Election petitions and timelines
Font size:
maurice Iwu,INEC, Chairman
Judging by the conduct of last year's general elections which was characterised by massive irregularities and other forms of irregularities, it is obvious that the nation's democratic experience is still a far cry from the envisaged participatory civilian leadership.
Yet not many will doubt the fact that the process of addressing the disputations arising from the election has started producing positive results in the direction of our collective aspiration towards establishing a just and fair society where people-power reigns.
The judicial process being marshalled by the election petition tribunals in deciding the fate of contested election results has indeed renewed the people's faith in the judiciary in redressing contrived political wrongs and stabilising the nation's fledgling democracy.
So far, six state governors and many federal and state law makers have had their election 'victory' upturned by the tribunals to the delight of an applauding public. But even in the face of such encouraging spark, looms the danger posed by lack of a constructive time frame for the discharge of such petitions. It is not a positive signal that eight months into the life of this administration, there are still states where hearing is yet to begin on the petitions before some tribunals. Even in states where judgements have been given, challengers of such rulings are yet to have their day at the appellate court, a procedural requirement which comes before the final option of an election re-run where need be.
The danger in such delays and unnecessary rigmarole is that it is capable of eroding people's confidence in the credibility of the process. This is besides the enormous cost of sustaining long term sittings, a trend that is already been compared to the huge cost expended in organising the elections.
This is unlike what obtained in the Second Republic when petitions resulting from controversial election results were fully thrashed out before elected officials were sworn in.
No doubt, one of the major challenges of our electoral law is the fact that the absence of a justifiable duration makes the method of election petition considerations look like a circus, with no clear purpose.
While we rejoice that the judiciary is regaining its voice and independence as the last wall of defence for the common man, we also point out that the absence of timelines for the discharge of election petitions has brought into sharp focus the intractability of electoral problems of the last dispensation where adjudication in election petitions continued even towards the end of the administration.
In this regard, the Anambra State case where Governor Peter Obi was sworn in three years after the 2003 elections because of a prolonged adjudication process stands out. The implication of this is that the Anambra gubernatorial elections would be coming three years after regular national polling. The apparent lack of harmonisation of ongoing petitions in many states also point to the fact that more states might be sharing the fate of Anambra in conducting elections at different times.
Although some have argued that the idea of staggered election is a development capable of tackling the incidence of massive rigging, we are concerned that this might turn out to be counter productive.
Moreover, Nigeria's fledgling democracy is still too tenuous and fragile to handle such complex election arrangement that even advanced democracies are guarding against.
Of even greater concern is the feeling that prolonged and uncoordinated election petitions adjudication regime would expose the tribunal members to temptation from corrupt political leaders who peddle undue influence; a development capable of raising credibility questions on the administration of justice.
We therefore, expect and hope that the envisaged electoral reform which the Yar'Adua administration has identified as one of the major planks of his government will take care of this lapse in the electoral law.
The judicial process being marshalled by the election petition tribunals in deciding the fate of contested election results has indeed renewed the people's faith in the judiciary in redressing contrived political wrongs and stabilising the nation's fledgling democracy.
So far, six state governors and many federal and state law makers have had their election 'victory' upturned by the tribunals to the delight of an applauding public. But even in the face of such encouraging spark, looms the danger posed by lack of a constructive time frame for the discharge of such petitions. It is not a positive signal that eight months into the life of this administration, there are still states where hearing is yet to begin on the petitions before some tribunals. Even in states where judgements have been given, challengers of such rulings are yet to have their day at the appellate court, a procedural requirement which comes before the final option of an election re-run where need be.
The danger in such delays and unnecessary rigmarole is that it is capable of eroding people's confidence in the credibility of the process. This is besides the enormous cost of sustaining long term sittings, a trend that is already been compared to the huge cost expended in organising the elections.
This is unlike what obtained in the Second Republic when petitions resulting from controversial election results were fully thrashed out before elected officials were sworn in.
No doubt, one of the major challenges of our electoral law is the fact that the absence of a justifiable duration makes the method of election petition considerations look like a circus, with no clear purpose.
While we rejoice that the judiciary is regaining its voice and independence as the last wall of defence for the common man, we also point out that the absence of timelines for the discharge of election petitions has brought into sharp focus the intractability of electoral problems of the last dispensation where adjudication in election petitions continued even towards the end of the administration.
In this regard, the Anambra State case where Governor Peter Obi was sworn in three years after the 2003 elections because of a prolonged adjudication process stands out. The implication of this is that the Anambra gubernatorial elections would be coming three years after regular national polling. The apparent lack of harmonisation of ongoing petitions in many states also point to the fact that more states might be sharing the fate of Anambra in conducting elections at different times.
Although some have argued that the idea of staggered election is a development capable of tackling the incidence of massive rigging, we are concerned that this might turn out to be counter productive.
Moreover, Nigeria's fledgling democracy is still too tenuous and fragile to handle such complex election arrangement that even advanced democracies are guarding against.
Of even greater concern is the feeling that prolonged and uncoordinated election petitions adjudication regime would expose the tribunal members to temptation from corrupt political leaders who peddle undue influence; a development capable of raising credibility questions on the administration of justice.
We therefore, expect and hope that the envisaged electoral reform which the Yar'Adua administration has identified as one of the major planks of his government will take care of this lapse in the electoral law.
Add to:
del.icio.us |
Digg
del.icio.us |
Digg
Email to a friend
Print version
Plain text
Comments ( posted):
Post your comment