Help! Tribunals Are Hurting Democracy

 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