Follow Us on Google
Emeka Omeihe
At the inauguration of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, President of the Court of Appeal, Zainab Bulkachuwa who then doubled as chairman of the tribunal, gave a breakdown of petitions arising from the last general elections. According to the figures, out of a total number of 786 petitions filed from across the country, Imo alone had 76. This contrasts sharply with Jigawa state that had no single petition. It was on account of the high number of petitions arising from Imo state alone that six election petition panels were constituted to speed up the hearing process given time limitations for the disposal of such cases.
The message from the high number of petitions from Imo and the absence of one from Jigawa is clear. It raises some curiosity as to why a single state would generate such high number of litigations. Curiosity as to whether there is anything substantially different in the conduct of elections in the state that was a substantial departure from events in other parts of the country to justify such a deluge of litigations? Or is it suggestive of a thriving culture of refusal to accept defeat in elections, a culture that has overtime stood against the growth and nurturing of democracy on these shores?
At the level of the governorship election petitions alone; nine political parties had challenged the election of Emeka Ihedioha as duly announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC. Apparently realizing the wrong signals emanating from such an unwieldy number of petitions and in deference to concerns raised by well meaning citizens, six of the political parties involved in the litigation withdrew from the case. They cited among other reasons that they wanted to save the state the attendant distractions that would follow protracted legal disputations.
That left three others: the Action Alliance (AA) candidate Uche Nwosu, All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) candidate Godwin Araraume and All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Hope Uzodinma pursuing their petitions and seeking varying reliefs from the courts. In his petition at the tribunal, the AA candidate Uche Nwosu had asked for a re-run election on the ground that the winner, Emeka Ihedioha did not meet the constitutional requirement of spread in two thirds of the local governments of the state. In the alternative, he would have the tribunal declare him winner. The APGA candidate in his own prayer wanted the entire election to be cancelled and a fresh one ordered. But the APC candidate rooted to be declared winner of the election based on copies of results from 366 polling units out of 388 allegedly excluded from the final results declared by the INEC in the March, 9 governorship election. The petitions have run through the tribunal and the Appeal Court with verdicts affirming the election of Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP as lawful and in compliance with the constitution and the electoral Act. From all indications, the three have also proceeded to the Supreme Court seeking the upturning of the election on the ground that the rulings of both the tribunal and the Court of Appeal did not satisfy the course of ‘justice’
They contend that section 179 (2) of the constitution as amended which dwelt essentially on securing one third of the votes cast in two thirds of the local governments of the state was not met. Their sympathizers have taken liberty of the recent advice by the Chief Justice of the country, Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed against reliance on technicalities in the dispensation of election petitions, to insinuate that the rulings of both the elections petitions tribunal and the Appeal Court were merely based on technicalities. They have deployed the ubiquitous social media to give skewed interpretation that an advice of general application was essentially directed at Imo state.
But that is not the first time the issue of technicalities in elections petitions would make the media space even as its precise interpretation has been somewhat unclear. Justice Niki Tobi gave an illuminating summary on the issue when he said “a technicality in a matter could arise if a party quickly takes an immediately available opportunity, however infinitesimal it may be, to work against the merits of an opponents’ case. In other words, he holds and relies tenaciously unto the rules of court with little regard to the justice of the matter”
Could it be reasonably said that the proceedings of both the tribunal and the Court of Appeal paid scant regard to the justice of the petitions by the three litigants in the Imo governorship election petitions? Perhaps, the best approach to this inquisition is to undertake cursory proceedings of the three cases at both the tribunal and Court of Appeal. In doing this, it has to be noted that in matters of this nature, the burden of proof falls squarely on the petitioners. In order words, they have to prove the allegation that section 179 (2) was not complied with by INEC in declaring Ihedioha winner of that election. The court relies on verifiable evidence as opposed to hearsay.
But suffice it to say that both at the level of the tribunal and the Court of Appeal, all the issues canvassed by the petitioners were determined and judgment given. In the case of Uche Nwosu who came second in the election and was seeking a re-run on the ground of non-substantial compliance with extant laws on spread, he called a witness who failed to convince the tribunal that he has the requisite qualification to prove that the election outcome did not meet the requirements of spread.
He had claimed some qualifications but failed to produce them in court. Under cross examination, Nwosu admitted that he, his lawyer and the analyst sat together and prepared the ‘expert’ report that should be an independent opinion. The tribunal concluded that Nwosu’s expert was a mere sympathizer and dismissed the report as the concoction of three laymen who are not knowledgeable to testify on statistical data analysis.
Uzodinma who came a distant fourth in the election, failed to call any witness from the polling units, wards or local government collation centers to prove that the law requiring Ihedioha to win 25 per cent of 18 of the 27 local governments was not complied with. He just dumped on the tribunal the results of the 366 polling units he claimed were excluded by INEC which neither him nor his counsel could read.
The tribunal dismissed his case and this was upheld by the Court of appeal which also upheld a cross appeal to the effect that with respect to section 179 (3) (4) (5) only Uche Nwosu who came second can make a case regarding it. The implication is that neither Uzodinma nor Araraume is competent to canvass issues pertaining to compliance with section 179 of the constitution.
Araraume’s case was also determined. He called a witness whom the tribunal found lacking in the necessary academic grounding to undertake the rigors demanded in the very sensitive analysis of election results. It was also intriguing that the only witness Araraume called, the state collation officer predicated his evidence on events that took place in different parts of the state even when they were restricted to their polling units on Election Day. So the tribunal treated their evidence as mere ‘hearsay’
This brief is to show that both the tribunal and the Court of Appeal considered the cases of the petitioners on their merits and gave rulings on issues to the petitions. And in both rulings, they were unanimous in returning Ihedioha as the duly elected governor of Imo state. That is the situation now even as the petitioners have vowed to see to the end of it at the Supreme Court. The right of the aggrieved to seek redress at the courts is guaranteed by our laws.
So, the three petitioners are within their rights to proceed to the apex court as they have declared. But there is something very unsettling in three petitioners who came second, third and fourth seeking to upturn the victory of the winner. Apart from the huge funds that are expended on these litigations, the miserable impression created is that either Imo is home to do or die politics or mercantilism is the propelling force. Whichever the case, it does not speak well of us as a people. The efforts and funds dissipated in these litigations can be deployed to more productive ends for the good of our suffering people.
Omeihe writes from Lagos.
