In any legal disagreement, the top court declared that neither party shall be preferred over the other.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, did not discuss the pending Presidential Election Petition about the 2023 election over the phone with President Bola Tinubu or anybody else, according to clarification from the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
According to the supreme court, Justice Ariwoola did not speak with Tinubu or the Director General of the Department of State Service (DSS) in an effort to exert pressure on the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal regarding the expected outcome of the cases.
In a statement released in Abuja on Wednesday, the director of press and information for the Supreme Court, Akande Festus, stated: “In view of the rumour currently circulating in the social media space that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, had a telephone conversation with His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Director General of the Department of State Service (DSS) with a view to pressurise the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on the
The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal’s hearings have been closely watched by Nigerians, who have shown great interest. So instead of relapsing into the world of conjecture and rumour spreading that will serve no one, it is advised that we all keep up the pace and see it through to the end.
Our country might not make the required growth if the current pattern of deceit and mudslinging continues.
According to him, the supreme court would uphold the constitutional mandate that judges must act in the public interest.
The judiciary would never favour one party over another in a disagreement, so we kindly ask everyone’s cooperation so that it can serve the nation to the fullest extent possible.
“The rule of law and supremacy of the Nigerian Constitution will always be preserved and implemented in every case that is brought before the courts; the application of the facts provided and the laws now in effect must be taken into account in evaluating the merit or not of each subject.
Regardless of who was involved, the statement ended, “the public should be at ease that justice will be served to all matters pending in the various courts across the country.”
