PRESS STATEMENT
SKC Ogbonnia+
Houston, Texas
October 21, 2016
The recent statement by the government of President Muhammadu Buhari to
reform the Nigeria’s electoral laws is in order. Any overture with a positive
attribute is always welcome. Yet, some might argue, and plainly so, that the idea
of electoral reform in the country is hardly novel and therefore far from the
solution. After all, despite the fact that Buhari’s immediate predecessors made
similar attempts that resulted to Electoral Acts of 2002, 2006, and 2010; the
Nigerian experience with election matters has remained a travesty of sorts.
But there is an array of hope. The current reform agenda is developing
to be uniquely salutary. In short, it appears our leaders are gradually coming
to terms with the pragmatic truth that Nigeria’s leadership problem has never
been due to the absence of laws. And it has never been any failure on the part
of the Nigerian people to recognize when and where the laws are broken.
Instead, it is the abject failure to implement the existing laws.
It is profoundly encouraging, therefore, to read that part of the terms
of reference of the present reform committee headed by former Senate President
Ken Nnamani is “to review recent judicial decisions on election petitions as
they relate to conflicting judgments and absence of consequential orders.”
Clearly, there has been a plethora of conflicting judgments as there is
the absence of consequential orders on election petitions throughout the 4th
Republic. The most obvious, of course, is the seemingly lack of consequences
for politicians who are found guilty of rigging themselves to power besides the
mere replacement with the rightful winners. But no election dilemma is more
mindboggling than the degree of inconsistency that exists in addressing the
petitions. Ultimately ripe for The Guinness Book of Records is a case that went
viral in the media not long ago. Referred to as Obiechina Vs Chime, it has been
languishing in the courts for the past 5 years. As if the delay is not enough,
instead of meeting it with some sense of finality when it came up at the
Supreme Court on 26th September 2016, the case was pole-vaulted
further to 14th February 2017.
Initiated contemporaneously in 2011 by Dr. Alex Obiechina, an Enugu
governorship contestant under the Peoples Democratic Party of Nigeria (PDP),
the petition is against the then State Governor, Mr. Sullivan Chime. The crux
of the matter is that the party officially scheduled and held its primaries on
9th January 2011, and Obiechina was declared the winner. For unknown
reasons, PDP jettisoned the result and conducted another election on 12th
January 2011 with Chime as its flag bearer.
Unfortunately, however, the PDP did not give a notice of 21 days to the
Independent National Election Commission (INEC), a condition required by the
Electoral Act of 2010 for re-conducting party primary elections—and a key
omission which the INEC itself openly admitted. Moreover, the PDP failed to
give the 7-day mandatory notice to aspirants as enshrined in the party’s
election guidelines. Despite various complaints from Obiechina, the then
national ruling party proceeded to submit Chime's name to INEC for the
governorship election in Enugu State in April 2011. Adding a more bizarre
element to the predicament is the audacity of INEC to conduct another election
in 2015 to the same Enugu governorship position while there were subsisting
pre-election cases before the courts.
Some legal scholars have worried that the stumbling block is ostensibly
hinged to the orbit of public perception. First, Obiechina did not stand for
the general election to the office he is attempting to assume. Second,
INEC has conducted another election in which another person, who is not
connected to the original case, has been sworn in as the governor of the same state
under review. But such concerns ought not to be. The law is the law. Besides,
there is a set of prevailing precedence. Not to play a judge here, for I am not
one, but two landmark cases: Amaechi Vs Omehia and Obi Vs Uba might have
pointed to a decisive outcome one way or the other.
So why such abnormal delays?
The answer is uncertain. It could be due to any manner of reason,
including the typical logistical problems, and so forth. And contrary to
popular belief, most members of the Supreme Court are people of virtue, who
have shown some level of independence in their careers and remain capable of
making bold decisions. Nevertheless, undue delays, regardless of the
circumstance, only go to fuel the widespread narrative that favourable court
outcomes, especially on election matters, are the sole province of the highest
bidders.
The judiciary is definitely not the lone culprit. Individual candidates,
the legislature, the executive, and the INEC itself flout electoral laws
without restraint. Section 91 of the Electoral Act of 2010, for instance, is
explicit on nature of campaign finance while Section 124 is specific with
bribery and applicable consequences. Yet, different shades of world currencies,
huge gifts, and honorariums from the politicians to traditional leaders,
religious leaders, electoral officials as well as the vulnerable voters have
defined recent election seasons. Worse still, the INEC is nonchalant about this
important issue of campaign money. As a matter of record, its then chairman, Prof.
Attahiru Jega, had to confess that even though the Electoral Act empowers it to
monitor sources and nature of funding, the “INEC does not even have a desk that
handles campaign financing.”
Still, any meaningful change in the electoral process must stare closely
at the judiciary. Envisioned as the beacon of hope for the citizenry in a
democracy, this organ of government has a special role to play. Not only is it
designed to provide the right ambiance as well as the confidence for the
equitable dispensation of justice, but it is also vested with the power to
guide the actions of all participants in the electoral process. But I do not
need to repeat here that the ordinary Nigerian people view the entire judiciary
as a daylight bugaboo. And you cannot blame them for such mistrust. The history
with conflicting judgments and the brazen lack of consequential orders, which
has cast a stark stain on the courts, does not emit hope.
Reforming Nigeria’s electoral laws is a holy grail, for sure. But the
Nnamani-led committee is in a vantage position to make a difference. Instead of
being bogged down with an entirely new Act, it ought to focus more on how
existing laws could be enforced. After all, a simple review of the latest
Electoral Act will show that the document itself sufficiently addresses current
electoral experiences, including offenses, and consequences. What is urgent,
therefore, is how to restore public confidence in the judiciary, beginning with
the courts dispensing the cases brought before them not only in a timely
fashion but also without fear or favour. Very essentially, any reform must
explore how best to ensure that judges render verdicts that readily translate
to serious consequences for electoral malpractices. Anything less is a
predictive vain hope.
Houston, Texas
USA
No comments:
Post a Comment