Some lawyers expressed worries last week that in the aftermath of the 2023 elections, political petitions have congested the courts, crowding out and slowing other matters that are equally essential in nation building, economic and social development.
At the swearing in of Appeal Court judges recently, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola, also lamented the high-volume of political cases in the courts. He said: “The times we are in are not pleasant, to say the least. Political cases are taking a monumental toll on our dockets.” So sad!
In the Supreme Court for instance, there are just 11 justices to dispense with thousands of appeals, many of which are election cases arising from Governorship and National Assembly elections, with 3000 of them being pre-election cases that are allowed to get ventilated at the apex court.
At the end of the day, the court becomes a bevy of contorted, costly and avoidable processes that were foisted by politicians and the Independent National ElectoralCommission (INEC). And the courts as well because they seem not to be harsh enough,they don’t see the evidence that should send electoral fraudsters to prison, so the politicians keep coming.
As for those lamenting the menacing number of election cases, they mean well for the polity, but it’s doubtful if they speak for all. We say this because election petitions have become the new economy for many and they will pray and fast that such cases never cease in the country.
A little history: The window for election petitions became popular around 2007, when the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) went against the rule of natural justiceand commonsense and began to annex territories that were politically opposed to its style of empire building instead of nation building. South-west states that were typically progressives in the original sense of the word, not its present-day roguish mutation, were forcefully invaded in the 2003 elections.
Only Lagos State was not conquered in that experiment. By 2007, the owners of South-west began to invest in the art of using the courts to win elections. They procured forensic experts who used technology to instigate recounting of votes at the tribunals. States that were adjudged stolen at elections were returned to authentic winners by the verdict of courts.
Governorship elections were upturned in Edo and Osun states to return Adams Oshiomhole and Rauf Aregbesola in the aftermath of 2007 elections. It was the same scenario in Ondo, when the Appeal Court sacked the PDP government of Segun Agagu to return Segun Mimiko of then Labour Party. Mimiko benefitted from what was South-west’s attempt to reclaim its lost territories.
Mimiko and then South-west Leader, Bola Tinubu, had some quid pro quo understanding for the interest of the zone, but it was poorly consummated. It appeared that Mimiko preferred to be his own man instead of being allied in the South-west concentric, an attribute Tinubu considered to be foxy and they broke up. Equally, governorship electionrerun was ordered for in Ekiti, wherein Kayode Fayemi also benefitted from the intervention of the court and he defeated PDP’s Segun Oni. There were other instances elsewhere flowing from the successes in the South-west.
The total cost of using courts to intervene in elections is huge and may not be fully disclosed. Apart from actual petitioning and the arguments, which add up to what you may call legal fees, insight has it that it is not enough for you to have a good case, you must spend big money. Anyone who has read Professor Niyi Osundare’s poem:
‘My lord, tell me where to keep your bribe’, will easily understand why tribunal expenses are miscellaneous. If you haven’t read the poem, look for it.
In this country, we’re yet to attain age of full disclosures and those who have constitutional responsibilities to do proper checks don’t bother. But suffice to say that the tribunal economy is so massive that it has altered the cause of elections and the course. We have forgotten the principal reason for elections as opportunity to assess a government and pronounce a verdict; the course of elections has shifted from INEC to tribunals.
But sincerely, elections in Nigeria are not just a burden on the judiciary, they are a heavy burden on the economy because everything about it, from paying INEC staff, procuring hard and software and hiring consultants are funded from public treasury apart from the support of international agencies. Even the election petitions are funded indirectly from the Federation Account.
Only a handful of politicians use private money to prosecute elections, others are using state funds and that is not helpful to achieve free and fair elections. The playing field is made uneven whereby a siting governor or president apply state resources to prosecute his election (for those running for a second term) and nothing separates public resources from what is used to hire lawyers for the legal battle that terminates at the Supreme Court. The next review of laws must look at this.
Once upon a time, not all election petitions were given hearing at the Supreme Court. Some terminated at the Appeal Court. But somehow, crooked politicians found a way to adjust the laws to extend their appeals to the final court. Since that self-serving adjustment, it cannot be said with facts that elections have become fairer or that the intervention of the apex court has yielded better adjudication. It has compounded election matters.
Olukayode Ariwoola, CJN
Let that portion of the Constitution be reviewed to return to what it was and free the Supreme Court from this burden. The ruling on the pre-election case between former President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawal and Bashir Machina, for instance, by the Supreme Court has not conferred more honours on the judiciary. Rather, public opinion, going by the extant law(s) on presentation of candidates by parties to INEC favours Machina.
In the court of public opinion, the poor man was robbed and whether or not the judiciary is moved by that public opinion or not, let it be stated that the law is made for man and not man for the law. In fact, in some other jurisdiction, if the same constitutional and Electoral Act provisions were applied to that Lawan’s case and others like it, different results might be arrived at. So, let the authorities be careful. Without the public, laws cannot exist in isolation.
INEC should do more to verify the documents submitted by candidates of parties. INEC is paid heavily to do its job so that the institution of the judiciary should have less election matters to deal with. Why should it be the burden of private citizens to assist INEC to verify sensitive documents in its possession? Why can’t INEC use inhouse intelligence or institutional memory to check what candidates who had contested previous elections submitted in say 1999; and why arethere now questionable alterations in their 2023 entries?
If it is not the business of INEC to nose into details of candidates’ documents, that job can be outsourced to other agencies of government that have such statutory responsibilities. There is a moral burden that can be taken off the judiciary if other institutions do their job. If INEC had taken time to doublecheck President Bola Tinubu’s Chicago State University documents, all eyes will not now be glued on the judiciary to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
As far as some citizens are concerned, the matter is too straight forward to warrant any subterfuge and technicalities. Some think they have seen details the judiciary cannot afford to shove aside. If things don’t go in their favour by way of omission or commission, the judiciary will lose more prestige in their estimation. Whereas that assignment of scrutinizing candidate’s documents is that of INEC and other agencies, they overlooked those essential details. Going forward, INEC should stop being timid. They should learn to ask crucial questions.
There was also a time when INEC was the sole decider of candidates for elections based on the law that allowed it to be present at parties’ primaries for picking flagbearers. INEC’s presence is relevant to ensure that parties adhered to the rules. Factional primaries that did not meet the rules were promptly disqualified. That process gave credibility to mainstream primaries and reduced to a certain degree pre-election cases.
Politicians in the National Assembly frowned at this and conspired an amendment that transferred to parties the responsibility to present candidates to INEC. It no longer matters whether INEC monitored or witnessed a primary election. The party can wake up in the night to field a candidate who did not participate in primaries and heavens will not fall. These are some of the cases that end up burdening the Supreme Court. A return to the old rule will make sense, provided INEC itself is sincere.
The lawmakers are also crafty enough to make laws that destroy parties, rather than strengthen, them. Many of them have abandoned parties on whose tickets they won elections. When they get to the parliament, they abandon their original parties to gain positions in ruling parties. Governors have also abandoned parties that sponsored their elections for new ones without consequences, apart from diminishing fortunes of their former parties.
There should be stringent laws to punish elected officials who abandoned their parties after winning elections. They should be made to forfeit their offices. The tickets belong to parties, not individuals. This will breathe discipline into the system and reduce the burden on the judiciary.
You can’t bully the EU: The Minister of Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesome Wike, cannot be a judge over election matters. During a visit by EU Ambassador,SamuelaIsopi, to the minister last week, Wike alleged that the EU report on the 2023 elections was skewed and did not give the true position of things.
History has documented what happened in Rivers State during the last election. The BBC did a report of that election titled “Nigeria election: The mystery of the altered results in disputed poll.” YIAGA Africa WTV did a report as well. Go and read them.
Let’s thank EU for supporting Nigeria’s elections.
The Guardian is on WhatsApp! We’ve launched a dedicated news channel to send you the latest news, features and plenty more directly on WhatsApp and all you need to do to sign up is click through to our one-way broadcast channel here for ‘Guardian Nigeria’ to appear in the ‘Updates’ tab on your WhatsApp.
Guardian (NG)
END
Be the first to comment