Justice Dahiru Musdapher IF the major players in this political dispensation could turn back the hands of the time to the pre-2010 Electoral Act era, certainly, many would avoid remembering the length of time petitions spent at election petition tribunals across the country during that period.
The pursuit for redress in many cases took years and in some cases almost the duration of time that they would otherwise have spent in office. It was based on this that in reviewing the Electoral Act in 2010 that the National Assembly gave a time limit for the consideration of election petitions.
The amended Act stipulated that the state Election Petitions Tribunals must dispense cases arising from the elections within 180 days after the polls.
According to Section 285(6), “an election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition.”
Section 285(5) of the same constitution states that: “An election petitions shall be filed within 21 days after the date of the declaration of the result of the elections.”
Instructively, before the 2010 amendment, attempts were made at tackling the issue of protracted cases.
For instance, the office of the President Court of Appeal in 2007 issued practice direction which stipulated timelines for the filing of petitions and other briefs as well as limiting the number of witnesses that the parties in a suit could call.
This assisted to fast track the tribunal process to some extent. However, the enactment of the 2010 Electoral Act was hailed as a remarkable move that would fast track the wheel of justice.
Already, the Supreme Court has dismissed the petition against Borno State Governor, Alhaji Kashim Shettima by the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the State Alhaji Mohammed Goni on the ground that an election tribunal lacks the power to further hear a petition after 180 days that it was filed.
The apex court, delivering judgment in the Borno State governorship suit between the candidate of the ANPP and governor of the state, Shettima and his main challenger, Alhaji Mohammed Goni of the PDP, said Section 285(6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is unambiguous that such tribunal cannot hear election cases after 180 days.
While upholding the election of Shettima, Justice Walter Onnoghen, who delivered the Supreme Court judgment, said the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear appeals from the relevant tribunals was circumscribed in relation to the time/period within which the appeals must be heard and determined in line with the constitutional provision.
While this speedy trial was expected to lay to rest the contentious issue of the life span of cases at tribunals, it has once again increased the debate on the speed of trial at the tribunal. The judgment has also left many legal experts divided on the implications.
Lawyers express mixed reactions
Speaking to Vanguard on the development, a constitutional lawyer, Prof Itse Sagay, SAN, described the verdict by the apex court as conflicting.
He said “I have a feeling that, probably, the press is misinterpreting what the Supreme Court has said, although, I have not seen in the ruling. I say that because in the case of Akwa Ibom and Benue state, this same Supreme Court returned their cases back to the tribunals for hearing more than 180 days after the cases were filed on the grounds that the tribunal and Court of Appeal relied on technicalities and returned the case to be heard. So, I don’t think the ruling of the Supreme Court is so extensive; I think it is probably narrower and may be limited to the cases concerned.”
Speaking further, he opined that: “even if that is the case, I will still say that this new provision of the constitution, which limits election cases to only 180 days, I will not say it is unconstitutional, but it conflicts with the more urgent provision, which is the section of fair hearing.
“And that section of fair hearing belongs to the fundamental rights part of the constitution, which is superior to other parts of the constitution. Because those are the sections of the constitution you can only amend by three quarter majority whereas all the other sections can be amended by two thirds.
Continuing, Sagay said “So, my view is that, since the 180 days is in conflict with that provision it cannot bee enforced, because it may encourage the respondents in these cases and judges who might have been compromised, to deliberately delay cases and the cases will end without being heard.”
Corroborating Sagay’s position, Chief Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) pointed out that the judgment could encourage injustice at the tribunal level.
“The implication is more than technically knocking out of the pending case in other states, because it encourages injustice. So I think there is urgent need to review the judgement because of what it portends,” Oyetibo submitted.
However, a human rights activist, Mr. Bamidele Aturu differed from the argument of the duo, stating that the apex court’s decision was in order.
“The position of the Supreme Court is correct because it is based on the constitution. The constitution has already prescribed time limit in which an election petition can be determined and it cannot be more than 180 days,” Aturu argued.
Comments are moderated. Please keep them clean and brief.
No comments:
Post a Comment