Technicality in law is nothing but corrupt escapism. You indulge pliable judicial officers and say the law is an ass, just because their legal abracadabra swung your way.
We’d remind you how much of an ass the law truly is the day it looks the other way and stands against your other interests.
Yesterday’s judgment by the Supreme Court in the Lawan/Machina case is perplexing and in no way edifies a consciously progressive legal system.
There’s actually nothing “learned” about these gown-wearing clowns, who are mostly unable to rise above the resident evil in their compromised choices.
Isn’t it the same apex court that ruled in Amaechi/Omehia’s case in 2007, only to contend some years later that the case could not be further cited after the Electoral Act undertook an amendment?
If you wanted the layman to applaud the law and its mischief called technicality, why then did you have the other justices on the same panel disagree with the same position? It’s that simple!
Why was it a split judgment of three to two? The five should have agreed on the same position since technicality is the way to go, and it’s not a big deal regardless of the obvious.
If your colleagues, who knew the law as much as you did, disagreed with you over such ungodly technicality, why then should an Olawale Olaleye pat you on the back and say, weldone?
Something isn’t just right with your thoughtprocess. Yes, you advancing silly defence in favour of a broad day robbery, which clearly undermines rudimentary logic and even the electoral law.
At this point, I want to side with an opinion suggesting that one of the ways to stem this ugly tide is by changing the condition, which makes a certain number of cases a lawyer must win at the Supreme Court a qualification for the SAN title.
It has increased desperation and forced many of the gown wearers to go rogue. Corruption in the judiciary is indeed grand!
