By Andy Ezeani
Let no one deceive anyone; the
processes and structure of democracy in Nigeria are presently in grave danger.
There is no exaggeration in talking of a democracy in intensive care unit (ICU)
at the moment. The danger is clear, present and escalating by the day.
Unless there is a quick, drastic
containment of the excesses that have seized the democratic process in the
country, no special gift of clairvoyance is needed to predict an imminent
debacle. Smothering the pervasive voices of discontent and disapproval at the
widening corrosive abuse of the system, as seem to be the strategy of the
powers that be, can last but for a short while.
Excesses and abuse of the
basic rules of true democracy have always been identified with the political
class in Nigeria, it must be noted. Even at that, the unfolding scenario
presents more frightening prospects. Never before has the source of brazen
assault on the foundation of democracy been located not entirely with the
political class but around institutions established to water and defend
democracy. The emergence of the judiciary as a major source of concern for the
future of democracy in Nigeria is, by all means, a major problem.
The tragedy of some elements
within the judiciary turning into Brutus and striking the foundations of
democracy so ferociously and so repeatedly without qualms has become a
bewildering reality of Nigeria’s present. So now, where is the hope? Is there a
different, peculiar concept of democracy more suitable for Africa than what is?
Or is the problem that of mindset and a self-destructive pact with greed by
individuals? Who will save the judiciary from itself? Is the prevailing
rascality in sections of the bench a manifestation of freedom gone haywire, or
is it an expression of a new radical challenge to the structure of judicature
in the country?
Last week, September 6, 2023,
the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal [PEPT] finally gave its judgment
on the challenges by three political parties to the result of the February 25,
2023, presidential election, as declared by the Independent National Commission
[INEC]. The grains of the PEPT judgment are still being sieved across the land.
Scholars, jurists, political analysts and laymen are divided down the line on
the stance of the PEPT in many critical items in the petitions brought before
it. To many, there are disconcerting contradictions and curious glossing over
of key problems in the judgment.
To others, especially on the side that got a
favourable judgment, it was an erudite ruling. Not unexpectedly, the aggrieved
parties in the ruling, have given prompt notice to appeal the judgment. That,
it can be said, is an expression of faith in the system, even against the
growing cynicism towards the system.
Barely days after the release of the PEPT
ruling, with the dust still flying over the environment about the thrust of the
tribunal’s judgment, another tribunal upped the ante, as it were.
The Imo State National/State Assembly Election
Petitions Tribunal made a troubling entry into the scene, raising more dust as
it released a glaringly incongruous judgment on one of the cases before it.
What came from the tribunal has not helped the troubled image of the judiciary
in recent times. Sitting in Mararaba, Nasarawa State, and adjudicating on Imo
State matters, the Justice Akpovi-led tribunal sacked the Peoples Democratic
Party-elected member of the House of Representatives, Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere
Ikegwuonu, who represents ideato North and South federal constituency. Sacking
the legislator is not the problem. Election petition tribunals do such here and
there.
The problem is that, in doing what it had to do, as it appears,
the Imo State National/State Assembly Elections Petitions Tribunal
discountenanced all the earlier rulings by the Supreme Court and Appeal Court
relating to the matter. The tribunal did not seem ready to be swayed by any
facts that countered where it was headed. The tribunal has left an impression,
sadly, that made it a party to an outstanding political beef.
Just a few days earlier, the PEPT had ruled
against the challenge of Senator Kashim Shettima’s eligibility to contest for
office as vice president in the Tinubu/Shettima ticket on the basis that such a
petition can only emanate from the same party of a candidate and not from
another party. The Imo State tribunal obviously disagrees with that judgment.
But that is not even the main issue here.
The emergence of Ugochinyere Ikegwuonu as the
PDP candidate for the House of Representatives seat for Ideato North and South
constituency had been interestingly challenged, not within his party, the PDP,
but by the APC. And Labour Party, to an extent. For obvious reasons. The
activist had been a thorn in the flesh of the Imo State governor and his
government. That the powers that be in Imo will not want him to have a
political foothold in the state is given. But then, Ikegwuonu is quite a
popular political individual in his constituency and indeed much of Imo State.
And beyond. Anyway, the Supreme Court and the apex court ruled in his favour.
That was before the February 25, 2023, election.
Back in December 2022, the
Supreme Court had put the issue of the eligibility of Ikegwuonu as the PDP
candidate for the House of Representatives election to bed. Or so it seemed.
The court in a ruling by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, held, as was widely
reported then, that there must be an end to unnecessary litigation over the
matter, more so as there was no contention by any interest within the PDP over
the emergence of the candidate. The Supreme Court upheld an earlier judgment of
the Appeal Court giving the man a clean bill of health to contest the election
on the ticket of his party. These facts were availed the Imo State
National/State Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal. Apparently, the tribunal
would not have any of that.
In the election of February 25 for the federal
constituency in question, Mr. Ikegwuonu polled over 13,000 votes. The Labour
Party candidate got 5,000 and the APC candidate scored slightly over 2,000
votes. Not a few of the political opponents of Ikegwonu in Imo State must have
been smarting since his electoral victory. Enter the election petitions
tribunal.
The judgment that sacked Ikegwuonu last
weekend was based on what was called the faulty process through which he
emerged a candidate. Again?
The tribunal then directed
the Independent National Electoral Commission [INEC] to conduct a supplementary
election in some outlined polling units in the constituency, within a period of
90 days. How? Because a said margin of error between the runner up and the
second runner up was not enough to declare a winner. Hear, hear! For good
measures, the tribunal ruled that both Hon. Ugochinyere Ikegwonu and the PDP
are not eligible to participate in the supplementary election it ordered.
wonderful!
In creating the election
tribunals, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [As
amended], in Part 111,section 285,accorded the tribunals ample leeway to
adjudicate on electoral matters. By their functions and positions, the
elections petitions tribunals are expected to help justice prevail in electoral
contests. They are critical parts of the structures to nurture democracy on a
noble keel of justice. For sure, the Constitution did not and could not have
empowered election petitions tribunals not to reckon anymore with the laws of
the land or judicial precedents or specifically with the ruling of
the Supreme Court and indeed, other competent courts in the land. So what
exactly are the tribunals up to?
The ruling last weekend by the Imo State
National and State Election Petitions Tribunal as it concerns the Ideato North
and South Federal Constituency clearly comes across as awkward. Increasingly
people are beginning to wonder whether some election petitions tribunals have
also adopted the spiteful disposition of asking those who are whimsically
short-changed from getting justice to “go to court”.
*Ezeani is a commentator on public
issues
No comments:
Post a Comment