Femi Falana, human rights lawyer, says some of the people blackmailing the judiciary on the presidential election petitions are “first time voters”.
During an interview on Channels Television on Monday, Falana said he is worried about the widespread impression that the presidential election tribunal is the end of the process.
On Monday, the tribunal fixed September 6 for judgment on the petitions challenging the victory of Tinubu in the February 25 election.
The Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), and Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have approached the tribunal to challenge President Bola Tinubu’s victory.
Over the past few months, conversations on the presidential election tribunal have been regarded as a threat to the judiciary in certain quarters.
Asked to react on the issues bordering on the workings of the tribunal, Falana said this is the first time the judiciary will be witnessing “such level of blackmail and intimidation” on election petitions since the colonial era.
The human rights lawyer queried the reasons behind the “cheap blackmail” of the judiciary since parties can still approach the supreme court after the tribunal’s verdict on Wednesday.
“We have been having election petitions since the colonial era, but none has attracted such level of blackmail and intimidation of the judiciary,” he said.
“I am worried that people give the impression that everything ends with the judgment of the court of appeal.
“Any party that loses on Wednesday still has the opportunity to appeal to the supreme court. So, what is the basis for the cheap blackmail that is going on?
“Some of the people involved are voting for the first time and they believe rightly or wrongly that their candidate must be declared the winner and I think that is what is going on.”
Falana said the tribunal will deliver judgment based on the evidence before it, adding that the judges must not be intimidated.