Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman Prof. Mahmood Yakubu yesterday regretted the conflicting decisions by election tribunals and courts.
He said this could have negative impact on the commission’s planning and conduct of polls.
Yakubu noted that the conflicting decisions confuse the commission, making it impossible for INEC to determine which judgments to obey.
He spoke yesterday in Abuja at the conference on election tribunals organised for judges and justices, who decided petitions and appeals from the last general election.
The event was put together by the Court of Appeal
The INEC chairman, who promised to ensure that those compromising the electoral process are sanctioned, said the commission would discourage litigations by conducting free and fair elections.
His words: “While it is appreciated that the courts treat each case on its merits, certain trends point to conflicting judgments on similar cases by different judicial divisions of the Appeal Court. We are made to understand that the courts have a principle of obeying the decisions of superior courts by what lawyers call the doctrine of stare decisis. This has helped the courts to streamline their decisions on the same matter.
“But recent judgments seem to deviate from this time-honoured principle of law. The truth is that there is need for certainty in the rules governing the resolution of electoral disputes. Judicial precedence is of immense importance, without which neither the Judiciary nor INEC will be spared of impunity by political actors.
“For instance, can a disqualified candidate stand in a rerun election? Can the political party that sponsored a candidate disqualified by the court be allowed to field another candidate to contest in a rerun election? What is the meaning of a ‘fresh election,’ following the nullification of a general election?”
“However, contrary to the subsisting judgment of the Supreme Court, there were conflicting decisions by the Appeal Court, arising from the 2015 general election. The Court of Appeal in one division ordered INEC to conduct fresh election ‘in which only duly qualified candidates shall participate.
“In another division, the Court of Appeal, under similar circumstances, nullified the election, disqualified the candidate and allowed the political party to submit the name of another candidate for the rerun election.
“Yet, in another division, the Court of Appeal nullified the election and ordered INEC to conduct a fresh election, but is silent about the status of the disqualified candidate, thereby giving room for endless commentary and new rounds of litigation on the eligibility of the disqualified candidate to participate in rerun elections.
“Although we have implemented these judgments on their merits, the conflicting decisions make us sometimes, appear inconsistent in our application of the law, thereby encouraging some disqualified candidates to initiate fresh litigation in the Federal High Courts,” Yakubu said.
The INEC chairman, who argued that tribunal and appeal tribunals must not always order rerun elections, cited instances where elections were nullified and INEC was ordered to conduct a rerun simply for the sake of conducting elections in a specific polling unit.
Yakubu noted that after expending time and resources for such exercise, the outcome do not always make any material difference to the original result declared by INEC, which made substantial compliance with the Electoral Act.
He said his commission would compile all judgments in relation to the last general election and study them, to find ways of ensuring that elections can be conducted with minimal litigation on their outcome.
He said 680 election cases were filed against INEC after the 2015 general election and 580 were dismissed by the tribunals and the Court of Appeal.
Yakubu said the commission had no judicial powers over the outcome of the elections it conducted, adding that each time an Appeal Court determined a case, INEC was always ordered to undertake one form of consequential action.
President of The Court of Appeal Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa noted that 749 appeals emanated from decisions of election tribunals.
She praised justices of the Court of Appeal for ensuring that appeals were disposed of within the stipulated time.
She said the conference was an opportunity for judicial officers and stakeholders to “reflect on the general conduct of the exercise, identify challenges and map out a way forward”.
The two-day conference, with the theme: “2015 election petition tribunals and appeals: An overview” ends today.