Editor, Politics/Features, EMEKA ALEX DURU, looks at issues and reactions trailing the Supreme Court judgment on election petitions against some state governors.
Could the Supreme Court have been guided strictly by the law or exigencies of the time in the series of judgments it had rendered in recent times in which governors whose elections were challenged had them upheld?
This was the question that trailed the verdicts of the Justices of the apex court last week, as all the cases before them were resolved in favour of the governors.
Supreme Court speaks
Among the governors that had their mandate affirmed by the court were Abiola Ajimobi (Oyo), Ifeanyi Okowa (Delta), Dave Umahi (Ebonyi), Nyesom Wike (Rivers), Udom Emmanuel (Akwa Ibom) and Okezie Ikpeazu (Abia). Earlier, the court had upheld the election of Rochas Okorocha (Imo), Samuel Ortom (Benue) and Akinwunmi Ambode (Lagos), among others.
But, perhaps, the judgments that had elicited mixed reactions the most were those on Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Abia states. Governors of the three states, incidentally, belong to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Another remarkable point was that the apex court and its pronouncement on their cases, upturned the earlier verdicts of the Court of Appeal that were not favourable to the governors. The panel of judges, headed by the Chief Justice of the Federation, Mahmud Mohammed, had in a unanimous judgment, on Wednesday, February 3, upheld the election of Emmanuel and Ikpeazu, adding that they would give reasons for their verdict on February 15 (for Akwa Ibom) and February 26 (for Abia).
Before the turn of events, the Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri had on December 31, 2015, removed Ikpeazu as Abia governor. In his place, that court had declared Alex Otti of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) as the actual winner of the April 11/25 governorship poll in the state.
Delivering judgment in an appeal filed by Otti against an earlier tribunal judgment in favour of Ikpeazu, the five-man panel, headed by Justice Oyebisi Omoleye, had held that the APGA candidate scored 164,444 valid votes to defeat Ikpeazu who scored 114,444 votes.
Petitioners go to court
Otti had after the declaration of Ikpeazu as the winner of the polls by the Independent National electoral Commission (INEC), approached the State Election Petitions Tribunal, alleging irregularities at the poll.
He had specifically challenged the result of the election in Isiala Ngwa, Osisioma and Obingwa local government areas, where there were instances of massive electoral fraud by PDP.
His prayer was for the tribunal to nullify Ikpeazu’s declaration and declare him the rightful winner of the poll.
After months of intense debates and presentation of documents by both parties, the Justice Usman Bwala-led Tribunal dismissed his petition and upheld Ikpeazu as the winner of the poll.
It was on this basis that Otti approached the Court of Appeal which rendered judgment in his favour. But with the Supreme Court judgment on Wednesday, his hopes of being pronounced governor were extinguished.
The scenario in Abia was slightly different from those in Rivers and Akwa Ibom. In Rivers, both the tribunal and appellate court had cancelled the election of Wike and had ordered a re-run.
The action was based on petitions by All Progressive Congress (APC) governorship candidate in the state, Dakuku Peterside, who had alleged irregularities and electoral malpractice against the governor and his party in the governorship election.
When the tribunal, which curiously sat in Abuja, delivered its verdict annulling Wike’s election and ordering re-run, the governor appealed the judgment. The Court of Appeal, however, dashed his hopes when it upheld the judgment of the tribunal. It was in furtherance of his appeal that the governor rushed to the Supreme Court, which eventually affirmed his election.
In Akwa Ibom, petitions from APC candidate, Umana Umana, against the election of Emmanuel had seen the tribunal sitting in Abuja, as in the case of Rivers, annulling results in 18 out of the 31 local government areas in the state. It ordered a re-run in the affected councils.
The governor’s attempt at upturning the verdict hit the rocks on December 18, 2015, when the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja upheld the earlier verdict of the tribunal. But by Wednesday, the governor was freed of all legal entanglements to his election by the Supreme Court.
Nigerians react
The final position by the apex court on the issues drew comments from lawyers and analysts. While some interpreted the Supreme Court’s action from the angle of strict interpretation and application of the law, others maintained that the justices might have also pandered to the political exigencies of the time.
Lagos lawyer, Babatunde Ibidun, who spoke to TheNiche, approached the matter from three angles.
“There is the fact of law, there is the fact of precedent and there could be the fact of national interest. The judges are not Father Christmas (Santa Claus); they adjudicate based on the evidences before them. They cannot give you what you did not ask for. They must have arrived at their judgment on the basis of presentations by the parties involved. This is the fact of law. They may also have delivered their judgment on the basis of how such incidents or related issues may have been handled in the past. That is fact of antecedent.
“In addition, being the highest court in the land, whatever its pronouncement on any issue becomes part of the laws of the land. In that case, the Justices of the Supreme Court are usually meticulous in delivering their judgment. Perhaps, in doing so, it may not be out of order to consider national interest. These considerations may have accounted for the position taken by the judges on the affected states. But since they have announced dates to give reasons for their judgment, I suggest that we give them time and refrain from speculations,” he said.
A Political Science lecturer in Nnamdi Azikiwe University (NAU), Awka, who spoke with TheNiche, swore that the Supreme Court justices took their action in affirming the governors to prevent the country from sliding into a one-party system.
“If you have observed clearly, you would notice that the affected governors belong to PDP. Upturning their election would trigger panic in the system. Don’t forget that this is a system where people do not play politics on the basis of ideology. Annulment of any election would make other governors cross over to the ruling APC to avoid being messed up when they would be going for second term. Though I am not a lawyer, I am convinced that the judges must have taken their action on the need to ensure stability in the system,” the don who pleaded anonymity said.
APC kicks
Taking an entirely different position, however, APC had suspected foul play on how the judges arrived at their judgment. National Chairman of the party, John Odigie-Oyegun, had, shortly after the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the election of Wike and Okowa, called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to institute probe on the judgments. The APC chairman had particularly lamented that with the judgment, PDP is now in control of the oil-rich Niger Delta.
Following last Wednesday’s judgment upholding the election of Emmanuel of Akwa Ibom and Ikpeazu of Abia, the party had revisited the matter, this time, more forcefully.
In his social media, Facebook, post on Thursday, February 4, Lagos APC spokesman, Joe Igbokwe, had taken a critical view on the judgment, insinuating underhand engagements.
“All things considered, I join well-meaning Nigerians, including National Chairman of APC, Chief John Oyegun, to ask the Federal Government led by President Muhammadu Buhari to set up high-powered panel of inquiry to investigate the Supreme Court judgments on Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Abia states. My mind tells me that something went wrong at the Supreme Court. It will amount to the highest form of naivety for anybody to think that Supreme Court is divorced of corruption. The Supreme Court judges are Nigerians too and we all buy from the same market. I see something bizarre at the Supreme Court. If gold can rust, what will iron do?” he lamented.
Similar expressions of misgiving had been raised by supporters of the party across the country, especially on the Supreme Court’s outing on Rivers and Akwa Ibom.
However, Kaduna-based lawyer, Abdulazeez Ibrahim argued that though he felt the APC had a good case, the party lost out because the card-reader, a major plank of its argument, has no legal backing.
He stressed that when the card-reader was introduced in the build-up to the 2015 election, the seventh National Assembly ought to have amended the Electoral Act for its recognition. But since the lawmakers failed to do so, the Supreme Court has subtly pointed it out by reversing all the judgments of the Appeal Court which relied on it for its decision.
He said, by the decisions, the apex court justices had communicated the message that the seventh National Assembly was responsible for the cases APC lost.
According to him, the justices of the Supreme Court did not want to set a precedent of allowing politicians the room of introducing innovations during election and refusing to do the necessary legislative work on them.
PDP hails verdicts, tackles APC
Governors elected on the platform of PDP, however, welcome the judgment while taking a swipe on APC and Oyegun, especially in criticising the Supreme Court justices.
The PDP governors, while reacting to Oyegun’s outbursts, said rather than uniting Nigeria, the APC is more interested in who controls the resources, so as to use it as an instrument of cronyism.
They stressed that Nigerians need to begin fervent intercession for the APC and its chairman for God to deliver them from their dangerous inclinations to plunge this country into fascism.
History at play?
The current debate on the propriety of the Supreme Court upholding the election of the affected governors would not be the first of its kind in the country’s contemporary history. In 2007, following complaints of irregularities in the election that brought late President Umaru Yar’Adua, by Buhari, then, the Presidential candidate of the defunct all Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), the Supreme Court had admitted that the exercise was flawed, but upheld the election in consideration of national stability. Could that be the situation now?
