Davidson Iriekpen
6 July 2009
(Page 2 of 2)
The cases challenging the elections of the governors of Kebbi and Sokoto states were believed to be the same, yet the same court, comprising the same judges, sitting at the same venue, on the same day, delivered judgments that were different from one another. In the Kebbi governorship appeal, the court held that the issue of nomination was a pre-election matter in respect which election tribunal had no jurisdiction on. It consequently upheld the return of the PDP governorship candidate However, in the Sokoto case, the same court held that the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain pre-election issue of nomination and on that ground, it nullified the election of the PDP candidate.
In the case involving the governor of Enugu State, while delivering judgment in the consolidated petition of candidates of four political parties, Justice Adekeye who read the unanimous judgment, decided that late arrival of election material and non-availability of result sheets were not substantial enough to be the basis on which an election should be cancelled. Meanwhile, in Calabar and Port-Harcourt in the cases of Governor Liyel Imoke and Timipere Sylva, the Court of Appeal nullified their elections on the basis of non compliance with the Electoral Act; specifically on the point that election materials were not delivered on time and that results sheets were withheld.
Similarly, the judgment delivered in the matters between Senator David Mark and Usman Abubakar over their contest for the Benue South Senatorial seat contradicted the Court of Appeal ruling in the case filed by the APGA candidate in Imo State who was challenging the power of returning officer to cancel the result of an election already held.
Still fresh in the minds of most Nigerians is the way the court handled the petitions filed by Gen. Muhammadu Buhari and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, both presidential candidates in the 2007 election on the platforms of the ANPP and AC respectively. The two contenders were told that their petitions had no merit, thereby sending a wrong message to INEC and the PDP to continue to subvert the will of the people with brazen impunity. In particular, the court refused independent observers that monitored the election to testify in the petitions filed by the presidential candidates.
It is suspected that some of the judges might have been compromised in some of the controversial cases. For example, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the governorship election petition appeal for Abia State was delivered on February 11, 2009. The hearing of the appeal was allegedly concluded on November 26, 2008 when the briefs were adopted. Exchange of briefs was purportedly concluded in May, 2008. Apart from the fact that the delay in the hearing of the appeal was at the instance of the Appellants, the hearing notice for the judgment was allegedly issued on February 2, 2009 for a judgment date of February 11, 2009. In effect, the panel had enough time to deliver a type-written judgment, yet the judgment was said to have been delivered hand-written.
Against the backdrop of this and similar cases where the decisions or modus operandi of some judges were suspicious, many questions are being raised by critics as to what should be done to make judicial future rulings and procedure as transparent as a whistle. Here, the Chief Justice of Nigeria has a responsibility to fish out the rotten eggs among the judges and restore sagging confidence in the judiciary particularly in the way and manner it adjudicates electoral matters. If this is done early enough, it will help to rekindle faith in the system ahead of the fast approaching 2011 general elections.
QUOTE
Against the backdrop of this and similar cases where the decisions or modus operandi of some judges were suspicious, many questions are being raised by critics as to what should be done to make judicial future rulings and procedure as transparent as a whistle.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
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.
