On a number of occasions, I have had cause to interrogate the country’s electoral justice system in terms of both efficiency and result. In all the autopsy, not really diagnosis, done by me, I have found shortfalls/drawbacks in the electoral justice system. I recall that in some of my prior interventions, I have derided the use of technicality to defeat the cause of justice in electoral disputes.
Since that time and date, no remarkable progress has been made in eliminating this bottleneck. In fact, rather than the situation being alleviated, it is degenerating. As the Yorubas will say, kaka ki o san lara omo iya aje, lile lo n le si which literally translates to mean that rather than the situation improving, it is getting worse. My quarrel that time in respect of this anomaly was grounded on the utilization of the strict provisions of the Evidence Act in the dispensation of justice in electoral disputes. In my humble view, that adoption of the evidential rules has perpetrated more of injustice than justice.
The development was part of the reason then that a lot of petitioners, that is, the aggrieved candidates in an electoral contest, justifiably deprecated the electoral justice process. Unfortunately, because the petitioners could not understand the way and manner the process works, they tend to visit this inadequacy of the process on the personalities involved in the adjudicatory process. This, I suspect, was the commencement of the insinuation, real in some few instances, that judges compromise their positions. A petitioner typically will find it difficult to digest why he complained of manipulation of results and there was need to ascertain the number of ballot papers in the box but for some strange rules to him, it was resolved that a certain rule renders it impossible to effect any counting of ballot papers.
Again, historically also, the petitioner would find it difficult to comprehend why the witness’ statement of his witness would be rejected or thrown out, simply because there was no tendering of the original version alongside the translated version, when in reality the witness was available in court to regurgitate the content or fetch the original. By and large, under the then 2010 Electoral Act and the associated regulations, the technical rules, particularly that of the Evidence Act were largely a debacle to electoral justice. As a result of this impairment of electoral justice due to technical rules, I had, at a point in time, advocated the use of jury system in the resolution of electoral disputes. This, I believe, will engender the required flexibility crucial to the attainment of justice in election petitions. I am also not oblivious of another suggestion in some quarters that arbitration or mediation be adopted. To this I am not sold knowing that politicians by their very nature are not that much of team players or philanthropists nor charitable so as to share the office with another person, more so when most times, only an individual can occupy the contested seats.
Part of the drawbacks of our electoral justice system was the duration in which the petitions linger on, hence the curtailment of the maximum period in subsequent enactments, to the extent of even incorporating the limitation period in the Constitution. Today, we have a supposedly updated law dubbed the Electoral Act, 2022 with its rules of procedure as well as guidelines by the electoral umpire. To what extent the new law has enhanced electoral justice is not the focus of this intervention but suffice to just cursorily state that while it has resolved some challenges, it has simultaneously succeeded in creating others. For instance, the determination of what is pre-election and what is not, remains blurred in the areas of qualification or disqualification to contest, courtesy largely of the inconsistent decisions of our courts. That this area had birthed so much injustice is an understatement and it is only hoped that at a point, more light and stability will be enthroned in this regard. Just recently also I had cause to agitate the distinction between nomination and sponsorship of a candidate before the appellate court, and again, I could see that there is still dearth of knowledge in appreciating this dichotomy in this area of our electoral jurisprudence.
Hence, it is hoped at a point that this conceptual confusion will be clarified convincingly and conclusively. With this background, I now progress to my destination which is essentially the evaluation of the administrative innovations of the Court of Appeal in the dispensation of electoral justice in the country. It is not in my character to unduly heap fulsome praise on people as this is stock-in-trade of sycophants, hence I avoid discussion of personalities, good or bad. However, in recent times, it is becoming inevitable for me not to make exception to this position of mine as I realize that it is important not only to appreciate some personalities struggling to make a difference in this our beleaguered system but to spur them on. It was in this context that I had discussed the contributions of the one-time chief executive officer of the Nigerian Ports Authority and current Special Adviser to the President on Policy Coordination, Hadiza Bala Usman as well as the current Commissioner for the Environment in Lagos State, Tokunbo Wahab. This time, I am acknowledging and appreciating the leadership of the Court of Appeal as typified by the duo of the President, Hon. Justice Monica Dongba-Mensem and the Chief Registrar of the Court, Mr. Umar M. Bangari.
Since the assumption of office of these leaders, I have observed their genuine efforts at responding to the challenges of the court both in terms of the administration of justice and its efficiency. Let me state clearly that one might not agree with all the reforms that have been initiated by the leadership of the courts; and it might not even have achieved the ultimate objective or desire, but the reality is that anyone can note the impressive efforts being made towards responding to the challenges of the court. In Nigeria, this is exceptional as most times, what one discovers is a situation where most leaders turn deaf ears to the agitations and cries of the stakeholders, and often times regard such as undue criticism bordering on condemnation. Suddenly, if you now discover some exceptions to the business-as-usual approach, one cannot but shout ‘halleluiah’.
This is more important in the area of the administration of justice in which the court is perceived as the last hope of the common man. As recently opined in my last intervention, the practice around the adjudicatory process is beginning to assume the semblance of a truly lost hope of the common man, apologies to Chidi Odinkalu. As I remarked in that piece, beyond the allegation of corruption, the rules of court in themselves are self-defeating of justice, coupled with other issues of infrastructural deficit and incompetence of some of the adjudicators and administrators.
The seeming failure of the justice system is inevitably converting the country into a jungle, and little or no wonder that self-help is already trumping the rule of law. This drift certainly is not sustainable and urgent interventions, I dare say is desirable and compelling. It is in this regard that I commend the latest move of the President of the Court of Appeal in reconfiguring the process of selection of the adjudicatory panels of the appeals thereby insulating the justices from political influence and pressure. I am sure that the act of the displacement of the traditional or conventional venue for the determination of appeals in the areas where they emanated from, through the relocation and restriction of the seats of hearing to only the capital and the commercial capital of the country, Abuja and Lagos, is unsettling to a lot of politicians and other stakeholders. This is a development that is radical and shocking to the political class.
Not only is this centralization engendering effective coordination, the assemblage of Justices in these places with no information of which panel any of the Justices is sitting, nor the case they are adjudicating on, has staved off largely the preliminary incursions and intrusions of the political class. Now, Justices, to a large extent, are able to focus on what is placed before them without the influence of any person. With this approach, I am of the view that, to a large extent, the allegation of compromise will significantly reduce. I am not, by this saying that we have attained Eldorado in the pursuit of justice in this regard but strongly acknowledging the gigantic move that we have made by that singular act made possible by the wisdom of the leadership. The point being made, without absolutely conceding that our Justices are corrupt, is that even those few with tendencies to compromise the process are not only now destabilized by the innovation but are not opportune to effectuate such desire.
No system is ever perfect, so where there is still some slip in the innovative process, it is simply human. At least, it is not out of no interest in birthing the best for the system by the leadership but would be as a result of natural human failing. Friends and foes now sit together in panels. In addition to the above, efficiency is now brought to the appellate adjudicatory process as not only tracking is being done, there is ever a standby panel to handle the cases before expiration.
It is like a task force system addressing the deluge of cases. In no distance, I reckon that the court would have efficiently disposed of all the appeals and return to regular cases. Kudos to the Justices themselves that are sacrificing their lives and everything for the assignment in the national interest. One only hopes that the least the system can do by way of appreciating their diligence and hard work is to urgently address their welfare in all ramifications. I must not also fail to register the attempt of the court to reduce, if not eliminate the stalling of cases through interlocutory appeals by the amendment to the court rules under this leadership. The court however possibly needs to strengthen the provision as the lower court seems unable to appreciate the import of the new provision that allows them continue adjudication of the substantive suits where such interlocutory appeals do not impact hearing of the substantive suit. Clarity in this provision is urgently required. By way of conclusion, may I also note the change in the appearance of the staff of the court in all respects. Beyond the dignifying physical appearances, I commend the ongoing reorientation of their behaviors, courtesy of the Chief Registrar. I am not surprised about the reforms of the vibrant and energetic young man as I know he is a product of the National Judicial Council where, to a large extent, things still work and staff are innovative and result-oriented. Well done! With this positive attitude of the leadership of the court, there is hope that we will get there gradually if we are consistent.