•Suswam The 2010 electoral reform was designed, among other things, to stamp out or reduce the delay in justice dispensation in electoral matters. However, the Electoral Act now allows appeals in governorship election matters to go up to the Supreme Court. KAMARUDEEN OGUNDELE reports on governorship suits still pending, 10 months after last year’s elections.
IT is the highest court of the land. Supreme. Many young lawyers quake and quiver before their lordships. Prior to the last amendments, governorship petitions terminated at the Court of Appeal. But, now, their lordships at the apex court are given a look-in chance.
Ten months after last year’s governorship elections, many cases are still pending before the Supreme Court.
The Election Tribunals established pursuant to Section 285 (1) of the 1999 Constitution to hear petitions arising from disputed election results and the Electoral Act 2010 stipulate 180 days for them to hear and determine election petitions. By the same Act, the Court of Appeal is mandated to hear and determine appeals arising from the judgments within 60 days.
In all, the petitions arising from governorship elections have 240 days or eight months maximum to get to the Supreme Court.
Governorship elections were conducted on April 26, 2011 across the country except six states of Kogi, Sokoto, Adamawa, Bayelsa and Cross River where the governors were riding on the back of tenure elongation to continue to enjoy their offices.
Election was also not conducted in Edo State because it was not four years yet that Governor Adams Oshiomhole assumed the reins of office. So it was in Osun, Anambra, Ekiti and Ondo. So, governorship elections were held only in 26 states.
There are many petitions awaiting final determination. They have also been dodged with tricks and controversies over the handling of the petitions. Lawyers have adopted different tricks and strategies to gain advantage over their feuding parties. In a few cases, there have been outright frustration of the petitions which had led to the determination of the petitions on technical ground rather than considering the merit of the cases. Some cases have been sent back to tribunal for retrial by the apex court for different reasons.
Kebbi: CPC vs PDP
The Supreme Court on November 9 restored the petition filed by the governorship candidate of the Congress for Progress Change (CPC), Malam Abubakar Abubakar, back to the Kebbi State Election Petition Tribunal for further hearing and determination.
Abubakar had approached the apex court challenging the decision of the Sokoto division of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his petition against the April 26 electoral victory of Governor Saidu Usman Dakingari of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Ruling, Justice Francis Tabai who led other four Justices of the apex court, observed that: “Paragraph 14 (1) of the Third Schedule of the Electoral Act 2010 subscribes the type of application that comes by way of motion. This application was filed before Paragraph 47 (1u)u of the third schedule of the Electoral Act was enacted.
“There is a conflicting judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in this matter. This appeal succeeds and therefore sets aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal. I therefore order that the matter be restored back to the Election Petition Tribunal in Kebbi State”.
At the time the Supreme Court gave the order, the CPC and Abubakar had barely four days left for the tribunal to wind up.
The petitioners had during a pre-hearing session at the governorship election petition tribunal sitting in Birnin-Kebbi, Kebbi State filed their case through a letter.
The tribunal allowed it on the ground that the provision of the Electoral Act which does not support the procedure came after the process was already filed.
But the Court of Appeal ruled otherwise, saying the application for pre-hearing notice ought to be through a motion.
Adopting their briefs of argument, the petitioner’s counsel, Kola Awodehin (SAN) urged the court to allow the appeal, adding that the justice of the case requires that the petitioner should be given a fair hearing.
According to him, election petition matters do not concern the interest of an individual, but that of a larger society and cannot be sacrificed for technicalities.
Opposing, Dakingari, through his lawyers led by Yusuf Ali (SAN) and Damian Dodo (SAN) urged the apex court to dismiss the appeal saying that justice must be done at all times according to the law.
Benue: ACN vs PDP
The Supreme Court, on November 14, ordered the re-trial of the election petition of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) candidate in Benue State, Steve Ugbah against the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Governor Gabriel Suswam.
It also remitted that of the ACN candidate in Akwa Ibom, John Akpanudoedehe back to the tribunal for retrial.
Udoedehe is challenging the victory of the PDP candidate, Governor Godswill Akpabio.
The petitioners alleged that the elections in the two states were fraught with irregularities.
In a unanimous verdict by the five-member panel, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Dahiru Musdapher, upturned the decisions of the Court of Appeal which dismissed the petitions on technical ground.
The apex Court held that the petitions could not have been dismissed on mere technicalities pointing out that pre-hearing notice can be done orally.
Ordering that the petition should be heard on its merit, Justice Musdapher said “the justice of the matter is that the appeals be remitted back for hearing on their merits. I don’t know why judges should go on with the basis of pre-hearing conference alone to dismiss a petition without hearing it on its merit. Matters must be decided on their merits...
“They just want to take an easy way out to finish the matter, we will say no to it. Democracy is the number of people who vote for A or B, let justice be done.”
According to him, the appeal is limited to whether section 47(1) applies in the appeal, adding, “the appeal succeeds and it is hereby ordered that the tribunal should hear the appeals on their merits, denovo.
Delta: DPP vs PDP
The Supreme Court has fixed March 2 for judgment in the appeal by the Delta State Democratic Paoples Party (DPP) candidate, Great Ogboru, seeking to overturn the January 6, 2011 governorship re-run election in Delta State.
Ogboru who is challenging the victory of Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan in the January 6, 2011 re-run election is asking the apex court to hear his case afresh and pronounce him winner of the election.
The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal had dismissed the petition of Ogboru on the grounds that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him. The Appeal Court sitting in Benin, Edo State, last November upheld the decision by dismissing his appeal.
Justice Doris Uzoamaka Ugwurike had, in her judgment held that, “The burden lies on the petitioner to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt.” Affirming that this was not done, she dismissed the petition.
Asking the apex court to invoke its power under Section 22 of its Act, Counsel to Ogboru, Dr. Joseph Nwobike, told the court to hold that the Appeal Court cannot deliver a valid judgment without giving reasons for same.
He stated that the court delivered its judgment against his client on January 5, 2012 and did not give reasons for it until January 27, 2012 when the 60 days allowed by the law for him to appeal had lapsed. This, he said, robbed his client of the 14 days allowed within which to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The first appeal was against the decision of Appeal Court. The second is against the failure of the court to give reason for its January 5, while the third notice of appeal is challenging the court for not giving reasons within the time allowed.
The court consolidated the 1st and 2nd notices of appeal while allowing the third one to stand on its own.
Counsel to Governor Uduaghan and INEC, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Adebayo Adenipekun (SAN) respectively argued that the appellant does not have any valid appeal before the apex court having not put the grounds of appeal in his 1st appeal-SC/18/2012.
Olanipekun said the appellant wants the Appeal Court to arrest its judgment by asking the apex court to hold that not giving reason for its judgment makes the judgment invalid.
Imo: PDP vs APGA
The Supreme Court has also fixed March 2 for judgment in an appeal by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against the electoral victory of Imo governor, Rochas Okorocha.
The apex court fixed the date after parties adopted their brief of argument before Justice Walter Onnoghen-led five member panel.
Okorocha won the election on the platform of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). But the PDP candidate and former governor Ikedi Ohakim is not a party to the suit.
The appellant’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) ,urged the court to set aside the judgment of the Appeal Court which affirmed the decision of the Governorship Election Petition that declared Okorocha as the duly returned governor. According to him, Ohakim won the lawful majority vote.
But counsel to Okorocha, Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN) urged the court to discountenance the submission.
He submitted that the witnesses called by the appellant at the tribunal supported the position of the Respondents that there was no election in parts of the state, hence the need to conclude the election.
Besides, he argued that the burden of proof is on the appellant and not the Respondent.
Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN), agreed with Akintola and urged the court to dismiss Ohakim’s appeal.
Citing a Supreme Court decision in CPC v Jonathan and others, Izinyon argued that since Ohakim, the PDP candidate is not a party to the case, “the appeal is dead on arrival”.
The PDP is asking the apex court to nullify the result of the supplementary election held on 6 May 2011 and declare it the winner of the election. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the petition.
Okorocha was declared winner of the election after he polled 336,809 votes as against Ohakim’s 290,496 votes. The total votes polled by each of the candidates represent the cumulative votes cast on the first poll which held on 26 April and the supplementary election of 6 May, 2011.
After the release of the result by INEC and declaration of Okorocha as governor, the former governor congratulated the governor-elect. He also assured the Imo people that he would not challenge the result in court.
Dissatisfied, the PDP filed an application at the Election Petition.
The Tribunal upheld Okorocha’s election.
Rivers: APGA vs PDP
The case of the candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Sir Celestine Omehia, challenging the election of Governor Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi in the April 2011 governorship election is also back to the tribunal for retrial.
The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt had ordered the Rivers State Election Petitions Tribunal to retry the case.
The tribunal chaired by Justice Amina Wambai had on July 28 this year thrown out the petition on the grounds that it was not properly filed, pointing out that the suit was not filed as a motion but a letter written to it through its secretary.
But, Omehia, who came second in the April 26 governorship election in Rivers State, had vowed to pursue the case further.
No comments:
Post a Comment