Follow Us on Google
Although Kenya’s brand of democracy may not be perfect, the swiftness with which the Supreme Court of the East African country dispensed justice on the presidential election petition filed by the opposition leader, Raila Odinga, deserves commendation. In less than one month after the conduct of the election, the Supreme Court delivered a scathing judgment which unanimously upheld the victory of William Ruto to the delight of many observers.
Chief Justice Martha Koome, who heads the seven-member Supreme Court, did not mince words to dismiss some affidavits which alleged cheating against Ruto. She variously described the allegations as double hearsay, nothing more than hot air and a wild goose chase. According to her, some of the computer logs presented as evidence were either from 2017 election or outright forgeries. Ruto is billed to be sworn in today, September 13, as the fifth President of Kenya.
Curiously, four out of the seven members of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) had rejected the result of the election amid claims of rigging. But the head of the electoral commission, Wafula Chebukati, insisted that the election was free and fair. Justice Koome described the situation as a boardroom rupture among the commissioners and called for reforms at the IEBC.
The swiftness of this judgment is in line with Kenya’s electoral law. It stipulates 14-day timeframe for dispensing with election petitions. Though short, the period ensures that justice is not delayed on election petitions as justice delayed is justice denied.
Nigeria’s own case is quite different. Section 285 of the 4th alteration of the 1999 Constitution stipulates 180 days for dispensing with presidential election petitions. Ideally, election petitions should be concluded before swearing in of any candidate. But our own drags for so long and leaves the litigants exasperated. The last election petition which the presidential candidate of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2019 presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, filed against the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari dragged on long after the election and swearing-in of the President. The election was held in February 2019 but it was not until late October of the same year that the Supreme Court delivered the final judgment. The case first went to election tribunal (Appeal Court) and finally to the Supreme Court.
Sometimes, the court’s verdict leaves sour taste in the mouth. From the 1979 presidential election case between Shehu Shagari’s National Party of Nigeria (NPN) and Obafemi Awolowo’s Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), to the 1983 case between Waziri Ibrahim’s the Great Nigerian Peoples Party (GNPP) and Shagari’s NPN, down to the 1999 presidential election petition filed by Olu Falae’s Alliance for Democracy/All Peoples Party against Olusegun Obasanjo’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), it has been from one delayed controversial ruling to the other. Nigeria needs to take a cue from Kenya on swift dispensation of justice with regard to election petitions. One good thing about this particular case in Kenya is that after the verdict, we didn’t hear of skirmishes. The supporters of the winner, William Ruto, were measured in their excitement and Odinga’s supporters were not violent. Odinga himself said though he had reservations about the ruling, he would respect it. Many other influential figures in Kenya hailed the ruling. This is unlike the violence that trailed the disputed elections of 2007 and 2017. It is also unlike ours where winners see losers as enemies that must be crushed. In this election, Kenyans won, not just Ruto.
We urge President Uhuru Kenyatta who is backing Odinga to sheathe his sword and accept the situation. He and Odinga should congratulate Ruto and cooperate with him to ensure a smooth handover of power. What is paramount is the future and well-being of Kenyans. Good enough, Odinga’s petitions have helped to deepen democracy in Kenya. They have helped in engendering some reforms in the electoral process such that the last election of August 9 was largely peaceful and credible.
On his part, Ruto should be magnanimous in victory. It is apparent that the ‘dynasties’ as Ruto called his opponents, are not happy that the ‘hustlers’ upstaged them. He should treat all the people equally and ensure that both the ‘hustlers’ and the ‘dynasties’ come together for the good of Kenya. In any case, Raila and co. have no choice because this judgment is final.
The Supreme Court in Kenya has shown that it is reliable. Apart from the current case, the judgment of the presidential election petition of 2017 also served the course of justice. Though it is not easy when an incumbent government is involved in election petitions, the apex court had asked for a rerun because of some noticeable malpractices in the first poll in which the incumbent President, Uhuru Kenyatta, won. Eventually, Kenyatta was still re-elected.
We commend Kenya’s judiciary for being truly independent. Democracy finds it footing when there is a strong judiciary; a judiciary that stands firm and refuses pressures from the powers that be.
Nigeria also needs a strong judiciary that cannot be compromised. The election cases of the upcoming 2023 general election must be expeditiously dispensed with. Justice must not only be served but must be seen to have been served. There should be no room for technicalities. The will of the people must be allowed to prevail.
