Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike must have been greatly relieved when the Supreme Court last Wednesday confirmed him as the rightful winner of the 2015 governorship election in his state. The Apex Court upheld the elections of Wike with a unanimous decision by a seven-man panel whose lead judgment was read by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun. Not-withstanding that the details of the judgment will not be available until February 12, 2016, it is only fair at this point for Wike’s critics including this column to congratulate him for emerging victorious in the laborious venture called election in Nigeria.
Similarly, the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja had earlier reversed the judgment of the Taraba State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal which sacked Governor Darius Ishaku of the People Democratic Party, (PDP). In a unanimous judgment, the appellate court panel headed by Justice Justice Abdul Aboky held that the tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction when it invalidated Ishaku’s election on the premise that he was not validly nominated by the PDP. We similarly congratulate Ishaku
Both governors have since commended the judiciary for their pronouncements. While Wike described his triumph at the Supreme Court as victory for democracy, rule of law and a confirmation of God’s backing for his election as governor, Ishaku said the court verdict shows that the Judiciary is for all Nigerians and not for “selective citizens.” Considering that the two governors either by themselves or by their spokes persons had earlier condemned the judiciary at a point when the decisions were not in their favour, it would appear that the qualities of the judiciary are usually seen by only the politicians who win their cases. This is what puts a question mark on the value to be placed on the new posture of the Governors. The point to be made is that Nigerian politicians are not good players of the game of election as they always abuse and raise several insinuations against judges whenever decisions are against them.
Arc.-Darius-Ishaku
A good democrat won’t do that; rather he would follow due process by ventilating his grievances through the due process designed for the game. When Governor Ishaku lost at the tribunal, he stated through his Chief of Staff, Rebo Usman that the judgment “plunged the state into chaos which led to wanton destruction of lives and property.” Such delinquency could only have been done by those the judgment didn’t favour. In addition, Ishaku was still State Governor at the point with an obligation to prevent the unwholesome behaviour. Did he? If not, would it have been right if the opposition party had organized a similar reaction to the reversal of the earlier decision which was in its own favour? Consequently, it seems quite rational to commend the then Governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress, Aisha Jummai Alhassan, for adhering to the rule of law. She and her party deserve it more.
The situation in Port Harcourt is not different. The previous attitude and disposition of Governor Wike and his aides were not salutary. They openly castigated the judiciary and indeed ran their own of form trial as they publicly commented on the proceedings of the tribunal in a manner that was purely prejudicial. Accordingly, no one knows how far they would have gone if the Supreme Court had dared to rule against them. It is hoped that the opposition party which has in the end lost the case will write its name in gold by constraining its members from taking the laws into their hands. Nigerians will similarly deprecate their actions if they do otherwise. Incidentally, the two states are in opposition to the government of President Buhari at the centre. It is a matter of inspiration that the President has taken no step to follow the old order in which the party in power emasculates the judiciary to act in its favour or to disregard court decisions. It will be recalled that he was the loser in the convoluted election petitions of 2007 which many believe were bought by the government in power. The decision of the President to nominate Alhassan as a Minister seems to suggest that he had as a good player accepted from the beginning the results of the election in Taraba State which his party lost.
To some extent, the judiciary ought to be commended for keeping its head cool in the face of undue provocation by politicians. As the Chief Justice said at a point, it is regrettable that Nigerian politicians attack judges over corruption and bribery allegations and look away when “thugs enter courts to beat judges, tear court processes and bomb the courts to prevent the delivery of some judgments.” In spite of all these and the negative reactions of politicians to unfavourable judicial decisions, it is worthy of note that those who abuse judges are among those who finally win their cases. The Nigerian judiciary thus deserves commendation for refusing to be vindictive. Such glory should however not go to the few corrupt judges that are often used to win or lose elections. Indeed, there is the need to device strategies that can make Nigerian elections look like what happens in great nations-strategies which render unnecessary the rather critical intermediary roles that are played by non institutional actors.
Nigerians must no doubt look with hope to very few election petitions as a result of a sanitized election process. A major aspect of this sanity refers to judicial decisions that the ordinary man understands-social and not technical justice. For example, if an allegation made against a candidate is being contested, it is better to find out if the allegation is true or false, instead of engaging 15 Senior Advocates to establish that the allegation was ill-timed. Perhaps a better example comes from Ondo State where a petitioner proved that there was injection of unlawful names into a voters’ register which worked against him. Interestingly, the state governorship election tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that it was a pre-election matter. Finally, let us do away with “inconclusive elections”
0 Comments