Continued from Part 1
The card reader cannot replace the voters register, recognised by the constitution (The Supreme Court)
he Nigerian Judiciary, though constantly striving to redress wrongs and tilt the balance of that which is right, has recently had to face the backlash of misguided opinions fashioned without due consideration of the law and rationale for the system of government that we operate. The Judiciary is duty bound to act in accordance with the dictates of the law as it stands and not as critics would like it to be. In this sense, naive idealism is but a pale imitation of legal certainty... (The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed)
waited until the Supreme Court gave its reasons for upholding Governor Ikpeazu's election before continuing this article. The Supreme Court faulted the Appeal Court Tribunal in Owerri for not being properly constituted, and based on that flaw, the Appeal Court's determination of the matter amounted to lack of fair hearing of the governor's case.
As Section 139 of the Constitution states that where a petitioner complains of non-compliance with the provisions of the act, he has an onerous task of proving it, poling unit by poling unit, ward by ward, and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, and unfortunately, Dr. Otti and his Party, the APGA, failed here.
While commending the use of the card reader in the conduct of the 2015 elections, the Supreme Court noted that its solely purpose was to authenticate the owner of the voter's card and prevent multiple voting by a single voter, and not to replace the voter's card or voters register as recognised by the constitution. Meaning that the Appeal Court Tribunal erred by basing its decision on the alleged malfunctions of the card reader machines. The Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Mahmud Mohammed, further described those accusing the Supreme Court justices of corruption as being inconsiderate and ignorant of how the judiciary operates. The CJN noted that such criticisms are made without due considerations of the law and the system of government in Nigeria, and he stressed that the judiciary is duty bound to act and would continue to act in accordance with the dictates of the law as it stands and not as its critics would want it to be.
In a nutshell, the Supreme Court on Friday, February 26, 2016, ruled that Okezie Ikpeazu was duly elected as the governor of Abia State, and that Alex Otti failed to prove the allegations he brought against Ikpeazu's victory in the April 11, 2015, governorship election. Giving the reasons for its February 3, 2016, judgment in favour of Ikpeazu, the Supreme Court said that Alex Otti and his Party, the APGA, were unable to prove the allegations of over voting, violence and corrupt practices allegedly perpetrated by the respondents or their agents. On the issue of over voting, the court holds that there was no sufficient proof as the voter register and the card reader report were not tendered. The Court said further that the criminal allegation of corrupt malpractices carried out by PDP loyalists for the benefit of the governor was not also proved.
The Supreme Court condemned the cancellation of the election results in Obingwa, Osisioma Ngwa and Isiala Ngwa local government areas by the returning officers. In its words: "That action amounted to the disenfranchisement of voters. It was also inappropriate for the tribunal to order the cancellation of the election. All of this misappropriation only gave room for the unlawful declaration of the APGA candidate, as the winner, by the Court. Those actions were perversion of justice and the apex court could not have allowed them". The Supreme Court added that it was wrong for the Appeal Court Tribunal to have usurped the constitutional duties of INEC.
As it has ruled in similar but different cases, the Supreme Court maintains that the card reader cannot supplant the voter register. In its words: "The gadget is only meant to authenticate bearers of voter card and not meant to usurp the statutory power of the voter register. At the moment, the voter register remains the only authentic document as provided by Section 49 of the Electoral Act to prove allegation of fraud in elections''.
Further on the issue of the card reader, the Supreme Court based their ruling on the law and not on sentiments. Any fault, as regards to the issue of the card reader vis-�-vis the voters register, can be traced to the national assembly, as it didn't clearly make the distinction when it amended the Electoral Act. The Supreme Court, in noting why it ignored card reader reports or why it didn't accord any probative value on reports from Card Reader Machines that were deployed by INEC, during the 2015 general elections, maintained that though the use of the Electronic Card Reader Machine for accreditation of voters was provided for in the Approved Guidelines and Regulations for the conduct of the 2015 general elections, but that the device was never "intended to supplant, displace or supersede" the Voters' Register. The Supreme Court said further: "Thus, any attempt to invest it (the Card Reader Machine procedure) with such overreaching pre-eminence or superiority over the Voters' Register is like converting an auxiliary procedure- into the dominant procedure- of proof, that is, proof of accreditation. This is a logical impossibility indeed" (vanguardngr.com/2016/02/2015)
Ahuraka, while writing for Guardian, summed that the Electronic Card Reader Machine for accreditation of voters was provided for in the Approved Guidelines and Regulations for the conduct of the 2015 General Elections. Prior to the authorization of its use by the Guidelines, Sections 49 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) had adopted analogue procedure for the accreditation process. The National Assembly perhaps went to sleep by not amending the Electoral Act in order to replace the Voters' Register (analogue procedure) with the Card Reader Machine, in order to serve as the sole determinant of valid accreditation process. As I had stated above, the Judiciary or the Supreme Court can only decide any matter based on the facts and the laws of the country; even if they are defective. The legislature must enact laws in the interest of the nation to curb electoral malpractices and prescribe appropriate sanctions for perpetrators of electoral crimes. The executive must similarly accept responsibility for the fallout of bad conduct of elections in the country. No amount of pronouncements by the Supreme Court can end electoral fraud as long as members of the other two Arms of Government, by omission or commission, breach the laid down rules of the electoral processes.
The Supreme Court, as an institution to preserve democracy, didn't fail many of us with the way it handled the governorship election appeals that came its way. The Supreme Court is bringing sanity to a system that has been in disarray. Before the Electoral Act was amended in 2010, governorship election litigations ended at the Appeal Court Tribunals, and didn't go up to the Supreme Court. Knowing what we know now, many people who were sworn in as governors and were later removed, through the judgment of the Appeal Court Tribunals, might have been robbed of the mandate given to them by their people, because, the Appeal Court Tribunals have proved, by their bizarre judgments, that they weren't fair to all. The Appeal Court Tribunals have a penchant for ruling in favour of anybody who can buy the judges, and in that process, many elections must have been wrongly nullified or upturned, thereby denying the really winners their mandate. For instance: What would have happened, in the case of Otti Vs Ikpeazu, if the Electoral Act was not amended in 2010? Ikpeazu's mandate would have been stolen, and Otti would have been today the governor of Abia State, since the Appeal Court, from nowhere, declared him the governor elect. Then, about 400, 000 people, including Okezie Ikpeazu, his family, his village, his community and his local government, would have been disenfranchised. Who knows if Segun Oni, Agugu, Osunbor were robbed of their respective mandates, when they were removed as governors of Ekiti, Ondo and Edo States, after the 2007 governorship election, by the Appeal Court Tribunals?
Justice Mohammed, who is retiring from the judiciary after 38 years of service, wants to leave a legacy; he wants to change the image of the judiciary, and to make sure that it maintains its independence as an arm of the government as he leaves. Democracy came on board again in Nigeria in 1999, and all the states held the governorship election then on the same day. But due to the way the Appeal Court Tribunals have bastardized its rulings, governorship elections are no longer holding in all states of Nigeria on the same day. What happened? As I noted above, prior to the amendment of the Electoral Act, all governorship elections ended at the Appeal Court Tribunals. The Appeal Court judges, being men and women whose conscience can be bought, annulled many states' elections after people have already been sworn in as the governors of those states. Those annulments might have come months after the swearing in of those people as governors. What happened was that a new person was sworn in as a governor of a state, months after others in other states have taken office as governors of their respective states. The four-year term of those who were declared governors elect by the Appeal Court then started counting from the day they were sworn in belatedly, while their counterparts in other states have already stayed in office for months. So, when the four-year term of some state governors came to an end and a new election was slated, the tenure of those who were later declared winners of governorship elections in some other states, by the Appeal Court Tribunals, was still running, and ended many months afterwards.
See it this way: We have A, B, C, D, and E as the states of Nigeria. These states held their respective governorship elections in 1999 on the same day. Thereafter, governors were sworn in for the five states. But, some governorship candidates who lost in B, D and E states took their case to their respective States' Election Tribunal, and for one reason or the other, win or loss, the case ended up at the Appeal Court Tribunals which then upturned those governorship elections held in the B, D, E states, and declared the appellants from those states as governors. The appellants were then sworn in as governors of their respective states at different dates, depending on when the Appeal Court Tribunals delivered their judgment for each state. So, while A and C states held another governorship election in 2003; B,C, E states held theirs later in 2003 or even in 2004, because, their governors were sworn in months afterwards due to the ruling of the Appeal Court Tribunals, and this has changed the equation for almost forever. That was the reason Kogi and Bayelsa States held their respective governorship elections on different dates, months after so many other states held theirs in 2015. And still, that will be the reason Edo and Ondo States will be holding their respective governorship elections later this year. It seems abstract, but, I hope you can get the gist of my explanation!
The Supreme Court abhors disorder, because, the way the Appeal Court Tribunals were going about it, if the ugly trend was not checked, a time would have come when the governorship elections would have been held, in 36 states on 36 different days. That was the reason the Supreme Court refused to annul any election, when there's no proof beyond reasonable doubt, that the election of the person already sworn in as governor was seriously flawed. There's no perfect election anywhere; even in advanced democracies, elections are also flawed, but, the question is to what extent? We saw what happened between Al Gore and George Bush. If the flaw is so infinitesimal that it had no impact on the outcome of the election, the Supreme Court overlooked it in order to bring sanity to an already chaotic system. If a person wanting to unseat a governor couldn't prove his or her case, the present Supreme Court will see no reason to accord such a person victory or to upturn or nullify the election, not even for any amount of money.
To be continued!
TIT BITS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGTgAivTuYU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCIQYmzWQ-I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09G7XtKZqeY
THE THANX IS ALL YOURS!!!
Continued from Part 1
advertisement
