After the eruption of euphoria for declared winners and disappointment for losers in the last national elections, the struggle for political power has shifted to the courts....CONTINUE READING
The shift is a natural consequence of the rule of law. All aggrieved parties who hold that they have been short-changed in the polls have always been encouraged to go to court and prove their case….CONTINUE READING
In Nigeria’s recent history, courts have always been inundated with cases of aggrieved parties after elections. In 1979, Chief Obafemi Awolowo of blessed memory went to court after he claimed that the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), which gave the late Alhaji Shehu Shagari its flag, cheated its way into being declared winner.
He had gone to court to argue that Shagari did not win in two-thirds of the then 19 states in the country, given that he scored only 19.94 per cent in Kano rather than 25 per cent. Shagari’s lawyer, Chief Richard Akinjide, proved to the panel of seven Supreme Court judges that two-thirds of 19 was “12 two-thirds,” not 13 as Awolowo wanted the court to believe.
The Federal Electoral Commission (FEDOCO), according to Chief Obafemi Awolowo, had erroneously declared Shagari winner. Shagari polled 5,688,657, while Awo polled 4,916,651, but the latter wanted to capitalise on the technical point of constitutional requirement to torpedo that election.
Shagari, a gentleman who actually wanted to be a senator but was persuaded to fly the flag of the NPN, won the elections on that seeming technical reason for which the Supreme Court noted that lawyers should never make reference to it as a precedence. It was, indeed, the legal mathematics of Chief Richard Akinjide that prevailed. The authors of the 1979 Constitution may have assumed that that two-thirds of 19 is 13, since it is the nearest number but they never envisaged the kind of situation that arose. The court came to the rescue for a constitution that attracted amendment. Nigeria’s current 36 states amount to a round number, distinct from the situation in 1979.
But another unforeseen situation has arisen, perhaps unexpectedly. If the Federal Capital Territory gets the treatment of a state, should votes cast there also get the same treatment? A candidate did not win two-thirds of the votes there and it has become a subject of litigation. I do not know what the court will decide, but it should elicit an amendment to the affected laws to make everything explicit. However, I am minded to urge the court to look away from technicalities and dwell on substantive issues. My opinion may stem from the prism of a layman but the matter is one of national importance, for which justice should not only done but must be seen to have been done.
Views that election matters ought to be dispensed before any winner is sworn into office sound logical. Such views have reasoned that asking people to vacate office when they have already been sworn into office is an aberration. The implication being that such a person has enjoyed the undeserved benefits of the office, the more reason such should never happen. The way out would be to place a time limit to election matters, one that must end before the tenure elapses. Leadership, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Another leader must step into the shoes of another to avoid a vacuum and prevent a rudderless state. In the absence of a political head at the Presidency or the gubernatorial level, there would be the unconstitutional situation of an interim government, a situation the court shot down in the days of late Ernest Shonekan as Head of State. It amounted to conglomeration of illegalities at that time, given that it was an illegal military government that also put together another unconstitutional interim government that was yet removed by another unknown means of government. Thankfully, Nigeria has exited that era and should never look back there.
That dusty road of illegality stands to be prevented when the rule of law prevails. The starting point is that justice must be dispensed and must be seen to have been done in the fastest time possible. Some issues have emanated from the judiciary that have raised eyebrows but they also show that human beings are not infallible. I am still dumfounded about the matter in Bayelsa, in the 2019 elections, where a winner was shown the way out of the swearing-in arena on account of an offence committed by his running mate. I have long put up the necessary caveat that I may be operating from a point of ignorance, which is why my view on the matter may be naïve. However, it looked to me like another child received the elder’s knock for the fault of another. Additional seeming incongruity happened in Imo State, where the court was convinced that some votes were not counted, which it counted and appropriated to a candidate who was lifted from the fourth to the first position. There was a dissenting judgment but the majority had its way. I must confess that the beneficiary of that judgment has acquitted himself creditably. He seems to have paid the people with accelerated infrastructural development, especially in road network.
Again, the nation has literally returned to the courts to affirm or reject people whose election amount to an imposition, given that the process is an aberration. Congratulations to Governor Ademola Adeleke of Osun State. The dancing and performance continues. We look up to the courts….CONTINUE READING
