Lagos — What would perhaps be one of the biggest tests of our laws, now that the issue of electoral reforms is in the polity's front burner, would commence at the Court of Appeal today when the various parties to the Imo governorship election case will be in court to argue their cases before the final judgement is pronounced.

Specifically, the apex court- the Supreme Court of Nigeria had on September 29 dismissed the appeal brought to it, by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Governor Ikedi Ohakim of Imo State, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal Abuja Division to hear an earlier appeal by Chief Martin Agbaso. Agbaso in the suit was contesting the legality of INEC's action in cancelling the April 14, 2007 gubernatorial election in Imo State, in which he stood as candidate of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), with the collated results indicating he polled a majority of the votes with over 70 percent margin.

On February 26, 2009, the Court of Appeal had ruled it had jurisdiction to hear a case which it noted had not been heard by any court making it a live matter. However the respondents quickly approached the apex court for a review. In sending the appellants back to the block, the Supreme Court said it appeared some people didn't want the matter to be heard at all, chiding both INEC and Ohakim's counsels for the delaying tactics they had employed to ensure the issues were permanently buried and steered away from being resolved.

In its ruling of September 29, the apex court had said the appeal court had the jurisdiction to hear the case and advised it to give the matter expeditious hearing while noting that certain quarters were bent on seeing the case adjourned indefinitely. It also chided the appellants-INEC and Ohakim for rushing to the apex court when the matter was yet to be dealt with by the lower court.

Now that all the parties in the suit are ready for the appeal Court hearing, it is instructive to put the country's laws and the quest to strengthen our electoral institutions for the purpose of having transparent elections in the future, to test. How we go about doing this, will go a long way in shaping the country's future politically with 2011 in view.

Therefore, the resolution of the log jam arising from the Imo governorship election of April 14 2007 offers the polity an opportunity to test some of the fundamental issues regarding the powers of INEC in interpreting laws governing elections.

So again, the recurring question pops its head up once more: why did INEC cancel an election that was concluded, yes concluded, enough to put a State House of Assembly functioning for over two years now? There are fundamental questions arising from the cancellation of this April 14 election. Can INEC, under the constitution, and electoral act, cancel an election that has substantially conformed to the rules prescribed for announcing results?

Can an election duly concluded in all the polling centres and wards state wide, and the results counted at polling booths and ward levels, and subsequently entered into Forms EC8A and EC8B be cancelled? Why should an election in which ward results were duly collated in 25 out of the 27 Local Government Areas (LGAs) and appropriately entered into INEC Form EC8C, verified and certified by INEC returning officers and party agents, be wished away? The Court of Appeal had ruled while assuming jurisdiction on the matter that if the appellant, Chief Martin Agbaso had gone to court to challenge the cancellation of the April 14 election and INEC knew and yet went ahead to reschedule another election for the 28 of April then it acted wrongly having been notified of the suit. Among the 36 states of the federation, only Imo State had its governorship election cancelled and a re-run ordered when the state House of Assembly election, which held simultaneously with it, with votes cast in the same ballot box, was upheld.

Justice Bada while reading the judgment of the Appeal Court had held that the fact that the appellant participated in the re-run election of April 28, 2007 had not removed his legal rights to challenge the annulled poll of April 14, 2007 in which he also took part. In that ruling, the Appeal Court submitted that the April 28 rescheduled election should not have taken place, in the first place. The court further held that the two elections were different from one another and held on different days, adding that aggrieved participants had rights in law to ventilate their anger in a law court by seeking redress on any issue in dispute.

Bada held that the dispute on the first election was whether INEC was right in cancelling it even when the results had been collated, adding that Agbaso as a participant and as an aggrieved person reserved the right to challenge the legality of such cancellation.

The strategic imperative for this matter to be dispensed within a limited time frame is that the country was plunged into similar chaos in 1993 when the June 12 election was annulled by the military, and we are still suffering the hangover. Perhaps if the country had been democratic, with the judiciary this strong, the story would have been different.

Every Nigerian has the right to aspire to become president, governor, senator or local government chairman, etc, so long as he or she satisfies the requirement for such an office. To make this possible, INEC should be truly independent and non partisan to be able to deliver our long expected dividends of democracy; for without credible elections, it becomes difficult to throw up the right leaders whose transparent election to office reflects the people's yearning for positive change.

Iheanacho wrote from Owerri