ELECTION 2015: JUSTICE LOST AND FOUND
This is an opinion piece written by Magnus Onyibe ,a development strategist and former commissioner in
The Good news is that the Supreme Court is now living up to its billings.
Since Nigeria's return to multi-party democracy in 1999, the
murkiness of the world of the judiciary has been so pervasive that
the views of the average Nigerian about the jurisprudence behind
most of the court verdicts reversing or upholding election into
public offices had become so jaundiced that the legitimacy of
most of the elected political office holders is regarded with
circumspection. In particular, the 2015 general election 'takes the
cake' regarding the number of election tribunal judgments
reversing electoral victories and this makes the law courts, rather
than the polling booths, look like the new platform for seeking
and obtaining political offices in Nigeria.
While some had attributed the spike in the number of election
cases determined in courts to the fact that Personal Voting Cards
(PVCs) and electronics card reader machines were introduced
into the electioneering system for the first time to reduce the
perennial incidence of fraud, others have placed it on the
doorstep of a more hideous case of duplicity of the judiciary
which is accused of seeking to be more entrenched in politics,
prompting me to write and publish in the mass media, articles
titled "The Causes And Effects of Judicialisation of Elections In
Nigeria" and "Are Elections Giving Democracy Bad Name?".
In those two articles, I tried to make the case that the judiciary
seems to be usurping the traditional role of the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is against
democratic ethos and that by merely 'staging' elections, which
truly do not reflect the views of the electorate, fraudulent leaders
are giving democracy bad name which is dangerous and harmful
to our nascent democracy. Since the publication of the articles,
there have been more revelations such as the one by the INEC
chairman, Mahmoud Yakubu, indicating that election 2015
recorded the highest number of annulments since 2007, despite
the fact that it was adjudged the most free, fair, credible and
transparent. This validates the belief that the judiciary is complicit
in current absurdities being witnessed in the polity.
The INEC boss, who was addressing Resident Electoral
Commissioners, REC, reinforced that position when he confirmed
that a total of 96 elections were annulled (more than the previous
three elections combined) and eighty-one (81) of the annulments
were ordered for fresh elections by the Appeal Courts, while INEC
was directed to issue certificates of return to fifteen, 15 rightful
winners. This also simply indicates that the judiciary, as
characterised by the electoral tribunals, may be the issue in
Nigerian democracy via their 'voodoo' verdicts in recent political
office contestations.
Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mahmoud Mohamed, in an address to a
recent meeting of the body of judges (All Nigeria Judges
Conference) also conceded that there might be foul plays in the
Justice system, particularly with reference to recent verdicts by
state election Appeal Courts issuing conflicting judgments even in
cases with same fundamentals.
The Chief Justice was so incensed by the unsavory development
that he referred the judges to the suggestion by respected
Justice Nikki Tobi of blessed memory, who had recommended
that election appeal court judgments be lodged centrally in Abuja
within two months of the judgment to enable judges in other
jurisdictions harmonize or synchronize their judgments and spare
the judiciary the current public odium generated by suspicious
verdicts.
The concerns of Yakubu, the INEC boss and Mahmoud, head of
the judiciary, are derived from the fact that suspicion of the
judiciary and their negative influence in election matters have been
so palpable that, those that are not well heeled financially or non-
highly connected Nigerians approached the courts with
trepidation, because it was assumed that justice was more or
less a commodity in a market place, where only those that are
armed with solid finance could purchase the merchandise, while
those armed only with equity, and without money are denied
justice.
Unsurprisingly, President Muhammadu Buhari has also weighed in
with his concern about the questionable integrity of the judiciary,
when he alleged in an address to Nigerians in faraway Ethiopia,
during an OAU meeting, that the legal system is the biggest
obstacle against the anti-corruption fight in Nigeria.
Citing the three occasions that he contested for the presidency at
the polls in the past twelve (12) years and failed to win and his
subsequent failure to secure victory in the courts, as one of his
reference points for corruption in the Justice system, the
president reportedly referred to the judiciary as his 'biggest
headache' in his war against corruption.
Some pundits are contending that the president's statement is a
subtle threat and subtle interference in another arm of government
that's supposed to be independent. But whatever be the case,
the negative perception of and the public criticism was not lost
on the judiciary.
Perhaps, unable to stomach the embarrassment anymore, the
elders and eminent members of the profession as embodied by
the Supreme Court judges are making frantic efforts to redeem
the sagging image of the profession hitherto referred to as the
'noble profession'.
The recent reversal of the judgment against Nyesom Wike as the
governor of Rivers State by both the state election appeal court
and federal court of appeal by the Supreme Court of Nigeria
seemed to be the most obvious initiative aimed at restoring the
voice that the Supreme Court seemed to have lost owing to the
Babel of voices, which the state election tribunal had become.
As a further demonstration of the restoration of hope in the
judiciary and besides the clarity which the apex court has brought
to bear in Rivers State via restoration of the governor's mandate,
election of over a dozen lawmakers including all the senators
were adjudicated against, just as Anambra State, also recorded
eleven lawmakers imminent sack, including two senators,
following the Supreme Court judgment declaring as illegal the
state political party executives that conducted their party primary
elections.
Going by the current developments, particularly if more clarity is
given in the Anambra judgment, the judiciary would be seen to be
confronting its problems and solving them as justice lost is now
being found through such specific interventions.
Before now, the effect of a reinvigorated Supreme Court had been
felt in Abia State, where incumbent Governor Okezie Ikpeazu has
been tussling with Alex Otti of APGA; Benue State, where Samuel
Ortom claim as governor has been affirmed and Taraba State,
where initial judgments removing the governor, Dairius Ishaku
from office was reversed.
The latest dismissal of appeals against Delta, Oyo and Yobe
States governors for lack of merit by the Supreme Court further
gives fillip to the definitive effort aimed at bringing to a close, the
gale of election petitions against governors elected in 2015
except that of Akwa Ibom and Abia which were still pending (as
at the time of filing this report).
Without empirical evidence to back up the proposition,
nonetheless, I hold the view that there are three critical factors
that have given the Supreme Court judges the impetus for the
rescue mission, which they seem to have embarked on. The
factors are (1) the status and stage in the life of the average
Supreme Court judge in Nigeria, (2) their professional grounding
and (3) their conscience. Let me explain. First of all, the median
age of the Supreme Court justices cannot be less than 65 years
and by virtue of their age,
as elders of the legal profession, who have merited appointment
into the Supreme Court, which is the pinnacle of their career, they
are less worried about where next to get elevated to and are
therefore content with the application of the wisdom of Solomon,
(to borrow a biblical phraseology) conferred on them and thus
able to resist external influences.
Secondly, at age 65, the average Supreme Court judge must have
been on the bench in excess of 35 years and might have, to
borrow the street lingo, 'seen it all and done it all' and in the
process, conquered the common issues of mid-life crisis like
inability to pay children school fees and other existential
challenges that an average professional may be contending with.
Therefore, incentive for and ground for susceptibility to accepting
bribes, especially if the fellow's moral threshold is low.
Thirdly, being free of the aforementioned burdens, the typical
Supreme Court judges only owe their conscience to their creator,
more so because at age 65, they are closer to the end of life's
journey and therefore owe God more than any man, the account
of their sojourn on earth, hence the zeal to do their jobs
conscientiously.
All things being equal and with the interplay of the forces
mentioned above, the chances of the judicial system in Nigeria
being able to save its self from destruction is very high, which is
why I would advise all aggrieved Nigerians with genuine legal
cases not to be weary by the initial disappointments in the lower
courts by chickening out, but to persevere and pursue their cases
up to the Supreme Court level, where real justice truly abounds.
Amongst the cases in which I would like to encourage the
litigants to pursue to the Supreme Court level is the Kogi
governorship election in which the front runner, Audu Abubakar
suddenly died before he could be declared winner and his running
mate, James Faleke who is the joint ticket holder was denied the
opportunity of replacing his principal.
To the bewilderment of most Nigerian election watchers, instead
of Faleke, Yahaya Bello, a candidate who lost in the party primary,
was structured to inherit Audu's political fortune and was sworn in
as governor without a deputy - an unprecedented situation in the
annals of Nigerian history.
Hopefully, when the unscrupulous politicians, who resort to
'buying' elective offices through inducement of judges rather than
wooing the electorate through good deeds and gaining their
respect and subsequently earning their votes during elections find
out that their antics would only give them temporary victories, as
their 'selection' rather than election would eventually get upturned
by the final court of justice, they may desist from the obnoxious
practice.
Clearly, such realisation would allow democracy to blossom and
thus facilitate good governance and the accountability required to
move our society forward. Although the National Judicial Council
(NJC) set up to discipline errant judicial officers has tried its best
to rid the profession of bad eggs by wielding the big stick, more
efforts via legislation is perhaps needed to also rein in and curtail
the zealousness of the politicians that induce them in their
desperate move to win by hook or crook.
As the recently victorious governor of Delta State, lfeanyi Okoya
observed during his victory speech in church on Tuesday,
February 2, getting mired in court cases after elections only
distract elected officials and disrupt governance as more often
than not unsuccessful opponents who rush to court know fully
well that they have no case but still persist in their mischief for
the nuisance value.
To discourage such negative attitude, beyond losing the case,
punishment should be meted to losers as well to discourage
frivolous litigations. For instance, there is a law in the Western
world aimed at discouraging frivolous litigations by imposing
stiffer penalty if a litigant appeals against a judgment and fails in
the bid to upturn the judgment.
This can be achieved via amendment of the electoral laws to
include trial and possible incarceration of both the judges found
culpable and any political office holder found to have fraudulently
occupied the seat by making him or her refund all the funds
expended during the period the office was illegally occupied as
well as serve jail terms. That is currently not the case as those
indicted are usually let off 'Scot free' while the victorious
candidates continue from where the usurpers stopped.
The snag with the possible realisation of this apparent lofty
dream would be that at the current level of our political
development, it would be a sort of utopia as those in positions
of authority, hardly push and pass legislation or rule against their
selfish interests. Regrettably, the pursuit of parochial interests in
Nigeria applies to the executive, legislative and the judiciary arms
of government equally.
The torturous process of pushing and passing the freedom of
information FOI, Bill that commenced during former president
Olusegun Obasabjo's reign spanning the period of late president
Umaru Yar'Adua before it was finally passed under the watch of
the immediate past president Goodluck Jonathan, is a typical
example of how bills that discourage government tyranny are
killed or discouraged.
Otherwise what justifies the delay of the passage of the FOI Bill,
which is in the best interest of Nigerians in excess of five (5)
years before passage but for the fact that the powers that be,
reckoned that it would give the media and civil society
organisations access into the inner recesses of government,
where inequities against society are sowed, nurtured and
harvested to the detriment of the masses. Exactly, the opposite
is the case in the advanced societies such as the USA, where
legislators pass laws granting the most vulnerable members of
society - children, women and some would argue, even dogs,
more protection than men, who dominate all arms of
government.
Hopefully, a day would come in our lifetime, when leadership in
Nigerian establishments, would attain such level of maturity that
policies and decisions would be made with the greater good of
the electorate as opposed to what's in it for the policy or
lawmakers as the motivation.
We can actually achieve that level of transparency in governance
by prescribing and following through with jail terms for members
of the judiciary and politicians, who abuse our electoral and
political processes no matter whose ox is gored.
So, it behooves the fourth and 'fifth' realm of the estate which is
the media and civil society respectively to compel authorities
through advocacy to push such legislation that might hurt their
selfish interests but in the overall best interest of the society.
Delta State is an alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
The Good news is that the Supreme Court is now living up to its billings.
Since Nigeria's return to multi-party democracy in 1999, the
murkiness of the world of the judiciary has been so pervasive that
the views of the average Nigerian about the jurisprudence behind
most of the court verdicts reversing or upholding election into
public offices had become so jaundiced that the legitimacy of
most of the elected political office holders is regarded with
circumspection. In particular, the 2015 general election 'takes the
cake' regarding the number of election tribunal judgments
reversing electoral victories and this makes the law courts, rather
than the polling booths, look like the new platform for seeking
and obtaining political offices in Nigeria.
While some had attributed the spike in the number of election
cases determined in courts to the fact that Personal Voting Cards
(PVCs) and electronics card reader machines were introduced
into the electioneering system for the first time to reduce the
perennial incidence of fraud, others have placed it on the
doorstep of a more hideous case of duplicity of the judiciary
which is accused of seeking to be more entrenched in politics,
prompting me to write and publish in the mass media, articles
titled "The Causes And Effects of Judicialisation of Elections In
Nigeria" and "Are Elections Giving Democracy Bad Name?".
In those two articles, I tried to make the case that the judiciary
seems to be usurping the traditional role of the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is against
democratic ethos and that by merely 'staging' elections, which
truly do not reflect the views of the electorate, fraudulent leaders
are giving democracy bad name which is dangerous and harmful
to our nascent democracy. Since the publication of the articles,
there have been more revelations such as the one by the INEC
chairman, Mahmoud Yakubu, indicating that election 2015
recorded the highest number of annulments since 2007, despite
the fact that it was adjudged the most free, fair, credible and
transparent. This validates the belief that the judiciary is complicit
in current absurdities being witnessed in the polity.
The INEC boss, who was addressing Resident Electoral
Commissioners, REC, reinforced that position when he confirmed
that a total of 96 elections were annulled (more than the previous
three elections combined) and eighty-one (81) of the annulments
were ordered for fresh elections by the Appeal Courts, while INEC
was directed to issue certificates of return to fifteen, 15 rightful
winners. This also simply indicates that the judiciary, as
characterised by the electoral tribunals, may be the issue in
Nigerian democracy via their 'voodoo' verdicts in recent political
office contestations.
Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mahmoud Mohamed, in an address to a
recent meeting of the body of judges (All Nigeria Judges
Conference) also conceded that there might be foul plays in the
Justice system, particularly with reference to recent verdicts by
state election Appeal Courts issuing conflicting judgments even in
cases with same fundamentals.
The Chief Justice was so incensed by the unsavory development
that he referred the judges to the suggestion by respected
Justice Nikki Tobi of blessed memory, who had recommended
that election appeal court judgments be lodged centrally in Abuja
within two months of the judgment to enable judges in other
jurisdictions harmonize or synchronize their judgments and spare
the judiciary the current public odium generated by suspicious
verdicts.
The concerns of Yakubu, the INEC boss and Mahmoud, head of
the judiciary, are derived from the fact that suspicion of the
judiciary and their negative influence in election matters have been
so palpable that, those that are not well heeled financially or non-
highly connected Nigerians approached the courts with
trepidation, because it was assumed that justice was more or
less a commodity in a market place, where only those that are
armed with solid finance could purchase the merchandise, while
those armed only with equity, and without money are denied
justice.
Unsurprisingly, President Muhammadu Buhari has also weighed in
with his concern about the questionable integrity of the judiciary,
when he alleged in an address to Nigerians in faraway Ethiopia,
during an OAU meeting, that the legal system is the biggest
obstacle against the anti-corruption fight in Nigeria.
Citing the three occasions that he contested for the presidency at
the polls in the past twelve (12) years and failed to win and his
subsequent failure to secure victory in the courts, as one of his
reference points for corruption in the Justice system, the
president reportedly referred to the judiciary as his 'biggest
headache' in his war against corruption.
Some pundits are contending that the president's statement is a
subtle threat and subtle interference in another arm of government
that's supposed to be independent. But whatever be the case,
the negative perception of and the public criticism was not lost
on the judiciary.
Perhaps, unable to stomach the embarrassment anymore, the
elders and eminent members of the profession as embodied by
the Supreme Court judges are making frantic efforts to redeem
the sagging image of the profession hitherto referred to as the
'noble profession'.
The recent reversal of the judgment against Nyesom Wike as the
governor of Rivers State by both the state election appeal court
and federal court of appeal by the Supreme Court of Nigeria
seemed to be the most obvious initiative aimed at restoring the
voice that the Supreme Court seemed to have lost owing to the
Babel of voices, which the state election tribunal had become.
As a further demonstration of the restoration of hope in the
judiciary and besides the clarity which the apex court has brought
to bear in Rivers State via restoration of the governor's mandate,
election of over a dozen lawmakers including all the senators
were adjudicated against, just as Anambra State, also recorded
eleven lawmakers imminent sack, including two senators,
following the Supreme Court judgment declaring as illegal the
state political party executives that conducted their party primary
elections.
Going by the current developments, particularly if more clarity is
given in the Anambra judgment, the judiciary would be seen to be
confronting its problems and solving them as justice lost is now
being found through such specific interventions.
Before now, the effect of a reinvigorated Supreme Court had been
felt in Abia State, where incumbent Governor Okezie Ikpeazu has
been tussling with Alex Otti of APGA; Benue State, where Samuel
Ortom claim as governor has been affirmed and Taraba State,
where initial judgments removing the governor, Dairius Ishaku
from office was reversed.
The latest dismissal of appeals against Delta, Oyo and Yobe
States governors for lack of merit by the Supreme Court further
gives fillip to the definitive effort aimed at bringing to a close, the
gale of election petitions against governors elected in 2015
except that of Akwa Ibom and Abia which were still pending (as
at the time of filing this report).
Without empirical evidence to back up the proposition,
nonetheless, I hold the view that there are three critical factors
that have given the Supreme Court judges the impetus for the
rescue mission, which they seem to have embarked on. The
factors are (1) the status and stage in the life of the average
Supreme Court judge in Nigeria, (2) their professional grounding
and (3) their conscience. Let me explain. First of all, the median
age of the Supreme Court justices cannot be less than 65 years
and by virtue of their age,
as elders of the legal profession, who have merited appointment
into the Supreme Court, which is the pinnacle of their career, they
are less worried about where next to get elevated to and are
therefore content with the application of the wisdom of Solomon,
(to borrow a biblical phraseology) conferred on them and thus
able to resist external influences.
Secondly, at age 65, the average Supreme Court judge must have
been on the bench in excess of 35 years and might have, to
borrow the street lingo, 'seen it all and done it all' and in the
process, conquered the common issues of mid-life crisis like
inability to pay children school fees and other existential
challenges that an average professional may be contending with.
Therefore, incentive for and ground for susceptibility to accepting
bribes, especially if the fellow's moral threshold is low.
Thirdly, being free of the aforementioned burdens, the typical
Supreme Court judges only owe their conscience to their creator,
more so because at age 65, they are closer to the end of life's
journey and therefore owe God more than any man, the account
of their sojourn on earth, hence the zeal to do their jobs
conscientiously.
All things being equal and with the interplay of the forces
mentioned above, the chances of the judicial system in Nigeria
being able to save its self from destruction is very high, which is
why I would advise all aggrieved Nigerians with genuine legal
cases not to be weary by the initial disappointments in the lower
courts by chickening out, but to persevere and pursue their cases
up to the Supreme Court level, where real justice truly abounds.
Amongst the cases in which I would like to encourage the
litigants to pursue to the Supreme Court level is the Kogi
governorship election in which the front runner, Audu Abubakar
suddenly died before he could be declared winner and his running
mate, James Faleke who is the joint ticket holder was denied the
opportunity of replacing his principal.
To the bewilderment of most Nigerian election watchers, instead
of Faleke, Yahaya Bello, a candidate who lost in the party primary,
was structured to inherit Audu's political fortune and was sworn in
as governor without a deputy - an unprecedented situation in the
annals of Nigerian history.
Hopefully, when the unscrupulous politicians, who resort to
'buying' elective offices through inducement of judges rather than
wooing the electorate through good deeds and gaining their
respect and subsequently earning their votes during elections find
out that their antics would only give them temporary victories, as
their 'selection' rather than election would eventually get upturned
by the final court of justice, they may desist from the obnoxious
practice.
Clearly, such realisation would allow democracy to blossom and
thus facilitate good governance and the accountability required to
move our society forward. Although the National Judicial Council
(NJC) set up to discipline errant judicial officers has tried its best
to rid the profession of bad eggs by wielding the big stick, more
efforts via legislation is perhaps needed to also rein in and curtail
the zealousness of the politicians that induce them in their
desperate move to win by hook or crook.
As the recently victorious governor of Delta State, lfeanyi Okoya
observed during his victory speech in church on Tuesday,
February 2, getting mired in court cases after elections only
distract elected officials and disrupt governance as more often
than not unsuccessful opponents who rush to court know fully
well that they have no case but still persist in their mischief for
the nuisance value.
To discourage such negative attitude, beyond losing the case,
punishment should be meted to losers as well to discourage
frivolous litigations. For instance, there is a law in the Western
world aimed at discouraging frivolous litigations by imposing
stiffer penalty if a litigant appeals against a judgment and fails in
the bid to upturn the judgment.
This can be achieved via amendment of the electoral laws to
include trial and possible incarceration of both the judges found
culpable and any political office holder found to have fraudulently
occupied the seat by making him or her refund all the funds
expended during the period the office was illegally occupied as
well as serve jail terms. That is currently not the case as those
indicted are usually let off 'Scot free' while the victorious
candidates continue from where the usurpers stopped.
The snag with the possible realisation of this apparent lofty
dream would be that at the current level of our political
development, it would be a sort of utopia as those in positions
of authority, hardly push and pass legislation or rule against their
selfish interests. Regrettably, the pursuit of parochial interests in
Nigeria applies to the executive, legislative and the judiciary arms
of government equally.
The torturous process of pushing and passing the freedom of
information FOI, Bill that commenced during former president
Olusegun Obasabjo's reign spanning the period of late president
Umaru Yar'Adua before it was finally passed under the watch of
the immediate past president Goodluck Jonathan, is a typical
example of how bills that discourage government tyranny are
killed or discouraged.
Otherwise what justifies the delay of the passage of the FOI Bill,
which is in the best interest of Nigerians in excess of five (5)
years before passage but for the fact that the powers that be,
reckoned that it would give the media and civil society
organisations access into the inner recesses of government,
where inequities against society are sowed, nurtured and
harvested to the detriment of the masses. Exactly, the opposite
is the case in the advanced societies such as the USA, where
legislators pass laws granting the most vulnerable members of
society - children, women and some would argue, even dogs,
more protection than men, who dominate all arms of
government.
Hopefully, a day would come in our lifetime, when leadership in
Nigerian establishments, would attain such level of maturity that
policies and decisions would be made with the greater good of
the electorate as opposed to what's in it for the policy or
lawmakers as the motivation.
We can actually achieve that level of transparency in governance
by prescribing and following through with jail terms for members
of the judiciary and politicians, who abuse our electoral and
political processes no matter whose ox is gored.
So, it behooves the fourth and 'fifth' realm of the estate which is
the media and civil society respectively to compel authorities
through advocacy to push such legislation that might hurt their
selfish interests but in the overall best interest of the society.
Post a Comment