The February 23rd judgment
- Details
- Category: Within the nation
- Written by Kabir Mato
- Hits: 948
A Federal High Court in Abuja presided by Justice Adamu Bello on Wednesday, February 23rd gave a landmark judgment on a petition filed by five governors whose elections were cancelled and went for rerun before the constitution was amended.
The issue in dispute is when the tenures of the governors who won rerun elections will elapse.The stakes were high and the polity in dire need of immediate resolution of what seems to be an impasse. The argument is simple. The provision of the amended constitution clearly stated that governors were to be elected for a period of 4 years beginning from when they are sworn into office.The agony which several citizens faced under the old constitution was that even if a governor, president or local government chairman’s election is annulled three and a half years into office, once he wins in a rerun election, he shall spend a period of 4 years. That is what the constitution was saying.
The anger of Nigerians probably informed the legislators to amend that particular provision so that the illegality is curtailed. It was crucial that the section was amended even if to curtail the excess of the executive in office.
However one fundamental problem which was left unattended to was the issue of punishment. Looking at it from the strict political and legal dimensions, it is unheard of to want to punish a governor whose election was rigged just because he was the beneficiary of such a fraud, especially when he is not found to be culpable in the fraud.
The solution or answer to this problem lies in the proposal of the Justice Uwais panel which enjoyed the National Assembly to make law for the establishment of electoral offences commission, something which was unfortunately turned down by the Yar’adua government. Another solution was the committee’s proposal that the burden of proof shift from the petitioner to INEC which again was stoutly resisted by the Nigerian legal groups who used all manner of excuses to kill that genuine anti rigging proposal.
The contention now is that several politicians are going to court, especially aspirants, to appeal the decision of justice Bello because their ambition to succeed the governors is threatened. I find the decision very compatible with political and social justice. What lawyers may be arguing is not far from the routine excessive legalism which threatens the very basis of the national political intercourse.
There is a subsisting judgment by the Supreme Court of Nigeria as it affected Rev Jolly Nyame et all in 2002/2003. It is clear that laws are not made and applied in retrospect. The amendment to the constitution was merely intended at ensuring that such fatal mistakes are averted henceforth and not to take effect in retrospect.
For anybody to fault the judgment on the basis of timing and application in my view is getting too selfish about simple issues that in the ordinary are simple and straight forward. In any case, it is not proper to want to make a law today and ask that it be applied to the offences of yesterday. This is dangerous and Nigerians must try to be fair in all dealings.
In my view, and as I have always said since the decision of INEC to list these five states as part of the April polls, it has been clear that the decision cannot stand unless if the affected governors fail to challenge it in court. They did and the judgment is not different from what it ought to be.
For those who desire to take over from those in the five states, I think what needs to be done is for them to go back to the drawing board and re-strategize so that they give a better fight in 2012. This makes sense and not any such short circuiting that some people sought to do.
The spirit and letter of the amendment of that particular section was intended for now and the future and not the period before it was effected. I praise the judgment and believe that it was in the best interest of justice and national political development.
Articles
The February 23rd judgment
Category: Within the nation Written by Kabir Mato Hits: 948
A Federal High Court in Abuja presided by Justice Adamu Bello on Wednesday, February 23rd gave a landmark judgment on a petition filed by five governors whose elections were cancelled and went for rerun before the constitution was amended.
The issue in dispute is when the tenures of the governors who won rerun elections will elapse.The stakes were high and the polity in dire need of immediate resolution of what seems to be an impasse. The argument is simple. The provision of the amended constitution clearly stated that governors were to be elected for a period of 4 years beginning from when they are sworn into office.The agony which several citizens faced under the old constitution was that even if a governor, president or local government chairman’s election is annulled three and a half years into office, once he wins in a rerun election, he shall spend a period of 4 years. That is what the constitution was saying.
The anger of Nigerians probably informed the legislators to amend that particular provision so that the illegality is curtailed. It was crucial that the section was amended even if to curtail the excess of the executive in office.
However one fundamental problem which was left unattended to was the issue of punishment. Looking at it from the strict political and legal dimensions, it is unheard of to want to punish a governor whose election was rigged just because he was the beneficiary of such a fraud, especially when he is not found to be culpable in the fraud.
The solution or answer to this problem lies in the proposal of the Justice Uwais panel which enjoyed the National Assembly to make law for the establishment of electoral offences commission, something which was unfortunately turned down by the Yar’adua government. Another solution was the committee’s proposal that the burden of proof shift from the petitioner to INEC which again was stoutly resisted by the Nigerian legal groups who used all manner of excuses to kill that genuine anti rigging proposal.
The contention now is that several politicians are going to court, especially aspirants, to appeal the decision of justice Bello because their ambition to succeed the governors is threatened. I find the decision very compatible with political and social justice. What lawyers may be arguing is not far from the routine excessive legalism which threatens the very basis of the national political intercourse.
There is a subsisting judgment by the Supreme Court of Nigeria as it affected Rev Jolly Nyame et all in 2002/2003. It is clear that laws are not made and applied in retrospect. The amendment to the constitution was merely intended at ensuring that such fatal mistakes are averted henceforth and not to take effect in retrospect.
For anybody to fault the judgment on the basis of timing and application in my view is getting too selfish about simple issues that in the ordinary are simple and straight forward. In any case, it is not proper to want to make a law today and ask that it be applied to the offences of yesterday. This is dangerous and Nigerians must try to be fair in all dealings.
In my view, and as I have always said since the decision of INEC to list these five states as part of the April polls, it has been clear that the decision cannot stand unless if the affected governors fail to challenge it in court. They did and the judgment is not different from what it ought to be.
For those who desire to take over from those in the five states, I think what needs to be done is for them to go back to the drawing board and re-strategize so that they give a better fight in 2012. This makes sense and not any such short circuiting that some people sought to do.
The spirit and letter of the amendment of that particular section was intended for now and the future and not the period before it was effected. I praise the judgment and believe that it was in the best interest of justice and national political development.