The judgment of the Supreme Court which affirmed the election of Nyesom Wike as Rivers State governor has renewed calls by political watchers that the apex court should be the final arbiter for all election appeals.
This followed the cancellation of 78 elections across the country by Appeal Courts in various divisions, ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct re-run within 90 days.
A breakdown of the re-run indicates that the Commission will conduct 10 Senatorial elections, 12 State Constituency elections and 37 State Assembly polls. Others are 17 Federal Constituency and two Governorship re-run elections.
However, in a unanimous judgment, the seven-man panel headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mahmud Mohammed, set aside the judgments of the appellate court and tribunal delivered November 16, 2015 and October 24, 2015 respectively.
Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who read the lead judgment, upheld the return of Wike as winner of the April 11, 2015 governorship election.
However, as Nigerians await the Supreme Court to provide reasons for the verdict on February 12, a school-of-thought believes the 76 National Assembly and state assembly elections annulled by the lower courts could have been upturned by the apex court, had it been the final arbiter of all elections appeal.
This school-of-thought buttresses its argument with concerns raised by the Chief Justice of Nigeria about conflicting judgments by Appeal Courts in the country and the setting aside of the Appeal Court judgments of Rivers State delivered on November 16, 2015 and that of the tribunal on October 24, 2015.
Coincidentally, some of the facts and principles of the petitions are similar. For instance, in Rivers State, the lower courts annulled the gubernatorial, three senatorial, 12 federal and two state constituency elections on the grounds that they failed to conform with set guidelines such as the use of voter card reader machines, voter register and other election guidelines.
But while the judgment of the governorship poll was overruled at the apex court, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) will have to conduct the other 17 re-run elections in the state in compliance with the verdict of the appellate court since it is the final arbiter for senatorial, federal and state constituency polls, respectively.
In the light of the foregoing, analysts have called for the amendment of the Electoral Act 2010 to allow litigants in all election petition cases explore all legal avenues up to the Supreme Court.
Proponents of the amendment are of the opinion that stopping mid-way could lead to miscarriage of justice, just like the Rivers gubernatorial case.
Prior to the amendments of the Electoral Act, it was only the presidential election petition that got to the Supreme Court. But due to perceived injustice suffered by litigants, the National Assembly amended the Act to ensure that the Court of Appeal was no longer the final arbiter of governorship election petitions but the apex court.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court judgment on the Rivers governorship election has lent credence to the wisdom that informed the Electoral Act amendments.
George Oji, executive director, Friends in the Gap Advocacy Initiative, argued that taking all election cases to the apex court will further congest cases there.
According to him, civil cases will suffer, as judges will only attend to election cases to the detriment of civil cases. He explained that since the Supreme Court had laid a judicial precedent with the Rivers verdict, other lower courts will follow suit.
“There is a lot merit in those who argue that you don’t take all appeals to end at the apex court; reason being that you are going to over labour them. It’s rather unfortunate that National Assembly and House of Assembly elections end at the Court of Appeal. But later, they are going to benefit from the ruling of the Supreme Court on matters that affect the governorship elections and the presidential elections because the Supreme Court is going to strengthen the principles of law. Though at the moment, they might not benefit from it but subsequently in the future the principles are going to be strengthened and that is what the lower courts are going to follow in the future.
“You have to consider the workload at the apex court. You can’t overload the Supreme Court. By the time they handle all electoral matters, they won’t have time to handle other civil matters. That is the essence of decongesting the apex court so that it could equally have time to adjudicate in other matters. Electoral matters are political matters. That is why they are attracting as much attention. Otherwise there are other civil matters that still end up at the Supreme Court which are still there, in most cases for over 20 years”, he told BDSUNDAY.
Oji was, however, countered by Benson Enikuomehin, a legal practitioner who harped on the need for appointment of more judges at the apex to decongest election petitions.
Enikuomehin therefore, advocated for all election appeals to get to the Supreme Court, stressing that he has lost confidence in the appellate court.
His words: “If they say it will lead to congestion, it is better for us to have justice than to say because of congestion injustice is meted out to people. Somebody whose election is annulled now because, according to them, it didn’t comply with his party’s procedure and therefore it’s annulled; in another state, they said it doesn’t matter. Which one do we follow?
“I believe that congestion cannot override the issue of justice. I am beginning to lose confidence in the Court of Appeal. And sometimes I even prefer the judgment of the high court to the Court of Appeal. If the same court cannot hold the same view on a matter, where do you want the litigants to go? If you if I drive on Ahmadu Bello Way, it’s a crime and somebody else drives on Ahmadu Bello Way, you say it’s a right, where do we go from there?”
OWEDE AGBAJILEKE
