Agbakoba Decries High Cost of Filing Election Petitions, Calls for Review
As Nigeria prepares for the 2019 General Elections, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Senior Counsel, Human Rights Law Service (HURILAWS), Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, has expressed concern, about the process of dealing with complaints and resolving election disputes in the country.
Agbakoba decried the high cost of filing and procuring relevant documents for Election Petition Tribunals in the country, and called for a reduction in the cost.
Agbakoba, who was represented by HURILAWS’ Senior Legal/Programmes Officer, Collins Okeke, disclosed this last Thursday at the public presentation of a report “Judicial Application of Election Petitions at the 2017 Anambra State Governorship Election Tribunal”.
Using 2017 Anambra State Governorship Election Tribunal as a case study, the Senior Advocate said the cost of filing election petitions at the Anambra Tribunal cost the sum of N400,000, lamenting that this high fee could discourage potential petitioners ahead of the 2019 polls.
According to him, the process of dealing with complaints and resolving election disputes, is critical to the survival of any democracy particularly a fragile one like Nigeria.
“HURILAWS believes that, in addition to observing/ monitoring the voting process, attention must also be paid to the process of managing pre and post-election disputes, because the tribunals/courts represent the confidence of the people, not only in the electoral process, but also in the rule of law; and the non-existence or malfunctioning of the tribunals/courts, will lead to the electorate and the political class, settling political scores through unconventional means.
“Since 1999, HURILAWS has been involved in advocacy, for reforms of the election conflict management process in Nigeria. HURILAWS has advocated for a principled, effectively-managed, and disciplined Election Petition Tribunal.
“In furtherance of this, HURILAWS has developed the practice of observing proceedings at the Election Tribunals, to identify problem patterns and issues with the court system and propose potential solutions, as well as hold the justice system accountable.
“Today, HURILAWS is presenting to the public, its most recent report from observing the election tribunal process, following the 2017 Anambra Governorship election.”
According to the report “out of the 37 candidates who participated in the November 18th governorship elections, only three candidates filed petitions before the Election Tribunal. The candidates at the election, who came 2nd and 3rd, were expected to have had some fighting chances at the Tribunal given the reasonable number of votes they also garnered, chose not to challenge the outcome of the election.
“It was even more cumbersome for the Petitioners, to establish the corrupt practices they alleged as having marred the election because, as candidates of less popular political parties, who were largely self-funding, they could not muster enough financial muscle to deploy the massive array of evidence and witnesses requisite to upturn the apple cart, as it were”, it stated.
The report stated further: “Filing of an Election Petition at the Tribunal, attracted filing fees as assessed by the Registrar and security for costs of N400,000. This high cost of filing Election Petitions and prosecuting them might have discouraged some potential petitioners, given the large number of candidates (36) that stood for the 2017 governorship election in Anambra State. Candidates, having expended so much during the election campaign, were usually in very tight financial circumstances at the stage of election petition, so unless such candidates have huge financial muscle as an incumbent, they would really be discouraged from venturing into the capital intensive project of Election Petition”.
Aside calls for a reduction in the cost of litigation for election petitions, HURILAWS in its report, also made recommendations on expanding the rule on non-compliance, access to election materials, and the burden and standard of proof, among others.
“It is therefore, recommended that, it would be fairer to reduce the standard of proof where a Petitioner is alleging corrupt practices against the conduct of an election, to proof on a balance of probabilities. In this case, the onus can shift to the Respondent, where a Petitioner has volunteered reasonable evidence that warrants rebuttal evidence by the Respondent.
“The cost of litigating or prosecuting an election petition, is usually heinous, starting from the procurement of relevant election documents, to use as documentary evidence, to the hiring of competent legal representation. The Petitioners herein, obviously could not afford the cost of securing the CTC of the election documents, to support their petitions.
“On the issue of access to and high cost of procuring relevant election documents needed for election petitions, it has previously been suggested by this writer that, INEC should immediately after announcing the result of an election, make available at no cost, certified copies of all relevant election documents to all the political parties, to facilitate fair challenges against the election outcome. Alternatively, certified copies of such documents, may be made available by INEC to the National Library, which will in turn issue at nominal cost, recertified copies to any person who wishes to have them, be it for election petition, research, or other personal or public purposes”, it stated.