Dissemination: By Dr. Mudiaga Odje, SAN- A Rejoinder.

BY: Chief Tom Anyafulude

Our attention has been drawn to an article written by one Dr. Mudiaga Odje, SAN, titled: Dissemination, which basically examined the proceedings of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal of 30th May, 2023. On that date, the Labour Party tendered a certified copy of the judgement of a Chicago District Court in Illinois, whereby, Mr. Bola Tinubu allegedly forfeited the sum of $460,000 (Four Hundred and Sixty Thousand American dollars) for dealing with drugs.

Ordinarily, we would have ignored this misleading, biased, disjointed article borne out of a gross misconception of the law.
However, we are constrained to espouse this Dissemination because it constitutes subjudice and a manifest misrepresentation of the law. A comment is subjudice when it touches on a matter before a judge or a Court with the intention or motive of influencing the mind of that Court.

The question of admissibility of the document and evidence of the witness are matters within the domain of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal. Any comments therein constitute subjudice because it will operate in the mind of the court in one way or the other. Besides, the biased comments of Dr. Mudiaga Odje, SAN, which are contemptuous of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, undermine Mr. Peter Obi’s petition and an attempt to wintle down the potency of his agitation.

For proper appreciation of this rejoinder, let us reproduce Dr. Mudiaga Odje’s Offensive Article:

The lawyer who tendered this judgment at the proceedings as led by Okutepa, SAN for Labour Party, could not perform as expected, under the barrage of cross examination by Olanipekun, SAN for Tinubu and Fagbemi, SAN for APC, the Labour Party witness admitted dangerously that the forfeiture judgment in the USA Forfeiture Judgment was a civil proceedings and not a criminal trial nor criminal conviction, as listed under the Constitution.
Again, and very sadly too, he said even the said civil judgment of forfeiture and fine by the USA Court was not even registered in Nigeria🫣 .
The law of Reciprocal Enforcement in Nigeria, compulsorily directs that every foreign judgment must first be registered in Nigeria, before same can be recognized and enforced in Nigeria.
He also admitted further that the USA forfeiture judgment had no judicial certificate issued from the USA Court.
The Evidence Act 2011, directs that to prove previous conviction, the judgment together with a certificate of conviction must be tendered. Agbi v. Ibori.
Recall also, our Constitution says, to disqualify the President elect, such a person must be previously convicted for an offence relating to fraud or dishonesty “by a court or tribunal in Nigeria”.
Instructively, the Constitution did not define the word “Court”.
However, under section 318 (4), the Constitution says the Interpretation Act of 1961 should be used to define its words.
Accordingly, the Interpretation Act, 1961 defines court as “High Court” of Nigeria.
Quite regrettably, if Labour Party had registered the USA judgment in Nigeria, it would have been deemed to be judgment from a High Court in Nigeria, though in a civil proceedings only, and still not a criminal sentence or fine, as envisaged under the Constitution.
Sadly, the Labour Party did little or nothing in that respect and it is too late in the day, as pleadings have closed and issues joined by the parties at the tribunal. This has apparently put LP and PDP’s legal team in a state of evidentiary obfuscation on this ground in their consolidated petition.
As we await more steps in the proceedings, we believe Nigerians will now realize that there is a whole world of difference between “social media posts” on Purley legal matters, and the “actual legal proceedings” as in this instance as well as the allodial technicalities required by the law to prove matters of national import.
Meantime, case continues today.

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria is presumed to be an embodiment of the law, however, where he is biased against a person or thing, he examines any legal issue about that from a jaundiced perspective. The comments of the learned senior lawyer can be faulted on the following grounds:

Civil Forfeiture in the US is not Civil proceedings but an aspect of Americans criminal justice system that is not intended to achieve conviction or sentence.
Forfeiture is the loss of a right, privilege, or property because of a crime, breach of obligation, or neglect of duty. See Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed., at 722.
Where a witness is cross examined on issue of law, he can only give an opinion evidence on law, which is inadmissible. See S.43 of the Evidence Act 2011. For instance, where a witness is asked under cross examination whether action is civil or criminal, his answer is irrelevant because it will constitute an opinion evidence. The Presidential Election Tribunal will look at the Chicago District Court proceedings and determine whether it is civil or criminal proceedings. So, the answer of the lawyer will not change law to fact or vice versa.
A foreign judgment is registrable in Nigeria only where the judgment creditor intends to enforce or execute judgment. A judgment creditor who wants to enforce such a judgment has to apply to a High Court in Nigeria and register same for its enforcement or execution. See Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 2004.
Mr Peter Obi did not tender the judgment for its enforcement or execution but only to show that a presidential candidate was once a drug dealer.
Interpretation act 1961 does not exist and cannot apply to interpret the word Court in the 1999 Constitution! The Interpretation Act 2004, does not interpret the word Court which is within the ambit of specific legislation. For instance, what is the meaning of Court in the Evidence Act? Or what is Court in the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act?
Dr. Mudiaga Odje, SAN, should be reminded that S.318 of the Constitution of Nigeria deals with interpretation and did not interpret the word “Court”. So, the writer mischievously and disappointedly included that interpretation.
The issue of Bola Tinubu involvement in drugs raised both a legal and moral question. Nobody is contending that Mr Bola Tinubu did not suffer any detriment as a result of his involvement in drugs which is clearly expressed in the certified judgement tendered by Mr Peter Obi. This will continue to be a permanent scar in the conscience of a bleeding nation. Afterall, was it not Buhari that conferred Tinubu with the highest award and honour in Nigeria?
Let Dr. Mudiaga Odje and his likes leave Mr Peter Obi alone through his myopic and unconventional comments devoid of legal scholarship. So far, Mr Peter Obi and the Labour Party have taken a huge leap in the Presidential Election Tribunal.