One of the cardinal principles of democracy is to achieve justice for all in the society. Alot of crisis could be avoided if everyone is treated equally or well within the ambit of the law. Where there is justice, the innocent can go to sleep while the guilty would accept outcomes and everyone will go home happy that none was cheated in the process of adjudication. Of recent, the nation’s judiciary has been on the spotlight of public discuss because of Judgements, strange Judgements emanating from ongoing litigations of the 2023 general elections.
Rules of engagement applied so far in the course of the litigations have deviated so much from the norms known to legality,morality, sociality and politics. This has constituted serious concerns to true lovers of democracy around the country because the survival of democracy anywhere is hinged on strong legislative processes and sound judicial systems. These and other factors, are the only panacea to justice which in turn is the prerequisite to democratic stability, growth and development. The judiciary,as the third arm of government, is expected to deliver judgements of justice in accordance with laid down procedures and processes known to law. A lot of Judgements have been churned out by the various tribunals and appeals ,but whether these judgements contain justice in them as core values that meets the needs of peace, progress and prosperity of siciety is an important issue worth analysing. Alot of people wonder whether the judiciary no longer have a central guiding legal process and whether each adjudicator applies rules from his or her discretion away from common judicial precedents.
In the course of ongoing litigations, technicalities have prevailed over substance, emotions over facts, theory over practice and assumptions over reality in the determination of outcomes of sensitive litigations such as those that has to dowithelections. This is because in a democracy, only elections, credible elections, determine and give credence to legitimate transitions. These are worldwide facts acknowledged and respected by every civilised democracy in the world. In as much as technicalities cannot be ignored where neccesary, their application must correspond with substance and the constitution and the Electoral Act to make it worthwhile.
It is strange and ridiculous that while the supreme court, the highest court in the land has settled that the issue bordering on nomination and qualifications of candidates in an election are clearly pre-election matters, a section of thebtribunal and appeal court feels otherwise. Pre election matters are those issues that come before the general elections which are handled by the respective political parties in line with rules of the respective parties before the general polls. They are issues exclusive to the different political parties in which no party interferes in the other and even where there are conflicts, internal processes are applied in line with their respective rules and guidelines for resolution. Under this, no party interlopes into the affairs of the other for mutual respect .
Litigations bordering on the qualifications and subsequent nominations of candidates for positions were raised and settled by the highest court and it beats the imagination of not a few, even rekwown juriats, that other court still use them for only God knows purposes. The Supreme Court itself and Presidential Election Petition Tribunal Court have ruled that no party should get involved in the affairs of the other and none should seek to determine how the other does its things. But what is been churned out from the courts,especially the appeal court concerning some cases is clearly a deliberate departure from this laid down norm.For instance, the court had earlier,before the commencement of the tribunals nationwide,settled the decision in respect of the double nomination of Vice President Shettima and other cases, resolved that a candidate of another party cannot sue the candidate of the another in respect of their nomination and sponsorship.
The court resolved that nomination and sponsorship is a pre-election matter and not to be ventilated at the election petition tribunal. The court also ruled that the appellants lack the locus to challenge the nomination and sponsorship of the other.
In the same way, the Court of appeal had on the 20th October, 2023 dismissed an appeal in Borno state whose sole ground was the alleged disobedience of the Supreme Court order which had ordered the respondent’s party, the PDP to conduct primary election in a particular way.
The court of appeal in dismissing the appeal held that section 285(1)(a) of the 1999 constitution must be respected.
The provision defines clearly the powers and scope of the election tribunal to look only into events that happened on the day of election and forward.
It ruled that even where there was disobedience to court order, such can not be a ground to nullify any election as it is a preelection matter. The court made it very clear that such an aggrieved aspirant can contest that only in a regular court because the tribunals have a limited special scope and time and that preelection matters have no place at the tribunal level.
The Tribunals are to look only into events that happened with elections as events.
In Plateau state, the court of appeal strangely assumed jurisdiction over a preelection matter which has to do
with compliance with a state high court order concerning a repeat congress.The crux of the APC petition and all other petitions are all pre-election matters that have since been settled by the Supreme Court. Curiously, the tribunals have taken those issues as their guiding principles thereby nullifying some election victories on account of that.
The court of appeal chose not to look at the evidence of the Plateau PDP before the tribunal.The court of appeal is expected to deliver the judgments with reference to the settled matters but curiously did not do so.
It is a known fact that PDP complied with the order of the Plateau state High Court by conducting a repeat congress on the 25th September, 2021.
None of the parties in the said order of the high court challenged the repeat congress.The Report of the repeat congress was tendered and admitted in evidence.The repeat showed clearly that PDP complied with the order of the Plateau State high court.
And again, going by section 285(12) of the 1999 constitution and section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 only an aspirant can challenge the nomination and sponsorship of any candidate at an election.
The Tribunal cannot entertain preelection matters and only the Federal High Court can do so and that can only happen 14 days after the conduct of the primary election. In this case also,none of the aspirants of the PDP challenged any candidates of their own party anywhere after the primary election.
It remains that PDP has a valid structure which is why INEC recognized the candidates of the party on the ballots.PDP tendered judgments of the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal judgments in Augustine Timkuk but the court of Appeal refused to make reference to those judgments. It beats the imagination as to why the tribunal chose to look the other way on this matter.
Remember that the candidates of the PDP and all other parties were nominated and sponsored by their respective national working committees. And as in the case of the PDP, section 50 of the PDP constitution 2017 as amended sufficed.
Besides, even if at all there was any alleged non-compliance, it was not committed by the national leadership of the party whose responsibility it is to conduct nomination and sponsorship. Its clear that the judgments were not arrived at based on the evidence placed before the courts. The judgment of the court of appeal nullifying the elections was strange.
The public suspicion which is compounded by the reckless verbal outbursts of some partisan actors in the litigations is that the Appeal Court smuggled in the pre-election matters to influence, puncture and reverse by other means,the landslide electoral victories of the PDP in Plateau state on the flawed excuse that the party had no structure to sponsor candidates for the 2023 election.
In the case of the Plateau North Senatorial District, Senator Simon Mwadkwon,the Minority Leader of the Senate and Hon Musa Agah of Bassa/ Jos North whose elections were upheld by the tribunal, the Court of Appeal sacked them and ordered a rerun for all parties. While in the case of Isaac Kwallu of Mikang, Shendam,Quanpan Federal Constituency, outright withdrawal of certificate of return was directed against the PDP. All these cases are built on same facts, same grounds, evidences and pre election matters, but judgements differ.
The same judiciary that has enjoyed some great levels of freedom and discretion in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities is no longer been understood. It has never been talked about as it is today. This is because its relationship with democracy and other arms of government has always made it a duty to follow it closely especially that the power and ability, capacity and willingness to deliver justice lies with it. But while many things go wrong, the judiciary in its usual tradition felt that it owes no one any explanation. It churns out verdicts or judgements with no further explanation and its left for both the winner and looser to sort themselves.
Before now, it’s very rare to engage in any public discussion on the judiciary because of the sacred nature to which it is abhorred.People hardly talk about the judiciary, not just because of its sensitive nature but also that they were highly respected because of what they do. There were hardly any complaints because the judiciary followed its processes. Every outcome from the chambers is received with conviction. But in recent times, such has drastically changed because the judiciary seems diversified with many discretionary actions taken at random by those who influence it.
The 2023 general elections have been won and lost on the field. Now that the battle has moved to the courts, it behoves on the judiciary to do justice to all, substantial justice, justice that meets the needs of society and that which can be a lasting precedent.
From what is going on, it’s very obvious to note that all is not well within the nation’s third arm of government, the judiciary. For the first time in legal history, there seems to be a huge disconnect especially within the layers of the tribunal and the court of Appeal.
Again in Plateau State for instance, two panels have given different judgements on same issues with same facts. While one panel acquited the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, PDP of any violation or non compliance to court instructions , the other panel accused the party of the alleged offence.While the other party insisted that issues of nomination and qualifications in an election are pre- election matters that naturally goes through the regular high courts up to the supreme Court for determination, the other panel said its both a pre and post election matter. How can the issue of nomination and qualification which were done a year to the general elections be regarded as election and post election matters? Post election issues are those matters arising from the conduct of elections which starts immediately ballot papers are distributed to the time of collation ,announcement and subsequent declaration of winners.
