I have often said that, to the Nigerian political class, nothing is too sacrosanct that it cannot be sacrificed on the altar of politics. That much seems to be playing out now. After the various elections petition tribunals gave their verdicts, many citizens have taken to judicial bashing. Elections, by the way, have always been quite contentious in Nigeria. This is not because contestants are too eager to serve the society, but more because politics remains one of the shortest cuts to extreme and often inordinate wealth, power and fame.
So far, the most earth-shaking of the verdicts by the election tribunals, going by the reactions, has been that of the Rivers State governorship elections tribunal. Penultimate Saturday, it nullified the election of Governor Nyesom Wike and ordered fresh election within 90 days. To be sure, this isn’t the first time a tribunal would nullify the election of an official, let alone a sitting governor. In the last few years, we have witnessed where Oserheimen Osunbor (Edo), the late Olusegun Agagu (Ondo), Segun Oni (Ekiti) and Olagunsoye Oyinlola (Osun) got sacked outright when the tribunals reversed their elections and ordered their opponents to be sworn in. In the present instance, the tribunal only ordered fresh elections, which Wike still stands the chance of winning, as did Liyel Imoke in Cross River some years back.
Also by the provisions of the Electoral Act, where the tribunal nullifies an election, the person who was earlier declared as elected has up to 21 days to appeal the judgment and when the party appeals, he/she remains in office until the appeal is determined. If the person chooses not to appeal, then he/she can remain in office until the 21 days lapse. Therefore, Wike has 21 days from the date of judgment to remain in office or, if he appeals, until the Appeal Court delivers judgment!
Even if he still loses at the Court of Appeal, Wike still has a chance at the Supreme Court. It is only when all those processes are exhausted that Wike may leave office and fresh elections conducted. Even if fresh elections are conducted, he will still be a candidate, which means he still stands a good chance to be properly elected governor. It is therefore disturbing that many people have taken to unnecessary dimensions in celebrating or condemning the tribunal’s decision.
The above facts ought to be made known to citizens by the managers of the major contestants to the Rivers governorship position. I therefore find it disturbing that rather than focus on the legitimate means to addressing the judicial issue, many have resorted to attacks on the judiciary and appeal to sentiments. It is okay to be disappointed with a tribunal judgment; it is within a person’s legal right to challenge the judgment through an appeal, but it is uncivil to accuse a tribunal of being compromised merely because its decision was against some person’s expectation.
This sudden attempt at putting tar on the Nigerian judiciary, again due to political contestation, must not be allowed. It is detrimental to the Nigerian state whenever we attempt to denigrate an institution simply because it suits our immediate interests and whims for the time being. I watched on a national television network where residents of Rivers went on protest against the judgment of the tribunal. What was that? Who gave them the temerity to do so? The parties to the election petition know what and where to go, if they are dissatisfied – Court of Appeal.
But should we blame the ordinary folks that much? Even some lawyers interested in the outcome of each of these election petitions have been heard speaking contemptuously about election tribunal judgments, where their expectations were not met. So have some state officials, apparently afraid that the butter on their bread may soon be scraped off. I have even seen some of them appear on live television discussion programmes and attempt to sit as an appellate court on judgments of tribunals. I understand such feelings. They are similar to how some people also feel when their preferred candidates lose in the election. In such a situation, it never really matters whether or not the process was free and credible.
This trend of condemning, dismissing and disparaging a tribunal or court ruling, not on the basis of law, but for emotional reasons, is truly worrisome and must be condemned. No doubt, the judicial process is not infallible. So, sometimes, there may be wrong judgments given. But the system also has a process for judicial review, without rancour. The judiciary is a major pillar for deepening democracy. We cannot afford to pull it down for our selfish reasons, otherwise democracy suffers.