Sani Onyedikachi Obi, IT Consultant,
Christian Youth
Leader, Special Assistant to the Executive Governor of
Kebbi State
Kebbi,
Nigeria
Interestingly, the major premise on which the learned Tribunal
Chairman based his arguments to annul the election was a simple
technicality that bothered on the question of the eligibility of
the PDP gubernatorial candidate, Alh Sa’idu Usman Dakingari to
contest the April 2007 Elections. And that is exactly where my
grouse with the Tribunal’s verdict lies. The issue of using a
clearly pre-election matter (like the eligibility of a candidate
to contest election, which in this instance was clearly an
intra-party affair) to determine a post-election petition, me
think, is NOT within the purview of or constitutional mandate of a
Post-Election Petition Tribunal to entertain. It is expected that
all such contentious pre-election matters should have been brought
earlier before a court of competent jurisdiction for determination
prior to the commencement of the election.
KEBBI Election: Tribunal Went Beyond Its Mandate? by Sani Onyedikachi Obi
If the title of my
piece is perceived as inappropriate or most uncharitable in
certain quarters, then I must begin by tendering my most sincere
regrets as it is certainly not aimed at casting aspersion on the
competencies, integrity or judicial discretion of the learned
counsels or distinguished members of the Kebbi State election
Tribunal. I must also confess my utter ‘unlearnedness’ in
comparison to the eminent jurists who delivered the rather
incredible ruling of 20th October, 2007 that annulled the April
2007 Kebbi State Gubernatorial elections. After all, the saying
goes that even if you’re an ICT consultant with an MBA and a
pending PhD thesis like me, you’re still not qualified to be
addressed as ‘learned’. Finally, I honestly make no pretences
about my pro-PDP leaning, and therefore crave the indulgence of
the reader to understand and probably excuse my obvious empathy
for His Excellency, Alh Sa’idu Usman Dakingari (whom I fondly call
"my Governor"), and hence pray my reader to condole my apparent
agitation and hope that any wrong occasioned by the result of the
judgment be righted.
However, a dispassionate study of the enabling laws setting up the
Election Tribunal would show a clear unambiguity in the Tribunal’s
term(s) of reference and mandate which is ‘to look into matters
and grievances that pertain to (or that occurred during) the
elections only’. This fact then pre-supposes that an election
(however flawed) must have taken place, and evidence brought
before the Tribunal shall be expected to dwell strictly on
negating or buttressing key election-related issues such as
whether or not the elections were free and fair or flawed as well
as irregularities such as rigging, intimidation and
disenfranchisement of the electorate or opposition candidates (as
was the case of Kogi State).
Interestingly, the major premise on which the learned Tribunal
Chairman based his arguments to annul the election was a simple
technicality that bothered on the question of the eligibility of
the PDP gubernatorial candidate, Alh Sa’idu Usman Dakingari to
contest the April 2007 Elections. And that is exactly where my
grouse with the Tribunal’s verdict lies. The issue of using a
clearly pre-election matter (like the eligibility of a candidate
to contest election, which in this instance was clearly an
intra-party affair) to determine a post-election petition, me
think, is NOT within the purview of or constitutional mandate of a
Post-Election Petition Tribunal to entertain. It is expected that
all such contentious pre-election matters should have been brought
earlier before a court of competent jurisdiction for determination
prior to the commencement of the election.
Of course, we all know that falsehood told repeatedly through the
banal alchemy of propaganda could assume over time, a toga of
truth in public perception if not countered with fact. And that is
why the writer is most worried and uncomfortable about certain
cynical attempts at drawing a parallel between the Dakingari Case
in Kebbi State and the Amaechi/Omehia Case in Rivers State. The
first major dissimilarity between the two cases is that Amaechi
actually instituted his suit before the election challenging the
substitution of his name with Omehia’s, being the rightful and
bona-fide candidate prior to the elections, in a regular court of
competent jurisdiction (Not the Election Petition Tribunal). And
even though the case was not fully determined before the election,
he followed it up to the Supreme Court and finally got justice,
just like Ararume. Secondly it was strictly an intra-party matter
which dates back to pre-election period and the ultimate
beneficiary or loser was clearly. A near comparison would have
been the case of the former VP Atiku who also challenged his
disenfranchisement on the basis of purported indictment and was
able to obtain a favourable judgment that compelled INEC to
include him on the ballot papers, 48 hrs to election. Compare this
however with the tragic case of the Kogi Governorship elections or
the Bamaiyi/Tanko Ayuba Senatorial elections in Kebbi where INEC
willfully disobeyed similar court orders, creating a basis for the
annulment of the two elections! It is worthy of note that in all
these cases, there were actual pre-election initiated suits or
subsisting court orders.
Alas, but with all due respect, the same could not be said to be
the case for the Kebbi State Gubernatorial Elections, because
neither the ANPP Gubernatorial candidate, Senator Farouk Bunza,
nor the DPP candidate Gari Mallam Shettima, nor even the earlier
INEC-certified PDP candidate, Maj Gen Muhammudu Magoro, Rtd (c.f.
Amaechi) had instituted any pre-election suit(s) before any court
challenging the eligibility of the PDP candidate and present
Governor, Alh Sa’idu Dakingari to contest the April 2007 election;
neither was there any known or subsisting court injunction, order
or indictment restraining him from doing same. Of course, the
disobedience of such orders (if any) would have been the only
valid ground for the Tribunal to entertain a carry-over hearing
and consideration. Wow!, Legal pundit would readily tell you that
this earlier silence by his opponents was fait accompli, and
amounted to a tacit and legal acceptance of the eligibility of the
governor to contest. Any other contrary position would have
amounted to an after-thought and should have been treated as such
by the Tribunal. The interpretation is simple – whether the PDP
candidate and subsequent winner had turned out to be Alh Sa’idu
Dakingari or Golobo the jester or even Felicia, my aged mother, is
immaterial after the elections, as long as this position was not
challenged before the elections!!.
It is the opinion in certain quarters that the Tribunal might have
further shot itself in the foot when, in the final ruling, it
stated that it could not find any serious faults with the result
of the April elections. Its decision to go outside its mandate by
using what ought to have been a purely hitherto unchallenged
pre-election matter to annul a free and fair election is to say
the least, not only unfortunate, high-handed and rather
opprobrious, but indeed a gross violation of legal processes and
arbitrary arrogation of bizarre unconstitutional powers. The
Tribunal’s attempt at covering what was clearly an unfortunate
case of judicial negligence of the part of the other contestants,
amounts to fighting a confusing proxy war on their behalf, in
which the ultimate losers are the good people of Kebbi state who
still have to await the verdict of the Appeal Courts before their
Governor can settle down to business.
Several questions certainly beg for answers. Would the PDP have
still won the election if the candidate was any other person (c.f.
Ararume)? Does the silence on the eligibility status of the other
two contestants make them any better qualified? Should the Date of
Issuance of a Membership Card be necessarily interpreted as the
Date of Registration or Admission? Would it not be expected that
there be a time lag between the date of Application for
Membership, the approval and then issuance of a membership Card in
any organisation? The fact remains that the Election Petition
Tribunal is clearly NOT the right place to entertain, analyse or
determine the answers to these questions that are purely
unchallenged pre-election matters and therefore outside its
jurisdiction. Any attempt to allow such inconsistencies in the
future will be tantamount to giving a one-way ticket to
constitutional anarchy characterised by lengthy and long-winding
trials, in which the opposing counsels will find ample excuse to
rely more on technicalities, legal bottlenecks, sentiments,
after-thoughts and sensationalism to win or delay judgment rather
than simple election facts backed by empirical evidence.
It is for this reason that the writer could not agree less with
the wisdom in the verdict of the Election Petition Tribunal
sitting in neighbouring Sokoto State which upheld the election of
Governor Wammako, despite attempts by the opposing counsels to
latch unto the same legally flawed technicalities as was
unfortunately employed in Kebbi to nullify an election that was
adjudged by the same court to be free and fair. May God help
Nigeria.
