Avoiding the Pitfalls in Election Tribunals
With the conclusion of the 2015 elections, the battle has now shifted to the Election Petition Tribunals. But in avoiding the pitfalls that characterised previous tribunals, stakeholders in the justice sector must brace up for the challenges this time. Da
As it is customary, with the conclusion of the general election in all the states of the federation, all is now set for Election Petition Tribunals to commence sitting across the country. These tribunals are expected to correct the anomalies arising from the elections by examining alleged irregularities by aggrieved candidates and pronouncing judgments on them.
Incidentally, the electoral umpire, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), realising that there was no way it could conduct absolutely perfect elections, has advised aggrieved politicians to take their grievances to the tribunals, and desist from discrediting the process and the commission.
Based on this admonition and as at last count, hundreds of petitions had already been filed before the various tribunals by litigants. For now, it is expected that the judiciary will once again rise to the occasion and prove that it is truly the last hope of the common man.
To ensure that the petitions arising from the elections are disposed of on time, each of the 36 states in the country will likely have two tribunals each to adjudicate over disputes relating to the national and state houses of assembly as well as the governorship elections. Incidentally, this year, like in 2011, the tribunals legally have 180 days to conclude hearing on all the petitions before them unlike 2007, where petitions lasted for more than three years.
Already, stakeholders in the polity feel that all the painstaking efforts made to ensure credible elections by INEC could be rendered futile if corrupt judges are allowed to repeat what happened in the 2007 and 2011 elections. To these stakeholders, now is the time for the allimportant third arm of government to begin to put its house in order to avoid a repeat of the pitfalls it ran into after the 2007 and 2011 general election, where it not only subjected itself to ridicule, but condemnations from majority of Nigerians. The stakeholders argued that for the electoral process to be credible, it is not only INEC that needs to do what is right, the judiciary needs to correct any wrong or flaws noticed in the process.
One area many analysts are looking forward to seeing the tribunal judges improve on is procrastination. Over time, petitioners have had cause to accuse judges of the deliberately wasting away the 180 and 60 days as stipulated by the Electoral Act for them to conclude sitting.
Before the enactment of the law stipulating 180 days at the tribunal and 60 days at the appeal tribunal for petitions to be determined, cases used to take as long as three years to be concluded. This made the National Assembly to insert Section 134 (2) in the 2010 Electoral Act, which compels the tribunals to give judgment within 180 days from the date of filing a petition.
But now, the new complaint by petitioners is that judges connive with respondents to delay the case in order for it to run out of time. Part of the allegation is that judges frequently dismissed petitions on technical grounds rather than on merit.
Another area where the tribunal judges have been advised to critically look into is the incoherent and some times, incongruous judgments which emanated from the courts in the past. Observers want the current judicial officers to come up with verdicts that would address and redeem the image of the judiciary in order for Nigerians to have confidence in the electoral process and further complement the efforts of other democratic institutions to ensure that the political process is as solid as it is in any advanced democracy of the world.
The analysts argued that many of the verdicts by the tribunals and the Courts of Appeal after the 2011 elections were below expectation and that a lot of petitioners and appellants were denied justice. They therefore want the verdicts this time to further strengthen the belief of the international community that democracy is finally taking roots in Nigeria.
In 2011, for instance, some petitioners were denied justice on technical grounds rather than on merit. It was for this reason that a renowned constitutional lawyer, Professor Ben Nwabueze (SAN), at a public function in Lagos, criticised the quality of the pronouncements of some judges, accusing them of allotting governorships and legislative seats at their whims and thereby diminishing the tenets of justice cum constitutional democracy.
Another area where stakeholders want the tribunals to carefully examine is the doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt which Election Petition Tribunals and Court of Appeal have used in the past to deny petitioners or respondents victory.
At a lecture themed: “Crisis of Election Petitions and Decisions”, organised by Obafemi Awolowo Institute of Government and Public Policy in Lagos recently, another constitutional lawyer and Professor of Law, Professor Itse Sagay, faulted the much celebrated doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Sagay added that the concept does not have a place in election petitions. He stated that the burden of proof that an election was not free and fair should be a responsibility that should squarely rest with INEC and not the petitioner.
According to him, the essential thing to do is to “just disregard the invalid votes, count the valid votes and declare the true winner. It is only if the perpetrators of election crimes are to be tried that the doctrine of beyond reasonable doubt becomes relevant.”