13 July 2008
editorial
More than a year after the conduct of the April 2007 general election, many of the election petitions tribunals set up to adjudicate on litigations emanating from the election have not concluded sittings. In this report, Davidson Iriekpen envisages a reinvention of the wheel in Nigerian polity
It is no news that the 2007 general election took place in April last year. What is newsworthy however, is that more than a year after the conclusion of the polls, litigations at the election petitions tribunals set up in the 36 states of the federation as well as the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja to adjudicate on the petitions emanating from the election have been open-ended.
Unlike in the Second Republic, when petitions were determined before the swearing in of elected officials, the reverse is the case today. Across the country, only few of the cases have been completely disposed of, thus making it a difficult task for elected officials to concentrate on governance since they keep one eye on their jobs and the other at the tribunal.
At the peak of the controversies emanating from the 2003 polls, former President Olusegun Obasanjo had advised candidates and political parties that felt aggrieved at the outcome of the polls to take their cases to the tribunals.
Obasanjo's advice came amid calls by some of the opposition parties for the cancellation of some of the elections. They alleged massive rigging by the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). International observers as well as domestic observers, including the European Union Election observer Mission (EU EOM), Republican Institute, Justice, Development and Peace Commission (JCPC) in their different reports, also maintained that not only were the elections marred with irregularities, but the processes were also flawed.
Section 140 of the 2006 Electoral Act provides for the setting up of election petitions tribunals to adjudicate on petitions arising from returns of the election. However, while the tribunals at the state levels were to handle petitions relating to governorship and House of Assembly elections, petitions pertaining to the presidential elections were to be handled by the Presidential Election Tribunal and the Supreme Court as final hnadler .
Though the Act did not stipulate the duration that petitions should be disposed off, it however, provides that the elections tribunals should be inaugurated not later than two weeks before the take off of the election. It was consequent upon this that the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Idris Kutigi, in sheer demonstration of the role that the judiciary plays in the sustenance of the country's democracy, swore in judges appointed to serve at the tribunals two months before the election. And since the Act itself provides for accelerated hearing of petitions before the tribunals, there were expectations that within one year or even less, all the cases would have been determined.
Justice Kutigi's action was quickly followed by the release of Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions on May 7, 2007 by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Umaru Abdullahi whom Section 285 (3) of the 1999 Constitution and paragraph 50 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2006 empowers to set up electoral tribunals and issue the practice directions for the tribunals to follow.
The Practice Directions contained many innovations aimed at reducing the duration for the petition to be disposed off. By the practice directions, witnesses will front load their evidences by writing down their testimonies and later enter the witness box to adopt the same statements on oath. Paragraph 4 sub paragraph 3 states: "There shall be no oral examination of a witness during his evidence-in-chief except to lead the witness to adopt his written deposition and tender in evidence all disputed documents or other exhibits referred to in the disposition.
To make proceedings much easier and quick, the directions also covered the mode of filing a petition, respondent's reply, pre-hearing session and scheduling, evidence at hearing in a petition; while motions and applications stipulate that all petitions to be presented before the tribunal or court be accompanied by: (a) list of all the witnesses that the petitioner intends to call in proof of the petition; (b) written statements on oath of the witnesses; and (c) copies or list of every document to be relied on at the hearing of the petition. It also stated that the respondent's reply should be a statement in summary form and should be supported by copies of documentary evidence, list of witness and the written statements on oath. It further said that pre-hearing session and scheduling shall take place within seven days after the filing and service of the petitioner's reply on the respondent or seven days after the filing and service of the respondent's reply.
The essence of these was to provide for accelerated hearing of petitions brought before the tribunals and as well avert the delay currently experienced at the tribunals, but today, the reverse seems to be the case as the tribunals are still being bogged down by legal technicalities.
Also, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC),has not helped matters. There are allegations that the electoral umpire has in some states been connived with respondents to frustrate the petitions and proceedings. In most cases, it even filed cross appeals against and in favour of judgments depending on its interest. Although INEC Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu has maintained that he did a perfect job, scoring his commission 80 per cent in the conduct of the controversial election, he promised that the commssion would avail aggrieved parties at the tribunals of any document needed to prove their cases. But in some states, INEC failed to live up to its promise.
One of the fears which most analysts expressed before the commencement of sittings by the tribunals and which perhaps may have started manifesting is a replication of the governorship tussle in Anambra State between Governor Peter Obi versus Dr. Chris Ngige over the 2003 governorship election in some states.
Obi contested the April 19, 2003 gubernatorial election on the platform of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and was declared by INEC to have lost to Ngige. INEC at the time was presided over by Dr. Abel Guobadia. Obi challenged the result at the election petition tribunal and won the first round. The matter later shifted to the Appeal Court following Ngige's appeal.
But on Wednesday, March 15, 2006, three years after Ngige was sworn-in, the Court of Appeal in Enugu presided over by Justice Garba Nabaruma declared his governorship seat invalid, illegal and therefore ultra-vireand asked the court to swear-in Obi. It was this ruling that effectively altered the political landscape for good. It ensured that the strongly held position of the INEC that all elections be conducted in one day was shattered.
From the look of things, it seems that the Appeal Court judgement on the Obi-Ngige saga has started manifesting in some states of the federation. For instance, governors such as Murtala Nyako of Adamawa State, Alhaji Ibrahim Idris of Kogi State, Timpreye Sylva of Bayelsa State and Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko of Sokoto State have all started fresh mandates respectively after about eight months in office following their swearing in on May 29, 2007.
From the landmark judgment by the Appea Court in Obi vs. Uba and INEC case, what the fresh mandates being given to these governors mean is that elections in 2011 will be staggered. It means there will be no uniform election that day.
In many other states of the federation, the tribunals are still collating evidences and dealing with technicalities. In states such as Osun, Ondo, Delta and Ogun states, the final verdicts are still being awaited. Yet, with the delays in judgments still on in many states, it is difficult to predict the form that the future election will take.
Many others are still waiting for the final conclusion of their cases. Governors such as Chief Theodore Orji of Abia State, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor of Edo State and Chime of Enugu State still have dates with the Court of Appeal to know their fate as regards their governorship seats. Their victories were earlier nullified by the tribunals in their states. Even others such as Ikedi Ohakim of Imo State, Martins Elechi of Ebonyi State and Adebayo Alao-Akala of Oyo State who achieved victory at the tribunals also have appeals against them pending.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
