The Nation Newspaper

Tag: tribunal’s

  • ‘Tribunal’s verdict affirms my electoral triumph’

    A member representing Ido State Constituency in the Oyo State House of Assembly, Hon. Safiu Olalere has described the verdict of the tribunal that upheld his election as an affirmation of the mandate given to him by the people of the area in the last general elections.

    Olalere made the declaration in Ibadan; the state capital shortly after the State House of Assembly Elections Petition Tribunal sitting in Ibadan declared him the authentic winner of the April 11, 2015 election.

    The Accord Party candidate, Mr. Babatunde Akintunde had dragged Olalere before the tribunal; praying that it should nullify the election of the former on the allegations of massive rigging, irregularities and non-compliance with the electoral law.

    Akintunde also urged the tribunal to order a fresh election in the areas due to the allegations he brought before the court, saying the APC candidate declared as the winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) after the April 11 election did not meet the requirements for state assembly seat.

    The counsel to the petitioner prayed to the court that due to irregularities that characterised the election in all the 10 wards in the constituency, a fresh election or a re-run should be ordered.

    The counsel also urged the court to either consider its first or second prayers or declare his client winner of the election.

    The tribunal, headed by Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo in the over-two-hour’s judgment, trashed out the petition and allegations brought before it by the petitioners based on lack of enough evidence to prove its allegations.

    He, therefore, declared the APC candidate, Olalere as the authentic winner of the election.

    Speaking with newsmen, Olalere promised to work for the development of his area.

    He said the verdict of the tribunal was an affirmation of his victory at the polls.

  • ‘Courts, tribunals can exercise concurrent jurisdiction on qualification’

    ‘Courts, tribunals can exercise concurrent jurisdiction on qualification’

    A single decision of the Governorship Election Tribunal of Lagos State (here inafter referred to as the “trial tribunal”), in Petition No. Gov./EPT./L/15/2015, delivered on July1, 2015, gave birth to four extant appeals. This cross-appeal is one of them. It probes into the correctness of some portions of the decision; precisely the competence of Paragraphs 13(b) and 14 of the Petition as viable grounds to query the election.

    The facts of the petition, which transformed into the cross-appeal, are submissive to brevity and easy comprehension. The third Cross-Respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC, for short), a body constitutionally assigned with the onerous task of conducting election in Nigeria, conducted election into the office of the Governor of Lagos State on April 11, 2015. In the said election, the fourth Cross-Respondent was the flag bearer of the Cross-Appellant, All Progressives Congress, (APC): a registered political party in Nigeria. The second Cross-Respondent, Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), another registered political party in Nigeria, had the first Cross-Respondent as its standard bearer during the election. At the end of the election exercise, the third Cross-Respondent, INEC, via the fifth Cross-Respondent, declared and returned the fourth Cross-Respondent as the winner of the election. The first and second Cross-Respondents were displeased with the result of the election. Hence, on 30th April, 2015, they beseeched the trial tribunal, by dint of a petition, and solicited for the some reliefs. In expected reactions, the Cross-Appellant and the fourth Cross-Respondent and the third and fifth Cross-Respondents filed their respective replies which joined issues with the petition. At the closure of pleadings, the petition and replies, the Cross-Appellant brought an application, wherein it entreated the trial tribunal to strike out or dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that:

    1. The petition was incompetent having failed to state any grounds recognised by law for presenting the petition and which grounds ought to be struck out brevi manu;
    2. While grounds (a) and (b) contained in Paragraph 13 of the petition are completely unknown to the Electoral Act, ground (c) contained on page 14 of the petition is a pre-election matter in respect of which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction;
    3. The petitioners did not meet all the conditions precedent to present the petition.

    The first and second Cross-Respondents, stoutly, registered their opposition to the application. Prior to hearing of the petition, exactly on 26th June, 2015, owing to the incompatible stands of the counsel for the parties, the trial tribunal had ruled that all the notices of preliminary objections and motions “shall be heard and determined in the pre-hearing session”. Sequel to that, the trial tribunal consolidated the Cross-Appellant’s application with other preliminary objections and fused their hearing. In a considered ruling, delivered on 1st July, 2015, the trial tribunal struck out the petition. The first Cross-Respondent was aggrieved by the decision and appealed against it in Appeal No. CA/L/EP/Gov/744/2015. This cross-appeal is the Cross-Appellant’s expression of its dissatisfaction with some parts of the decision.

    In the Cross-Appellant’s brief of argument, it distilled two issues for determination to wit:

    1. Whether the Tribunal was right in its decision when, having held that Paragraph 14 of the petition is a challenge against the nomination of the 4th Cross-Respondent, still went ahead to hold that the said Paragraph 14 of the petition is valid ground for presenting a petition.
    2. Whether the Tribunal did not err in law when it held that Paragraph 13(b) of the petition, which complained of “Irregularities in respect of the use of the card reader during the election”, is a ground recognised under Section 138(1)(b) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

    All the Cross-Respondents, who filed briefs of arguments, adopted the two issues formulated by the Cross-Appellant.

     

    Arguments on the issues

     

    Learned counsel for the Cross-Appellant submitted that Paragraph 14 of the petition raised issue of nomination which was a pre-election for which the High Court or Federal High Court, not the trial tribunal, had jurisdiction. He referred to Sections 177(C) and 182(1) of the Constitution, as amended. He added that Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, could not add or subtract from the qualification on those provisions. He relied on INEC v. MUSA (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 806) 72; (2003) LPELR-1515(SC) for the submission. He noted that the Constitution allowed the National Assembly to legislate on election matters in its Section 184(a)-(c), not the issue of giving 21 days notice of convention to INEC. He stated that the only situation where valid nomination could become part of qualification was as contained in Section 187(1) of the Constitution. He posited that the word “shall” in Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act should be construed as “may” because it had no sanction. He relied on Ifezue v. Mbadugha (1984) NSCC, Vol. 15, 15; (1984) LPELR-1437(SC), Monye v. PTFTM (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 789) 209; Section 85(2) of the Electoral Act for the point. He explained that valid nomination would be pertinent in a lawful exclusion from an election. He cited Section 138(1) (d) of the Electoral Act for the view. He noted that invalid nomination qualified as pre-election matter. He cited Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 347; (2011) LPELR-950(SC) for the point. He explained that the purpose of Section 177 of the Constitution, as amended, was to avoid independent candidacy and not a basis for presenting petition. He criticised the decision in Wambai v. Donatus (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 223; (2011) LPELR-23303(SC) and distinguished it from the case in hand. He maintained that a person who did not contest a primary election had no locus standi to challenge its outcome under Section 138(1) (a) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended. He referred to Bewaji v. Obasanjo (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 540 on the relationship between reliefs and locus standi.

    For the first Cross-Respondent, learned counsel contended that for the fourth Cross-Respondent to be qualified, he must be properly nominated under Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act. He insisted that the trial tribunal rightly applied the ratio decidendi in Wambai v. Donatus (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 223; (2011) LPELR-23303(SC). He reasoned that Paragraph 14 of the petition was a ground that could be addressed in the High Court and in a tribunal. He stated that a pre-election matter, like in the case in hand, could constitute a ground to challenge election. He postulated that a political party must comply with the provisions of Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act for its candidate to qualify as a candidate for an election. He explained that the Act was not in conflict with Sections 177 and 182 (1) of the Constitution, as amended.

    On behalf of the second Cross-Respondent, learned counsel aligned with the submission of the counsel for the first Cross-Respondent that the trial tribunal had jurisdiction in respect of Paragraph 14 of the petition.

    For the fourth respondent, learned counsel submitted that Section 85 of the Act could not be regarded as qualification issue as it related to nomination. She added that Wambai v. Donatus (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 223; (2011) LPELR-23303(SC) and Dangana v. Usman (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1349) 50 at 89-90; (2012) LPELR-7827(SC) (CONSOLIDATED) were not applicable to the case. She reproduced Sections 177 and 182(1) of the Constitution, as amended, and persisted that they had covered the field on the requirement for eligibility as a gubernatorial candidate. She noted that sponsorship was not the case of the first and second Cross-Respondents in the trial tribunal and a Court should not make a case for a party. She adopted the submission of the Cross-Appellant who had the locus standi to question his nomination obtained in a primary election.

     

    Resolution of the issues

     

    The Court in determining issue 1 of the appeal considered the provision of Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act. The Court noted that the provision, which has fallen for interpretation in an avalanche of cases, donates to a party a right to challenge an election on any of the listed grounds, see Oshiomhole v. Airhiavbere (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1353) 376; (2013) LPELR-19762(SC). The Court noted that the kernel of the Cross-Appellant’s grievance is that the averment in Paragraph 14 of the Petition amounted to a pre-election matter for which the trial tribunal was stripped of the necessary jurisdiction to entertain it. The Court stated that jurisdiction is the authority a Court or tribunal has to adjudicate over a matter submitted to it. Where a Court is drained of the requisite jurisdiction, its proceedings on a matter, no matter the quantum of diligence, brilliance, sophistry and transparency invested in it, will be trapped in the intractable vortex of a nullity, see Dangana v. Usman (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1349) 50; (2012) LPELR-7827(SC) (CONSOLIDATED), Yar’adua v. Yandoma (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1448) 123; (2014) LPELR-24217(SC. Thus, no Court would cherish indulging in a juridical exercise whose destiny is a nullity and, de jure, a wasted venture. The Court further stated that the provisions of Section 177 and 182 of the Constitution, as amended, explicitly, enumerate the conditions a person must meet in order to be qualified to contest election for the office of a governor of a state, see PDP v. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1347) 525. The Court held that nomination connotes “appointment, a resolution submitted to the electors that the party named is a candidate for their suffrage for an office named”, see Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 347; (2011) LPELR-950(SC). The Court further held that the law has classified nomination and sponsorship as pre-election matters. The Court held further that in the eyes of the law, qualification/disqualification of a candidate for an election is an amphibious incident in that it appertains to pre-election and post-election matters. Put simply, a challenge to qualification/disqualification of a candidate enjoys the status of pre-election and postelection matters, see Gwede v. INEC (supra); Akpamgbo- Okadigbo v. Chidi (No. 2) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 124. Thus, the law has endorsed the hybrid status of qualification/disqualification of a candidate in an election. The Court then asked which Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to qualification? The answer the Court held is discernible from Dangana v. Usman (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1349) 50 at 89-90; (2012) LPELR-7827(SC) (CONSOLIDATED).

    The Court held that it flows that the law allots/allocates concurrent jurisdiction to the regular Courts, Federal High Court or High Court, on the one hand, and election tribunal, on the other hand, to adjudicate over qualification/disqualification of a candidate to contest an election. If a party decides to visit the regular Courts for redress, then the law preserves his right to pursue his right beyond the holding of an election, see Ikechukwu v. Nwoye  (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1446) 367. On the authority of Gwede v. INEC (2015) 242 LRCN 138, a party can approach the regular Courts on a pre-election matter even after election provided he acts timeously. The Court noted that the philosophical basis for this hallowed principle of law is to repel any injustice that may be inflicted on parties in electoral process. In sum, the Court held that the first and second Cross-Respondents did not insult the law by incorporating Paragraph 14, which questions the qualification of the fourth Cross-Respondent, in their petition.  The Court dishonoured the inciting and enticing invitation of the Cross-Appellant to ignore the decision in Wambai v. Donatus (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 223; (2011) LPELR-23303(SC) on account of per incuriam. The Court noted only the Supreme Court that is imbued with the jurisdiction to do so.  In the end, the Court resolved issue one against the Cross-Appellant and in favour of the first and second Cross-Respondents.

    The Court noted that the heart of issue 2 is that Paragraph 13(b) of the petition does not qualify as a ground to challenge the election of 11th April, 2015. In considering this issue, the Court situated the Paragraph with the prescription of Section 138(1) of the Electoral with a view to discovering its validity. The Court noted that indisputably, the law mandates parties to election petitions to adhere strictly to statutory forms in drafting their grounds of petitions. The Court noted that the case of Ojukwu v. Yar ‘adua (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50; (2009) LPELR-2403(SC) lavishly and freely cited by the feuding parties to fetch the favour of the Court, allows a petitioner to “use his own language to convey the exact meaning and purport of the subsection”, at 121, per Tobi, JSC. The Court further noted the authority, also, gives a petitioner the licence to paraphrase the grounds upon which an election can be challenged. The Court held that the content of Paragraph 13(b) does not, in the least, fit into any of the grounds catalogued in the inviolate provision of Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act. Issue 2 was resolved in favour of the Cross-Appellant and against the first and second Cross-Respondents.

    On the whole, having resolved the two issues for and against the Cross-Appellant, the Court held that the appeal was partially-meritorious and succeeds in part. Consequently, the Court allowed the cross-appeal in part. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the portion of the trial tribunal’s decision declaring Paragraph 14 of the petition as competent and triable by it. The Court aside its part of the decision which approved Paragraph 13(b) as a competent ground for presenting the petition. In lieu of it, it struck out the Paragraph 13(b) of the petition on account of incompetence.

     

    • Edited by LawPavilion, LawPavilion Citation: (2015) LPELR-25668(CA)

     

     

  • Rivers APC to Buhari: halt intimidation of tribunals’ witnesses

    Rivers APC to Buhari: halt intimidation of tribunals’ witnesses

    The Rivers State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has urged President Muhammadu Buhari to halt the alleged intimidation of witnesses who testified  before the election petitions tribunals in Abuja.

    Rivers APC, through its Chairman, Chief Davies Ikanya, in a statement yesterday in Port Harcourt, through his Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Chief Eze Chukwuemeka Eze, said the witnesses wanted to assist the tribunal to ensure justice.

    APC in Rivers said: “Photos of the APC witnesses at the tribunals in Abuja are being posted on Facebook by a group known as The Youth Coalition For Good Governance. They held a demonstration and tagged our witnesses with all sorts of unprintable names and accused them of being saboteurs.

    “Today, these men (witnesses) live in hiding and can no longer do their businesses freely to maintain their families.”

    It urged Buhari to institute a probe into the murder of 97 persons during the 2015 polls in Rivers State.

    APC said:  “We passionately plead with President Buhari to hasten to make good his promise to Rivers people on May 13, 2015 when he vowed to revisit the issue, saying: ‘We will confront them with facts and figures. We will not forgive and we will not forget those who perpetrated killings and arson in Rivers State during the elections (of March 28 and April 11, 2015).’

    “We demand that the Prof. Chidi Odinkalu Commission of Inquiry report be revisited urgently,”

    Rivers APC also called on all the security agencies to take necessary preventive measures, to guarantee the safety of the witnesses testifying at the various election petitions tribunals in Abuja.

  • Technicalities threaten justice at tribunals

    Technicalities threaten justice at tribunals

    When the election tribunals were inaugurated after the general elections, they were expected to do justice and dwell less on technicalities. The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, while inaugurating the 242 judges in the over 70 election tribunals, urged them to look at cases on their merit.

    He told them: “As you start your assignment, I must re-iterate that while you are on the tribunals, you will be looked upon as the embodiment of this ideal of justice.  To that end, you must be the dispensers of justice, regardless of fear or favour, position or standing.

    “Since you all do not have the luxury of time in the discharge of your duties, I urge you all to be pedantic in your deliberations but do not allow ‘red- herring’ technicalities to distract you from the path of justice.  You must listen attentively, and enquire appropriately, taking care not to descend into the arena,” the CJN said.

    However, judges at the tribunals seem to be doing otherwise. Some of their decisions, it appears, tend to emphasize technicalities.

    On July 31, the Court of Appeal in Abuja reversed an earlier decision by the Kogi State Legislative Election Tribunal. The Justice Akpan Ikpeme-led tribunal had, in a ruling on June 18 in the petition by Senator Smart Adeyemi against Senator Dino Melaye (challenging the outcome of the election in the Kogi West Senatorial District), dismissed the petition on technical ground.

    The tribunal said petition was incompetent and was abandoned because the petitioner was out of time in its response to the reply by one of the respondents.

    But, in its judgment on July 31, the Court of Appeal faulted the tribunal’s decision and ordered it to re-hear the petition promptly in line with the provision of the Constitution which stipulates 180 days from the date of filing.

    Justice Mohammed Adume , who read the unanimous judgment, noted  that “findings of the tribunal that the service was effected within 26 minutes was not supported with affidavit by the tribunal’s bailiff. The tribunal was wrong in its hasty conclusion and in striking out the petition on technicality.

    “A tribunal has the duty to verify and evaluate evidence before it in order to arrive at a just conclusion. The tribunal was wrong in stopping the train while on its way to justice,” Justice Adume said.

    The Court of Appeal in Akure reversed two decisions of the election tribunal dismissing the petitions by Festus Aregbesola (Akure South) and Gbenga Edema (Ilaje 11) in Ondo State. The tribunal had dismissed both petitions on technical grounds.

    There was also the decision in the petition by former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha against Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo State, where the tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner did not pay for the answers to the prehearing questionnaire.

    Also, the tribunal, by some of these decisions, seem to be in haste to do away with the petitions, and appear not to be interested in the CJN’s admonition and the various decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on the need to de-emphasise technicalities.

    The Supreme Court in the case of Amaechi v. I.N.E.C. (No.3) (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.1065) says: ‘’The sum total of the recent decisions of this court is that the court must move away from the era when adjudicatory power of the court was hindered by a constraining adherence to technicalities. .’’

    The Court of Appeal, in the case of Balonwu v. Obi (2007) 5 NWLR (Part. 1028) 488 at 542, says: “The court is more interested in doing substantial justice because reliance on technicalities lead to injustice…”

    The Court of Appeal added, in the case of Abdurauf v. State (2008) All FWLR (Part.410) 709 at 735 that “the policy of sticking to technicalities as opposed to substantial justice has ceased and the court has shifted from undue reliance on technicalities to doing substantial justice between the parties before it.”

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is also accused of not helping the course of justice but frustrating petitioners’ cases.

    This allegation is further supported in most of the tribunals like that of Rivers, Akwa-Ibom, and Gombe states where INEC has made it difficult for petitioners to inspect election materials and obtain certified true copies of them.

    In the case of Gombe governorship election tribunal, it took a long battle for the petitioners to overcome the intrigues and sometimes outright subterfuge of INEC officials in the Gombe office.

    It took the intervention of the INEC headquarters for some of its officials subpoenaed to agree to testify. The petitioners had to rely on such intervention to get the Head of Operations for the April 11, 2015 governorship election to testify on subpoena.

    With the INEC official as witness, the petitioners were able to go through the electoral forms to demonstrate their claim about how votes were deducted from the petitioners and how in some cases votes were added to the declared winner.

    With another official of INEC from its Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) department, the petitioners were also able to demonstrate their claim that voters’ accreditation details recorded in the various electoral forms defer from the details in the card reader server at the INEC Headquarters.

    It is the petitioners’ contention that since no incident forms were used for the governorship elections across the country, such discrepancies are significant in determining the issue of whether the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act.

    The petitioners are however uncomfortable that the tribunal refused to allow the report of the inspection of other electoral materials like the voters’registers and ballot papers to be admitted in evidence.

    They are equally sad that the tribunal in Gombe has denied petitioners in the other subsisting petitions the opportunity to bring in as evidence, report of inspection of electoral materials and even refused an application for the recounting of ballot papers.

    The petitioners queried the decision by the tribunal to disallow an INEC official from giving evidence on the ground that the subpoena was not personally served on the officer to whom it was addressed.

    They also complained that a substantial part of the 14 days allocated to the petitioners to present their case has been lost on account of all sorts of objections and applications raised and filed by the defence counsel.

    Petitioners at the Gombe governorship tribunal are particularly umcomfortable with the tribunal’s seeming predilection for technicalities.

     

     

  • Senate probes alleged DSS interference in Election Tribunals

    Senate probes alleged DSS interference in Election Tribunals

    •Daura to appear before panel today

    Investigation into the alleged interference in the Rivers State Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja by the Department of State Services (DSS) has commenced in the Senate.

    The upper chamber has invited the Director-General of the DSS, Lawal Daura, to explain the allegation.

    Daura is billed to appear before the Senate Committee on Ethics and Public Petitions, which has been mandated to conduct the investigation today.

    The probe is said to be sequel to a petition by members of the Rivers State House of Assembly to the Senate on the allegation.

    The petition signed by 31 members of the House was referred to the Ethics and Public Petitions Committee last week.

    The petitioners claimed, among others, that the DSS had arrested some officials of the Independent National Election Commission (INEC) and members of the Election Petition Tribunal and subjected them to serious intimidation, harassment and coercion to compromise the independence of the tribunal and pervert justice.

    Chairman of the committee, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, (PDP, Imo East Senatorial District) at the commencement of sitting yesterday warned those involved in the matter against delay.

    Anyanwu said members would demand prompt response to invitations and questions during the probe.

    The chairman said the committee would pay serious attention to allegations of abuse of office against the DSS.

    He, however, noted that the petitioners should provide specific details to assist the committee to conduct a thorough investigation.

    Anyanwu said, “The issue of independence of the judiciary is a very serious pillar in the dispensation of justice.

    “That is why the committee takes the allegation of intimidation of Tribunal members’ very seriously because if the judiciary is intimidated, then the independence is compromised.

    “So we want all details about this allegation supplied to the committee without delay.”

    Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Ikuinyi-Owaji Ibani, who led other members to the committee, defended the petition.

    Ibani noted that INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner in Rivers State, Mrs. Gesila Khan and some other senior officials of the commission were also arrested and detained by the DSS in Abuja.

    He said: “We make bold to say that they lack the power or the authority to invite any judicial officer serving in the Rivers State Election Petition Tribunal for questioning concerning their handling of election petitions pending before them based on some purported petitions from interested parties.”

    “While we commend the stance and efforts of President Muhammadu Buhari to instill discipline, strengthen institutions of State and deepen democratic values where all Nigerians will have equal opportunities, we are appalled by their present clandestine and surreptitious moves aimed at derailing an efficient, transparent and unbiased justice delivery system and thereby bringing the judiciary into disrepute, public ridicule and odium.”

    Ibani added that “embarking on this condemnable mission, the DSS purports to be acting on some pre-arranged petitions from persons who are directly interested in the outcome of the various election Petitions from Rivers State.”

  • Tribunals await Appeal Court on jurisdictional question

    The issue of whether state governorship election petition tribunals can sit in Abuja may threaten the 180-day time-line for determination of cases, writes ERIC IKHILAE.

    The President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa thought she had safely addressed the fear of insecurity, raised by some states’ election tribunals, when she directed their relocation to Abuja.

    As at last count, about six states’ election tribunals now sit in Abuja, on account of security threat. They include Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom, Borno, Rivers and Yobe states.

    Rather than provide a safe and conducive environment for the discharge of their duties, the choice of Abuja as their sitting venue now constitutes a major problem that not only query the PCA’s intention, but threatens the operations of the tribunals.

    Those, who felt uncomfortable with these tribunals’ sitting outside the states where the elections took place in April 11 this year, have challenged the PCA’s decision to allow such tribunals to sit in Abuja. They include Governors Emmanuel Udom and Nyesom Wike of Akwa-Ibom and Rivers states, former Akwa-Ibom State governor and now a Senator, Godswill Akpabio, among others

    While some have gone before the Federal High Court on the issue, others have resolved to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunals to sit in Abuja by filing applications to that effect.

    Those pushing for the reversal of the PCA’s relocation have insisted that the issue borders on the jurisdiction, which must first be resolved before the affected tribunals could conduct any business in relation to pending petitions.

    While no major steps have been taken in the cases before the Federal High Court, except in the one filed by Kemka Stanley Elenwo in Abuja, most of the tribunals have taken arguments on the applications, challenging their relocation, but are yet to deliver ruling.

    The tribunals have, curiously, proceeded with their preliminary proceedings, while keeping silent on the challenge to their jurisdiction, believing that the challenge is against mainly their territorial jurisdiction as against subject matter jurisdiction. It is the contention of those, seeking the reversal of the PCA’s relocation directive, that a governorship/legislative election tribunal cannot validly sit and conduct businesses outside the state where the election took place in view of the provision of Section 285(2) 0f the Constitution.

    Section 285(2) states that: “There shall be established in each State of the Federation one or more election tribunals to be known as the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunals which shall, to the exclusion of any court or tribunal, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of Governor or Deputy Governor or as a member of any legislative house.”

    They are relying heavily on the only available Court of Appeal’s decision  given about 10 years ago in the case of  Ibori vs. Ogboru (2005) 6 NWLR (part 920 C. A. 102, where a full panel of the appellate court held that  an election tribunal must sit in the state where the election took place.

    In the case by Elenwo, marked: FHC/ABJ/Cs/372/2015, filed in relation to the Rivers State tribunals, the plaintiff went further to query the powers of the PCA to constitute an election tribunals without consulting either the Chief Judge of the state, the Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the state or the President of the Customary Court of Appeal of the state, as required under the provision of Paragraph 2(3) of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

    Elenwo and others, who are opposed to the sitting of the relocated tribunals in Abuja, want the relocation voided and the tribunals be returned to their states.

    Conversely however, those in favour of the relocation argued that the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Ibori vs. Ogboru (2005) did not adequately interpret the provision of Section 285(2) of the Constitution.

    To them, things are different now because, security and related matters, which informed the PCA’s decision to direct the relocation of some tribunals to Abuja, were not considered in the Ibori vs Ogboru case.

    Wole Olanipekun (SAN), lawyer to the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate in Akwa-ibom State, Umana  Umana, stressed this point in his counter argument in the application filed by Udom  before the state’s governorship tribunal  on  June 22 this year.

    “Ibori vs Ogboru is not an iron cast decision to the effect that a governorship tribunal must sit in the state where the election was held.  The Ibori vs Ogboru case was decided in 2005 under the unamended Constitution and the Electoral Act (EA),” he said.

    Olanipekun argue that not only were facts different, circumstances have also been altered in that, under the new EA, election tribunal is now regarded as a national institution and now captured under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

    “When the Ibori case was decided, there was no Section 285(6) and (7). The Constitution now says 180 days. The Ibori case was decided almost three years after the election. 52 days are already gone. Under the previous provision, the tribunal could afford to waste time. Now, the PCA appoints the tribunal judges and make practice direction,” he said.

    Defendants’ lawyer in the Elenwo case, Professor Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) , while arguing in similar vein, insisted that time and circumstances of these cases (Ibori and the current cases) are not the same.  He noted that the issue of security was not canvassed in the Ibori case. He added that had the tribunal, in the case of Ibori given any reason  for relocating its sitting out of Delta State, the decision would have been different.

    Ruling on June 24 this year, in the case by Elenwo, Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja upheld an application for referral filed on behalf of the PCA and three others and referred the issue to the Court of Appeal for determination.

    He said the decision of the appellate court on the issue will guide the lower court faced with similar question as to whether or not the Court of Appeal has already interpreted the provision of Section 285(2) of the Constitution to address the issues which informed the relocation of the tribunals  to Abuja.

    “To the extent that the issue affects a number of states of the federation, it is to that extent that I believe that the opinion on the question stated will assist courts of first instance to deal expeditiously with cases in which the constitutionality of the 1st defendant’s (PCA’s) decision to direct the governorship election tribunals in the affected states to be relocated to Abuja to be timeously resolved.

    “It is a substantial question of interpretation of the provision whether Section 285(2) of the Constitution can be read and interpreted to address the issue of venue for sitting of the governorship election tribunals outside the states for which they were constituted by the 1st defendant,” Justice Kolawole held.

    Citing the development in the Elenwo case before Justice Kolawole, the Chairman of the Akwa-Ibom legislative election tribunal, Justice Goddy Anunihu told parties on July 2 this year that his tribunal will await the Court of Appeal’s decision on the issue of whether or not the tribunal could validly sit in Abuja.

    The tribunal had scheduled ruling on the issue for July 2, but at the commencement of proceedings, Justice Anunihu, as is the case with other tribunals, said his tribunal will await the Court of Appeal, but will proceed with the pre-trial proceedings.

    Although lawyers  to  Akpabio (on whose application the tribunal was to rule), his party, the Peopels Democratic Party (PDP) and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) urged the court to halt all businesses until the issue of jurisdiction was resolved, the tribunal held otherwise, insisting that the challenge was against its territorial jurisdiction and not subject matter jurisdiction. He adjourned to July 14.

    While it is now clear that the relocated tribunals have chosen to await the appellate court’s direction on whether they could validly conduct their businesses in Abuja observers are concerned about the implication of such “transfer of responsibility” on the fate of the various petitions.

    The questions being asked include whether the authorities of the Court of Appeal are aware of the need for timeous determination of this issue in view of the time limit accorded the tribunals by the Constitution?

    They also wondered whether the issue will not eventually end at the Supreme Court in view of the fact that the PCA, whose court the decision on the issue has been referred, is a party in the case referred by Justice Kolawole and the other cases before the Federal high Court.

    Can the Court of Appeal satisfactorily decide the issue when the PCA and some Justices of the court are parties in the suit? Will any of the party not argue that the affected Justices of the Court of Appeal, including the PCA cannot act as judges in their own case?

    How fast can the Supreme Court move when this issue eventually gets to it for determination? Will the tribunals still meet the 180-day deadline? Time will tell.

  • Observers demand immediate set up of tribunals in Anambra

    Following the alleged manipulations and irregularities that characterised the Presidential and National Assembly elections in Anambra State, the coalition of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) accredited observers is demanding immediate set up of election petition tribunals in the state to correct the anomalies.

    Briefing reporters yesterday at the Marble Arch Hotels in Awka, Anambra State, the INEC observers, led by Chris Azor, said the results of the elections were mutilated with falsification of figures in favour of one party.

    According to the observers, “we must consciously discourage the practice of installing the wrong person on elective office because of the obvious negative implication on good governance, accountability and peaceful co-existence”

    Furthermore, the group observed with dismay, the discrepancy between results declared at the polling units and the collation centres, adding that such highlights the weakness of the collation process.

  • ‘Court didn’t approve tribunal’s report against Akeredolu’

    ‘Court didn’t approve tribunal’s report against Akeredolu’

    Contrary to insinuations that the candidate of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Mr Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN), was purportedly indicted by a Judicial Commission of Enquiry, the former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) was neither indicted nor barred from participating in politics.

    Details of the court processes on two suits filed in 1999 and 2001 on the proceedings of the commission and the outcome showed that neither case advanced to judgment.

    The parties agreed on an amicable settlement (out-of-court) by virtue of a term of settlement adopted by the court as its judgment.

    Justice P. I. Odunwo of the Ondo State High Court, Akure, on December 10, 2002, consolidated the suit and adopted the terms of settlement filed by the parties.

    The court’s decision to consolidate the suit was based on an agreement by the parties. The court, upon hearing an ex parte application by Akeredolu, which was not opposed by lawyer to the state and some others, Daniel Onukun, consolidated both cases and adopted the terms of settlement as prayed in the application.

    Onukun represented Justice R. O. Fawehinmi (retired), Kunle Adedipe, Dele Awopeju, E. O. A. Komolafe, D. O. Akinduro, Ondo State Governor and the Attorney-General and Commisioner for Justice.

    Justice Odunwo held: “In view of the fact that the two suits …have been settled amicably out of court by the parties on the basis of the terms of settlement filed on December 10, 2002 and on the application by Mr O. O. Akeredolu (SAN), which application is not objected to by Mr Onukun, the terms of settlement in respect of the two matters stated above are hereby made the judgment of this honourable court. There is no order as to cost.”