Clarke criticizes lack of professionalism in Atiku, Obi’s legal team

Robert Clarke, a respected Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), has expressed his concerns regarding the legal representation of Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi in their challenge against President Bola Tinubu’s victory in the 2023 election. While he refrained from labelling their efforts as a complete failure, he emphasized that their legal approach lacked the professionalism expected in such a high-stakes case.

Clarke’s remarks came in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold President Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 presidential election. The seven-judge panel at the apex court dismissed the appeals made by Atiku, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as well as his Labour Party (LP) counterpart, Peter Obi. The appeals had cited allegations of fraud, violations of electoral laws, and challenges to Tinubu’s eligibility for the presidential race.

Robert Clarke pointed out that the legal challenges brought forth by Atiku and Obi lacked the due diligence and precision required for such cases. He stated that the legal representation of the opposition could have been more effective and that he would not have allowed a junior member of his legal team to submit such a brief to the Supreme Court.

“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 said.

“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 said Obi and Atiku’s lawyers had the chance to present their evidence at a lower court but they did not.

“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.”

“I am not blaming the lawyers; that is the last thing I would do, but I am sorry to say that the lawyers, with due respect to them, should have done a better job in this regard.

“As the Supreme Court said, if you have facts that were available before the trial started and you did not bring them into the trial court…Therefore, if you intend to use any evidence in the Supreme Court, you must have ensured that such evidence must have passed through the original jurisdiction of the lower court,” he said.