|
Sokoto Appeal Court Election Tribunal: Matters Arising By Aliyu Sahabi Bodinga (Esq.)
The 2007 general election in Nigeria has come but not yet gone. The euphoria that greeted the election, both nationally and internationally, is attested to, among other things, the rate at which the results of the said election are daily reversed by Nigeria’s Judiciary. Nigerians are abashed with update revelations on how politicians collaborated with INEC and security agencies to truncate the country’s nascent democracy. By 2007 general election, it was not the electoral procedures and votes that counted, but INEC was unilaterally declaring winning candidates as par directed from above. More worrisome is the fact that inspite of its brave efforts at restoring public confidence, the Judiciary faced an enormous challenge of professionally discharging its responsibilities on the electoral cases brought before it and few compromising elements on its bench. In quiet a number of electoral cases, fingers are pointed at the Judiciary for either frustrating, delaying legal procedures and judgements or passing dubious judgements to either further complicate issues or favour one of the parties involved. One relevant case that has been undergoing this INEC-Judicial manoeuvring is that DINGYADI VS WAMAKKO. This is but an election petition that is lingering ever since 2007 general election. When will the Judiciary muster professional courage to expressly solve the Sokoto legal puzzle, only time will tell. The case all commenced with the petition by DPP and its gubernatorial candidate, Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi, challenging the eligibility of Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko, to contest the April 14, 2007 election on the ground of dual sponsorship by both ANPP and PDP. It was also alleged that the acclaimed deputy governor, Mukhar Shagari, was wrongly nominated and that he did not undertake oath of contest to that political office at the stipulated time. Surprisingly, both Wamakko and Shagari had screened and cleared by both INEC and relevant agencies prior to the election. It is this kind of unprofessional attitude exhibited by agencies entrusted with these kinds of sensitive duties that retarding the wheel of progress of our democratisation process. No wonder, when the case reached the Court of Appeal Kaduna, it was established that (a) Wamakko’s nomination was faulty and not in accordance with the 2006 Electoral Act (b) Shagari did not comply with the provision of the extant Law requiring him to undertake an oath of contest at an appropriate time (i.e. before and not after the election). According, the Court ruled, among other things, that: (a) Wamakko was not qualified to contest the gubernatorial election as at April 14, 2007 (b) Fresh election shall be conducted within 90 days (c) the fresh election shall be between the same parties and candidates as appear on Exhibit R8 (d) the Speaker of the State House of Assembly shall be sworn-in as Acting Governor of the state pending the outcome of the fresh election. The judgement is significant in that it has set aside the initial verdict of the Election Tribunal that unanimously considered the issues raised by petitioners as ‘pre-election matters’. It also established the level of non-compliance of Wamakko and Shagari with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006. Furthermore, the judgement hit hard at INEC in its leading role of conniving with a particular political party, thereby rendering it biased umpire in electoral matters. Perhaps the most significance aspect of the judgement was order for the fresh election among parties and candidates as they appeared on Election Results Sheet (Exhibit R8). It’s here that the whole master manoeuvring was concocted to further ensure that Wamakko retain his seat as governor of Sokoto state. Legal experts, particularly Chief Gani Fawehimni and Professor Sagay, were outraged by the double standards adopted by the Court. How could Wamakko be deemed not qualified to contest an election by April 14 and then be qualified to contest same by April 16 (date election result became a legal document)? Hence, no sooner Justice Balkachuwa and Colleagues passed the verdict, than public analysts and legal experts began to demand for the interpretation of the judicial pronouncement thereby made. In line with its policy of connivance with a particular party, INEC hurriedly organised the fresh election in the state on May 24, 2008 without waiting for clearer interpretation of the dubious Kaduna judgement. As planned, Wamakko was returned as governor of the state.. Later, an Election Petition Tribunal was set in respect of the bye election. Dingyadi and DPP raised same issues bordering on illegibility of Wamakko to contest the bye election, having been found ineligible to do so as at April 14, 2007; afterall, the bye election is a continuation of the general election, requiring no further screening by INEC or agencies. Thus, it was argued that since Wamakko was found ineligible to contest the April 2007 general election, he remains permanent disqualified in the bye election, which is legally an extension of the former. Hence, Dingyadi prayed that he be sworn in as the rightful governor of the state. On February 18, 2009 the Bye Election Tribunal passed its judgement, divided between Majority and Minority voices. The majority judgement by Honourable Justices A.M. Haliru, B.E. Agbatah, and G.K. Kaigama, dismissed the petition the ground inter alia: “We uphold the objections of all Respondents counsel on all issues relating to jurisdiction and abuse of Court Process and therefore hold that we lack the powers to make pronouncement on the merits of the reliefs sought or granting them. In the end the appropriate order to make is to dismiss the petition in its entirety and hereby do so. The petition is therefore hereby dismissed.” On the other hand, the minority judgement of two members of the tribunal-Hon Justices N. OKoronKwo and E. O. Ahamioje- disagreed with the majority decision to say that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter by virtue of section 145 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act 2006 which gives the tribunal the jurisdiction to inquire into whether a person whose election was questioned at the time of the election was not qualified to contest the election; in this case the 24th May 2008 election in Sokoto state. On the issue of abuse of Court process, the dissenting judgement also disagreed with the majority, as the issues before the tribunal and those before the Federal High Court are radically different. Having exhausted these preliminary issues, the minority judgement went further to examine the issue of qualification of Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko to contest the 24th May 2008 election, which is the main issue in contention. Accordingly, by virtue of the Court of Appeal’s decision which led to the re-run election, Aliyu Wamakko of the PDP was not qualified. Their argument is understandable to even layman since the April 14, 2007 election was annulled due to irregularities in the form of multiple nominations, lack of proper sponsorship and lack of valid running mate with regard to the purported winner of the election, Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko of the PDP. Therefore, a fresh nomination ought to have been made to INEC, if PDP had actually wanted him to be its candidate. This is by virtue of section 32 (7). The two judges also quoted section 177 and 187 (1) of the 1999 Constitution which they said apply to general election such as the April 14, 2007 election, which was annulled by the Court of Appeal and ordered a fresh election within 90 days. The new election ordered was in the opinion of the dissenting judgement a bye-election which is a continually, and directly related to, 2007 general elections. In arriving at their dissenting decision, Okonkwo and Ahamaije (JJ) listed some authorities some of which are sections 32 (1) – 32 (7) to buttress their argument. Section 32, which contains the main reason, reads as follows: Section (1) Every political party should not later than 120 days before the date appointed to a general election under the provisions of this Act, submit to the Commission in the prescribed forms, the list of candidates the party proposed to sponsor at the elections Section (2) The list shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by each candidate at the High Court of a state, indicating that he has fulfilled all the constitutional requirements for election into that office Section (3) The commission shall, within 7 days of the receipt of the personal particulars of the candidate, publish same in the constituency where the candidate intends to contest the election
Section (4) Any person who has reasonable ground to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit is false may file a suit at the High Court of a State of Federal High Court against such a person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the Affidavit is false
Section (5) If the court determines that any of the information in the affidavit is false the court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting
Section (6) A political party which presents to the commission the name of a candidate who does not meet the qualifications stipulated in this Section commits an offence and is liable to conviction to a maximum fine of N500,000
Section (7) Every political party shall not later than 14 days before the date appointed for a bye-election by the commission submit the list of candidates from the party for the bye-election
After a cursory look at the above section, the dissenting judges in their decision believed section 32 (1) applied to only to a general election such as was held on 14thth April 2007, but section 32 (7) applies to the case of bye-election or special election, that is where an election was cancelled and a new one held. Also, according to them section 32 (7) as opposed top section 32 (1) provides or affords the 1st respondent and the political party sponsoring him very ample opportunity of remedying or rectifying whatever errors were found by the Court of Appeal in the nomination of 1st respondent (Aliyu Wamakko) for the April 14, 2007 election and to correct same in the 24th May 2008; it is this opportunity which he did not take that made all votes cast to him null and void, because they were scored in favour of a party which has not actually sponsored any validly nominated candidate; hence decided that the petitioners petition succeeds. Consequently, the judges made the following orders: 1. The 1st respondent not being validly nominated as at 24th May 2008, was not qualified to contest the governorship election for Sokoto state held on May 24, 2008 2. The 562,395 votes recorded for the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent and its agents at the said election are void and wasted 3. The 1st petitioner scored majority of lawful votes at the governorship election having scored 124,046 votes and also scored not less than one quarter of the lawful votes cast in at least two thirds of the Local Governments Areas of Sokoto state 4. 1st petitioner is entitled to be returned by the 3rd and 4th respondents as having been duly elected Governor of Sokoto state in the governorship election held on 24thth May 2008 5. The 1st petitioner shall forthwith be sworn in as Governor of Sokoto state 6. There shall be cost of N10,000 for the petitioners Dissatisfied with the decision in the majority judgement, the petitioner went on Appeal to the Court of Appeal for redress. It has unfortunately been observed that ‘election petition tribunals in northern Nigeria always give verdicts that seem watery and confusing to the generality of the people. These are distinct from the decisions handed down by their counterparts in the South...’ Recently, an Election Appeal Court nullified the election of a member of National Assembly on the grounds of ineligibility to contest the said post as at April 2007 and it further ordered that a fresh election be conducted in that Constituency, banning both the candidate and his party from participating in the bye election. Why is this kind of radical judgement not happening in the north? Why is the Appeal Court prolonging the already protracted Sokoto legal case? Where is the professionalism, courage and integrity being talked about learned men. For sure, this remain the 21st century legal challenge only Nigerian Judiciary can solve to prove to all patriots that our Judiciary is not the only last hope of the common man but the custodian of our democracy.
Aliyu Sahabi Bodinga (ESQ) Faculty of Law Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
|