It is a time-honoured philosophy of the bench that a court of law is bound by the evidence before it. This was once amplified in the glowing words of Niki Tobi (JSC): "It is not the judicial function of a judge to embark on a voyage of discovery for facts which are not placed before him.

A trial judge is not Vasco Dagama, not Christopher Columbus and not a Mungo Park. His duty is to inquire only into the facts placed before him in the court. He is forbidden by our laws to go outside the facts in court to search for more facts with a view to discovering new pastures. He cannot do such a thing."

The above position would imply that a panel of justices examining the same facts placed before them in a court, should arrive at the same conclusion, more so when they are at liberty to exchange views with one another in their chambers before the judgment date. Why then do we have dissenting judgments? Clearly because Their Lordships could not reconcile themselves to the same position in interpreting the Constitution, Laws of the Federation and provisions of a law such as the Electoral Act 2006. Can we then conclude that what we usually get as judicial verdicts are legal/ law-based personal opinions or personal opinions transposed into legal language?

This scenario therefore leads us into the inescapable conclusion that the interpretation of any piece of legislation is subject to the whims and caprices of the judge or to take a more positive view, subject to the mould/ personality of the judge conservative, reformist or liberal.

So, it would seem to us in this corner of the globe that the United States usually makes a heavy weather of appointment of Supreme Court justices. But their reason is simple. When it comes to the crunch, (abortion, Florida electoral debacle, etc) the leaning of each justice is decisive!

In spite of this immanent flaw in jurisprudence across the globe the 'freedom' of a judge to call black black and white white or black white and white black (Jonathan Swift) the power invested in judges to interpret legislations is not at large. There are statutory aids and rules to guide the interpretation of statutes; such as the Interpretation Act, Mischief Rule, Golden Rule, Literal Rule, among others.

Again, these are mere guides. A delinquent or corrupt judge can still interpret legislations to suit his own agenda no matter the load of convincing evidence before him. Yes, he can only 'err in law.' But at the apex level, what is the cost of such 'err in law'? Who is to correct the defects in a Supreme Court judgment? What therefore sustains a judicial system is the integrity of its members? Where priests in the Temple of Justice are not found to be above board, self help becomes the only available alternative. And so Kenya erupted into bloody electoral violence early in the year, killing a couple of thousands and causing social dislocation of tens of thousand "We won't go to the Kibaki court," the shortchanged electorate vowed.

I had already enunciated the imponderable cost of legal/technical justice at the expense of substantial/social justice in a largely rudimentary society such as ours in this column two Friday's ago. In that piece Can the Supreme Court Save Nigeria?. I hinted that the current attitude of the apex court pointed in the direction of quashing 2007 presidential poll even though that wouldn't mean much to the PDP government of Yar'Adua since they would still win a re-run anyway.

Well, fireworks at the Supreme Court complex last Friday was both enervating and enlivening. On the surface, a split decision of 3-4 against ANPP Buhari's petitions and 1-6 against AC Atiku's petitions were not altogether bad. (Split decision is a compromise judgment; dissenting judgment detracts from the lead judgment and in this instant case leads to a 'compromised victory' for the PDP). Yar'Adua could go home humbled.

But on a deeper reflection, the majority verdict went against the grain, to the extent that it won't stand as deterrents to a perverse electoral umpire and election riggers. I sincerely hope and pray to be proved wrong; the technical justice in favour of PDP will prove a pyrrhic one come 2011; and the pro "non-substantial compliance does not substantially affect the outcome of the election" justices would wish they never witnessed a fiery day like Friday, 12th December, 2008. Except the Yar'Adua government pushes for and succeeds in a positive shift through constitutional amendment that manifestly and re-assuringly wins the confidence of the opposition class (and even more, the ruling party, the members of which will fight themselves to a finish in a no holds barred mould during the next elections). I'm somewhat downcast at this stage.

I had anticipated that the Supreme Court would use the opportunity of the judgment to set, in forceful terms, landmark judicial precedents on electoral process in Nigeria. But Oguntade Adesola (JSC) was on hand to save the day for the apex court albeit through a dissenting judgment. His verdicts a must read constitute the highpoints of the Day.

"It is with regret that I am unable to agree with the lead judgment of my learned brother, Justice Niki Tobi. Ballot paper is the live wire, the heart-beat and the engine room of any election. Invalid ballot papers will only result in invalid votes each of the candidates in the 2007 presidential poll therefore scored zero. INEC did not show any remorse, nor contrition for non compliance with Section 45 (2) of the Electoral Act 2006. It willfully and recklessly excluded the 1st petitioner/appellant (Atiku) and frittered away tax-payers money. Common sense should have guided the 1st respondent (INEC) to include his name (Atiku) in the first ballot papers since the court verdict could have gone either way.

"I am to say the least disappointed that exclusion from election (which the Court of Appeal dismissed) did not receive more incisive and more illuminating dissection from the lower court.' Section 101 of the Electoral Act 2006 states that the period of campaign shall start 90 days before poll and end 24 hours before poll. Other candidates had 90 days to prepare for election but Atiku had four days. Did he receive equality of treatment with other candidates? No! He was therefore excluded from the April 21st, 2007 presidential poll."

In conclusion, Justice Oguntade cautioned courts in Nigeria to be wary of interpretations that undermine the Electoral Act and inadvertently promote electoral crimes, chaos and bloody violence.

Postscript: I had already predicted what the position of Justice George Adesola Oguntade would be, based on my knowledge of him since his days in Lagos (during the military dictatorship) in a chat with Barrister Kayode Oyende of LASU in early November, who incidentally had appeared before His Lordship in Lagos. I feel proud of the accomplishments of Justice Oguntade as a forthright and consistent jurist and wish more Nigerians will study the antecedents of justices so that appointment to the apex court will henceforth become a public issue in Nigeria (like the US).