has the affirmative ''.

He narrated the grounds of Apc challenging to have won the Dec 6, 2015 southern Ijaw local government election in court and the courts consideration of the suit in judgement because you (Apc) are going to court to be returned and not going to court to say Dickson's case is weak, '' No no no'' The weakness of his case can only be supportive if you(Apc) has rightly made your case(Apc) he emphasised; because on the other side Dickson has a pre assumption that he was rightly elected on the grounds of regularities. How do you (Apc) intend to prove  your case?

'' If you compute Southern Ijaw results together with what was with Inec before Inec actually came out to cancel the election, it is a matter of public fact but proving in a court of law is another matter entirely,the court will not act on public notice so even if you are to bring a video to show that results coalition were ongoing and APC was on the lead before the REC publicly and unlawfully cancelled the election".

Barr. D.D pointed out orderly the  task Apc and its counsel ought to have done , stated clearly in the single leaf paragraph  bellow:

Prove to the  court that there was  an election which took place peacefully   in different legitimate polling units , because the consistent stand of the supreme Court is that if you trying to establish evidence by bringing the results of polling centers/unit you must bring the person who signed the results because you cannot give evidence to the court with a document counter which you are not maker, if the person is not around for any reason then the next option is to bring the person whom they worked under ; either the party agents or ward coalition chairman who saw results returned to Inec office duely signed and coailted   to tender the evidence before the court, but the Apc did not follow this legal process they brought Dennis Otiotio  who was at all times in Yenegoa as at the time the results of southern ijaw was compiled ;  a scenario where a civil servant will posit to have gone to work on a Christmas day.

''They totally  failed to satisfy their evidence because you see;  justice is founded on legal evidence ''.
He vehemently deposited that, Apc did not Lose the case for lack of evidence but a wrong strategy in tendering legal evidence and also a late commencement to establish the case from the time it was actually filed .

He narrated how lots of attempts were made between him and Barrister Sylvanus Abila to reach Chief Timipre Sylva in order to approach the Case circumspectly and professionally before time , so pitiable negligence on his part and some his beloved are now playing in the fore. He explained how he and Abila had advised Sylva not to contest the January 9th Election but rather proceed to court, of which, the Honorable Minister of Agric, Senator Heineken Lokpobiri concurred but the likes of Barrister Dennis Otiotio refuted and wrongly counselled Sylva. He also added that instead of a case as delicate as this one to be handled professionally, rather it was politicised because of greed and personal gains.

In retrospect , he took us down to memory lane in the case of PDP vs Sylva 2012, '' This was the case in which Sylva was alleging  that PDP did not have the right to conduct a fresh gubernatorial primaries haven won PDP primaries back in 2011, the subsequent primaries which  saw the emergence of Dickson as PDP gubernatorial candidate and subsequently the Governor of the state that affliction ; in this particular case the reason why Sylva went to court was because with regard to the primaries that was supposed to be conducted in 2012 he was disqualified after he had bought interest form of 5.5 Million naira to contest for a Primaries he claimed to have won in 2011.

The court ruled against Sylva reasons been that he had abadoned the previous 2011 April primaries he Claimed to have won and brought himself for a fresh election in Nov 2015 which he was disqualified. In relative context, the April 2011 primaries is similar to Dec 6, 2015 and that of Nov 2015 is way similar to Jan 9, 2016 so these are precedents the court most times uses.

He stated that the court is entitled to wave the other because the impression is given that it was because  the current is lost that is why the first  respondent wants to bank on the other, also considering that the first respondent is unable to prove that there was election on the argued date as the court only deals with evidences and not just accusations.

He stated again, that one of the reasons the judge gave in upholding Governor Dickson's victory was the fact that, the December 6th polling units result Sylva's counselled presented in defence was not duly signed, stamped and submitted by the appropriate persons, therefore in Inec regulations such results is invalid, therefore Sylva's case could not be proven. He added that "one who alleges must be able to prove" according to him:

"Because someone stole from you and everyone knows, does not mean that the court will just act, the accuser must show all evidences to prove his case, failure to do that, the alleged will walk free, like in this situation, Sylva was unable to prove his case as he had no valid documents to prove, therefore the court will have to uphold PDP'S Election and Dismiss APC'S case.

When questioned what will be the possible outcome of the Supreme Court? He explained that the case has been damaged by the petitioners, therefore there was no need to appeal as an appellate court may Dismiss the case at first sitting.