Those calling for suspension of swearing in of President-elect until all cases against the result are settled are unmindful of precedents
John Cardinal Onaiyekan was very popular when he served as head of the Catholic Archdiocese of Abuja. He was known to be forthright and articulate, and was thus well respected by Christians and non-Christians alike. However, when, last week, he lent his voice to the cacophony of voices seemingly calling for suspending the inauguration of the Bola Tinubu administration, many were taken aback.
The cardinal said it would not make sense to swear in the man declared President-elect by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the grounds that five of the co-contestants had gone before the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to challenge the result. Onaiyekan, like others who have opted to travel that road seemed to have forgotten that the February 25 presidential election was not the first to be taken before the court of law to determine the rightful winner.
At the inception of the Fourth Republic in 1999, Chief Olu Falae who contested the election on the platform of the All People’s Party (APP), was not satisfied with the result declared by the Justice Ephraim Akpata INEC. The matter was still pending when the Obasanjo government was inaugurated on May 29, 1999.
There were multiple cases filed against the 2003 poll. Yet, Obasanjo was sworn in as President on May 29, 2023, that has now been adopted as Democracy Day. The case lingered at the Court of Appeal until December 2004, and was not finally disposed off until July 2005. At the time, those now calling for suspension of the swearing in of the president-elect on May 29 just because of pending court cases on the election result saw nothing wrong in the Chief Justice of Nigeria administering the oath of office on Chief Obasanjo.
In 2007, General Muhammadu Buhari, then of the All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP) was again opponent of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP’s) Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua. As was the case in 2003, General Buhari briefed his lawyers to challenge the declaration of the PDP’s candidate as winner of the election. It was perhaps the only time that there was unanimity that the election was heavily flawed. The president-elect who was nonetheless sworn in as President admitted that he was not fairly elected according to the law. He set up the Justice Mohammed Uwais panel to reform the electoral law and processes, but died before he could do anything about the report. The matter, taken to court with General Buhari as first runner-up, and Alhaji Atiku Abubakar as second runner-up, was not dispensed with by the Supreme Court until December 2008, and to further illustrate the complexity of the matter, three of the seven Justices who heard the case, delivered a minority judgment that upheld General Buhari’s appeal. Throughout the pendency of the cases before their lordships, President Yar’Adua held the reins of power in the land. It was the same in 2011 when General Buhari on the Congress for Progressive Change’s, CPC, ticket contested against President Goodluck Jonathan of the PDP. That election led to widespread violence and loss of no less than 800 lives.
The Nigerian 1999 Constitution and Electoral Act, both of 2006 and 2022, make provision for whoever is declared winner of elections at any level to be handed the mantle of leadership pending final adjudication by the courts.
Contrary to the position canvassed by those now clamouring that Asiwaju Tinubu should not be sworn in as President on May 29, it is both sensible and lawful that there should be no vacuum in governance. At the sub national level, many governors have lost their posts after losing at the court, despite having been sworn in earlier. The most recent example of a governor inaugurated while his opponent had filed a case against him was in Osun State where Governor Ademola Adeleke was not impeded from running the affairs of the state despite his predecessor contesting the result as declared by INEC. The situation did not change even when he lost at the tribunal of first instance. Similar scenarios had played out in Anambra, Imo, Kogi, Edo, Ondo and Ekiti states without much outcry.
The elite have a duty to realise their stake in nation-building. Fairness is a collective responsibility of all citizens, and this can only be upheld when people are consistent. Some senior lawyers, like Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, who had all along seen nothing wrong in inaugurating administrations with pending cases have suddenly called on the judiciary to ensure that the five cases are dispensed with before May 29. They forgot that this, given the processes, guidelines and protocols adopted under our legal system, is simply impossible. The last time this was achieved was in 1979 when the presidential election was held on August 11 and the petition at the Court of Appeal and the appeal to the Supreme Court had been decided by September 26. That system was changed following protests by lawyers that the time allowed did not allow them fully canvass points of law and examine evidence before the court. If there is consensus now that all disputations should be resolved before swearing in of election winners, efforts will have to be made to effect necessary amendments to the grundnorm and Electoral Act. No one should attempt to ambush others in the middle of the game.