Some lawmakers from the two major political parties have lost their seats in the National Assembly through the intervention of the judiciary. Most of them lost their seats due to flawed nomination. Though it has taken the courts about two years to resolve most of the petitions, the decisions have been hailed as a move in the right direction. Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI and Eric Ikhilae report.
Over time, Nigerians had been pessimistic about the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law and the constitution, particularly with regards to the resolution of electoral disputes. But, after some judgments perceived as conflicting in the aftermath of the 2015 general elections, the judiciary may have taken steps in recent times to redeem its image and restore the hope of many politicians in the integrity of the electoral process.
This could be gleaned from the reaction of Nigerians to recent court judgments that sacked lawmakers from the two major political parties. The recent Supreme Court judgments that sacked two members of the National Assembly, Senator Sani Abubakar Danladi and Herman Hembe, and ordered them to repay within 90 days all salaries and allowances they received since they occupied positions they did not deserve have been hailed as landmark decisions that would go a long way in discouraging the do-or-die attitude of Nigerian politicians.
The Supreme Court verdict was that Hembe, who represents Vandikwa/Konshisha constituency of Benue State, was not the valid candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). The court also ordered that Hembe be replaced with Dorathy Mato, who was declared the right winner of the APC primary. The biggest import of the ruling, in the view of observers, is that the court ordered Hembe to return all the salaries and allowances he received as lawmaker since he was sworn in 2015.
In a similar fashion, Danladi, who was representing Taraba North Senatorial District, was sacked by the Supreme Court in June 2017, because he was not the rightful candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The court declared Shuaibu Lau as the senator representing Taraba North. It also ordered Danladi to refund all salaries and allowances he received since June 2015 within 90 days. Both Danladi and Lau are members of the PDP.
Hembe and Danladi’s sack came two months after the Supreme Court sacked another member of the House of Representatives, Sopuluchukwu Ezeonwuka. The April 7 ruling by the apex court removed Ezeonwuka of the PDP from representing Orumba North/South of Anambra Federal Constituency. Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun gave the order in a judgment in an appeal filed against Ezeonwuka’s election by a member of the party, Ben Nwankwo.
Dissatisfied with the February 20, 2015 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja and the decision of the Court Appeal to uphold it, Nwankwo had approached the apex court. At the end of the day, the court found that Nwankwo’s name was wrongly substituted with Ezeonwuka’s, after he obtained the nomination of the party to contest the National Assembly election. The judge also ordered that Ezeonwuka shall refund to the National Assembly all monies collected by him by way of salaries and allowances since he took the seat within 90 days. She also awarded a fine of N500, 000 in favour of the appellant against the first respondent.
In February, the Court of Appeal sitting in Benin City sacked the lawmaker representing Ovia South West Constituency in the Edo State House of Assembly, Hon. Sunday Aghedo, and ordered that Godwin Adenomo to be sworn in immediately.
Both Aghedo and Adenomo are members of the ruling APC. The latter had dragged the party and the committee that conducted the party primary to court for declaring the sacked lawmaker as the winner of the primary in 2014.
Adenomo said he won the primary, but was denied the party’s ticket. An earlier High Court ruling had asked the APC to conduct a fresh primary for the position, but Adenomo rejected the ruling and headed for the appellate court.
A few days after, a Federal High Court sitting in Uyo nullified the election of Senator Bassey Akpan, who represents Akwa Ibom Northeast in the National Assembly. The court faulted the primary that produced Akpan as flag bearer of the PDP and subsequent election that made him senator.
He was asked by the court to refund all salaries and entitlements he has so far collected from the National Assembly. In the ruling, the trial judge, Justice Fatun Riman, asked the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to immediately issue the Certificate of Return to his challenger, Mr Bassey Etim.
Akpan has however appealed the matter in court. He believes he was validly nominated and that the matter will run its full course up to the Supreme Court. He said: “The nomination form and expression of interest were tendered in court; the receipts were also tendered as well as the Certificate of Screening. We stood elections and by the Grace of God, we had the mandate of our party delegates. I won the primary by 366 votes at the Uyo Township Stadium; everything was done publicly.
That has been the trend since the inauguration of the Eighth National Assembly over two years ago. Given the number of election tribunal judgments that reversed the electoral victories of many, the 2015 general elections is unique in the sense that the law courts, rather than the polling booths, have emerged as the new platform for seeking and obtaining electoral offices.
With the growing number of lawmakers being sacked by the courts, observers believe the judicial arm of government is beginning to send a signal to politicians that they can no longer subvert the law and get away with it. In the view of Mr. Levi Obijiofor, a newspaper columnist, the message of the court in cases involving Danladi and Hembe, determined on June 23, 2017, is clear and unequivocal. He said: “The message from the court is that impunity can never supersede the rule of law. It is a message that clearly states that illegality can never overwhelm justice…
“This new ruling will strike fear into the hearts of politicians. The key worry for all politicians is how they would find and refund thousands and possibly millions of naira they would have consumed in previous months and years. It is a tough call but it is the kind of tough judgment we need to get desperate and dishonourable politicians to play by the rules during election…
“If we want to renovate the nation’s image at home and overseas, we must start by imposing severe punishment on politicians, who engage in electoral fraud, financial crimes and embezzlement of government property. This is the message the Supreme Court has conveyed by the heavy penalty it handed out to Herman Hembe and Sani Abubakar Danladi.”
Obijiofor said the National Assembly, as an institution of the society, must undergo radical moral, psychological and physical reforms in order to serve the purpose for which it was established. He added: “Public image of previous sessions of the National Assembly suffered immeasurably as the image of the current members has been hammered in mainstream and online media. Everything suggests that the current National Assembly members appear determined to keep the flame of their tattered image burning for much longer.
The increase in the success recorded in election disputes have been adduced to a number of reasons. One of such reasons is the extension of governorship and National Assembly election dispute to the Supreme Court.
Before now, various divisions of the Court of Appeal usually hold varied and contradictory positions on similar issues of law. With the latest development, the Supreme Court has helped to ensure sanity and certainty. For instance, there are now standards for proving electoral fraud, non-compliance with electoral act and allegation of irregularities.
Another reason for the perceived increase in the level of success is that lawyers now understand how to handle both pre and post-election disputes/petitions. The 2015 election was the fifth of such elections. As a result, many lawyers have learnt from their past mistakes and put the experience they have gathered over time into the petitions/cases they handled.
Besides, observers say the chances of succeeding are higher when the petitions/cases bother on pre-election matters. Indeed, most of the successful disputes in the post-2015 general elections were in the category of pre-election cases. This is because, as the law stands today, it is easier to record or prove pre-election cases than those that that emanate after the election. This is owing to the existing encumbrances in the law.
For instance, in election matters, the petitioner has only 180 days to prosecute the trial; 60 days each for appeal at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court levels. The periods are considered insufficient to do thorough job. In pre-election matter, parties are not limited by time.
Ordinarily, it is difficult to upturn an election result once it is declared by INEC. This is because the burden of prove in election matters rests on the petitioner. The position of the law is that there is the presumption that an election, which has produced a result, was conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral act.
That is, once INEC declares the result of an election, the election enjoys the presumption of regularity. So, it is left for the person, who alleged the contrary, to prove otherwise. In other words, the burden of proving that an election was not conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act rests squarely with the petitioner.
In election cases, it is always difficult to prove allegations of crimes like rigging, electoral violence, falsification of result sheets, undue influence and other forms of electoral malpractices. This accounts for why many petitioners find it difficult to succeed.
For instance, the position of the law, in relation to the kind of evidence to be led to prove a case where election results/scores/votes is being challenged, is that such evidence should come from the officers present where the votes were counted. In the view of legal experts, where a petitioner fails to call such polling officers/agents as witnesses, the petition will be dismissed.
Thus, in a situation where a petitioner challenges an election on grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, he/she is required to call witnesses polling unit by polling unit and ward by ward to establish his claim of non-compliance. That is not all; the position of the law is that the petition must establish that the non-compliance was substantial and that it affected the outcome of the election.
Where the petition is anchored on over-voting or ballot stuffing, a petitioner is required to produce the voters’ register, the ballot boxes containing the stuffed ballot papers and statement of results from the affected polling units complained about. An expert puts it this way: “A petitioner who alleges that an election did not hold is required to produce unmarked voters’ register. He is not to merely say so through witnesses’ testimonies.”
Indeed, the INEC Chairman, Mahmoud Yakubu, indicated over a year ago that the 2015 general elections recorded the highest number of annulments since 2007, despite the fact that it was adjudged by local and international observers to be free, fair and the most credible, compared to other elections since the return to civil rule in 1999. The INEC boss, who was addressing Resident Electoral Commissioners (REC), said a total of 96 elections were annulled (more than the previous three elections combined) and in 81 of the annulments, the Appeal Court ordered for fresh elections, while in 15 cases INEC was directed to issue Certificates of Return to the rightful winners.
Yakubu’s comment came against the background of the gale of judicial storm witnessed in Rivers State on Friday December 11, 2015, when the two senators and seven members of the House of Representatives elected on the platform of the PDP were sacked in one fell-swoop, through a judgment delivered late into the night. Of all federal lawmakers elected on the platform of the party, only Uche Nnam Obi of Ahoada West//Egbeama/Ndoni Federal Constituency was the only survivor. The judges upheld the verdict of the lower tribunal that Obi’s APC opponent, Lucky Odili, was not qualified to contest the election.
The court had kicked off the series of judgments, 14 in all, including some cross appeals in the afternoon of the fateful day with the sack of two senators – Osinakachukwu Idoezu (Rivers Southwest) and John Olaka-Nwogo (Rivers Southeast), based on petitions by their APC challengers.
A similar gale of judicial tsunami was also witnessed when early last year the Supreme Court sacked all members of the National Assembly elected on the platform of the PDP in Anambra State. The Supreme Court ruled that the list of nominated candidates in the 2015 general elections from the Ejike Oguebego-led executive of the party was the only one recognised by INEC. Uche Ekwunife (PDP Anambra Central) had earlier been sacked, alongside former Senate President David Mark (PDP Benue South), Mao Ohuabunwa (PDP Abia North) and Sekibo George (PDP Rivers East), who were removed over allegations that their elections were marred by irregularities. The apex court sacked the two remaining senators from Anambra State and 11 members of the House of Representatives representing the state.
The senators are Andy Uba (Anambra South) and Stella Oduah (Anambra North). But, they insist that contrary to reports in the media that the Supreme Court judgment that re-affirmed Oguebego as the state PDP chairman does not affect their seats in the National Assembly, because the primary election where they emerged as senatorial candidates were conducted at the national level; not by the state executive council.
Mark and Ohuabunwa were returned, following the rerun elections that took place in their constituencies.
Most of the lawmakers lost their seats on issues bothering on pre-election matters, particularly over the issue of nomination, and they belong mostly to the PDP. This is owing to the impunity that characterised the party’s primaries across the nation prior to the 2015 general elections. From Abia to Anambra and elsewhere in the country, the pattern is the same. The same trend was also witnessed in the APC to a lesser extent.
But it has taken the courts an average of two years to make final pronouncements on the rightful candidates. In most cases, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) observed all the primaries that are being nullified by the courts.
Observers are questioning the essence of the constitutional requirement that the electoral body should observe party primaries, congresses and conventions, when by virtue of section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, it is divested of any say in the rightful candidate of the party.
As a result, legal practitioners are advocating the involvement of INEC in the screening of candidates put forward by parties for election, since political parties have proved incorrigible in following due process in nominating their candidates, thereby constituting burden on the judiciary.
