Follow Us on Google
Clem Aguiyi
The echoes of the February 23, 2019 presidential election are still with us and we are yet to hear the last of it. Domestic and international observers from Europe and America now and again have expressed outrage and disappointments with the conduct of the election which the main opposition claimed lacked transparency.
In a recent report released by the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), the centre observed that INEC was less transparent in the conduct of 2019 election than it were in 2015 and 2011 respectively.
The Centre described collation and tabulation of results from the polling unit to Ward Collation Centers as chaotic, open to manipulation and in some cases badly disrupted and opaque.
Ward level tabulation and collation is a critical aspect of an election process. How it was handled can increase or decrease the credibility of elections. Its disruptions and manipulations give opportunities for opportunistic political parties and individual candidates to dispute election results, hence the litany of cases before the various National and States Election Tribunals.
Section 138 of the Electoral Act as amended, provided grounds upon which an election may be questioned as follows: that a person whose election was queried was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election; that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non compliance with the Act; that the person was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election; that the person whose election is questioned submitted to the Commission affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in and for his qualification for the election.
The above section should be read conjunctively with Section 131 of the 1999 Constitution as amended which provided that a person shall be qualified for an election to the Office of President if he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth; if he has attended the age of 35 years; if he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by the political party and he has been educated up-to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.
Section 131 as above is the basis of the Presidential election dispute between the ruling APC and opposition PDP. Thus, each and every one of these laws requires proper interpretation. Every judge understands his/ her duty to interpret the wordings of the law and to dispense justice. Only a mystery will make the court to rule against the constitution hence the Tribunals must allow the laws as stipulated to speak.
Faced with similar situation, the Kenya Supreme Court did not shy away from the law. The Supreme Court of Kenya created precedent for the entire Africa when it nullified the 2017 presidential election for not meeting with the threshold of the law. Electoral laws like every law are meant to be obeyed if democracy will be preserved.
The Kenya Supreme Court in determining the petition on its merit held as follows: ‘A decision is hereby issued that the elections held on August 8 were not conducted in accordance it the constitution and the applicable law. The results are therefore invalid, null and void. Election is not an event but a process. After considering the totality of the entire evidence, we are satisfied that the elections were not conducted in accordance to the dictates of the constitution and the applicable principles’
The main reasons why the Supreme Court nullified the results were that the IEBC was not able to show that they had followed all procedures and that their servers were not hacked. The behavior of the IEBC has been suspicious and / or incompetent.
They made claims that could not stand technical scrutiny of the expert panel appointed by the Supreme Court. For instance, IEBC declined to provide the internal configuration firewall to its server, arguing that it will affect the security of their system. The technical team was able to prove that the integrity of the system would not be affected at all by providing the firewall configuration.
All of this, in itself, made the court feel that something was amiss and they ordered a re-election. In reality elections, as the Supreme Court observed, are a process. Winning elections is not about the Election Day, it is about planning and strategizing well in advance. It involves (1) ensuring that your people are in key positions, (2) your patronage extends to those who can make a difference, (3) you convince people that you will win and that will be in their interests.
For some time now, the Nigerian judiciary reputed to be among the world best and fearless has come under intense criticisms and attacks. Judges have been accused of corruption and perversion of justice.
As the nation awaits the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, will the judges redeem the image of the judiciary? Will they deliver judgment based on facts or will they further capitulate and thus sink further the hope of the masses?
The gravamen of the petition and cross petition before the Presidential Election Tribunal which must be determined by the panel of Judges bordered on the issues of qualification and corrupt practices. Judges understands their duty to dispense justice and to interpret the laws as it applied to specific issues. Can our Tribunals like the Kenyan Supreme Court allow the law to speak? The decision of the tribunal will go a long way to determine the stability of democracy in Nigeria. Citizens must remain calm and do nothing to further destroy the nation’s fragile peace.
• Aguiyi writes from Abuja via: [email protected]
