ENTRENCHING THE RULE OF LAW (11)
- Continued from yesterday
It has become imperative to amend the laws for speedy disposal of all post-election matters
The framers of our Constitution foresaw a situation where electoral contests would become subjects of disputes and provided remedies. Aggrieved persons have the option of going up to the Supreme Court, especially for presidential and governorship elections. That these remedies are being explored is gladdening. However, the crisis of confidence and lack of trust in the Nigerian electoral system has virtually transferred the onus of determining outcomes to the judiciary rather than the voters. These endless post-election litigations and protracted court processes, appeals and conflicting judgments on election related matters have infected the judiciary with the massive corruption that has become part of the brand identity of Nigerian politics. Citing examples of controversial judgments delivered by the Supreme Court on election related cases, Justice Dattijo spoke of how the public perception of the institution is now very low.
Ordinarily, the essence of judicial interventions in election matters is to promote democratic culture, strengthen the confidence of the people in the process and instill accountability in leadership. But by reducing our courts to vote counting stations with Judges now deciding the outcome of elections, allegations of deal-making and corruption are rife. That also bodes ill for democracy and the rule of law in Nigeria. To insulate our judiciary from being further dragged into partisan politics, we must deal with this aberration that has become the norm. That will require the collaboration of all relevant stakeholders.
Section 285 (6) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) states that “an election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition”. Meanwhile, the petitioners have 21 days after the date of the declaration of the result of elections to file. The law further provides that “an appeal from the decision of an election tribunal or Court of Appeal in an election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of delivery of judgment of the tribunal or Court of Appeal”. The combined effect of these provisions is that the declared winner would have spent no less than six months in office before the case is concluded.
Since judicial systems hardly rule in favour of potential anarchy, the time lag makes it difficult to upturn a presidential election in which the incumbent has already spent months in office. That explains why we have always advocated a situation in which electoral petitions are concluded before the swearing-in of winners, as it is the case in many African countries. In Kenya, for instance, it takes only three weeks between the date of declaration of presidential election result and the decision of the Supreme Court. Article 140 of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya provides that the petition should be filed within seven days after the result is declared and “within 14 days after the filing of a petition, the Supreme Court shall hear and determine the petition and its decision shall be final”.
The present arrangement in Nigeria is inherently unfair. The idea that post-election disputes should be disposed of long after the declared winner has been in office puts the judiciary in a difficult moral quandary. If they rule in favour of the incumbent, they are open to charges of compromise and possibly corruption. If they rule in the opposite direction, they would be deemed as advocating anarchy. The way out is to amend the relevant laws to enable a speedy disposal of all post-election matters well in advance of the commencement of the succeeding tenure. Only then can we correctly gauge the independence and integrity of the judiciary and ensure equality before the law in electoral disputes.
