Emmanuel Oladesu, Deputy Editor, examines the implication of the Supreme Court judgement that stopped David Lyon from being sworn in as governor of Bayelsa State a few hours to his inauguration.
MUKHTAR Idris, former member of the House Representatives, had the ambition to rule Zamfara State. He ran for governor on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC). At the poll, he scored 534,541 to defeat his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) rival, Bello Mutawalle.
But, hit by the blow of fate, the table turned against Idris. Following the verdict of the Supreme Court, the winner became the loser and his crown was given to his opponent, Matawalle.
The electorate groaned. Reality dawned on them that they had voted in vain. They exercised their franchise, but, the votes did not count.
The same scenario played out in Bayelsa State, to the disadvantage of the APC. On the eve of his anticipated inauguration, Governor-elect David Lyon fell, few steps to stardom. Suddenly, fate played a cruel joke on the winner of the governorship poll.
According to the Supreme Court, he was not the valid candidate of the party. In fact, the party lacked qualified candidates. The umpire was directed to issue another Certificate of Return to the loser, Senator Douye Diri of the PDP.
During the election, Lyon scored 352,552 votes to defeat Diri, who polled 143, 172 votes.
A pattern of confusing electoral democracy is emerging in Nigeria. The ballot box may not be the decider. The choice of the people at the poll still faces post-election legal hurdles in some states. Judging by the inexplicable trend, the pendulum of justice may not swing towards the direction of people’s choice.
Technicality versus justice
The rejected candidate at the poll clearly has a bright chance of claiming what had eluded him. As the battle shifts from the ballot box to the temple of justice, the loser may replace the winner, following the triumph of technicalities over substantial justice.
To commentators, the confusion cannot be solely attributed to the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter. The court will always decide on the relative weight of contrasting evidence tendered by litigants.
The bulk of the blame goes to the political class; the party that fails to put its house in order, and clever, irresponsible candidates fond of cutting corners, oblivious of the high risk.
At issue, in the opinion of laymen in jurisprudence, is whether the court, while reviewing legal fireworks arising from electoral dispute before it, can afford to spare thought for the substance and sanctity of the people’s will as expressed by the electorate on polling day.
The Zamfara case was tragic. People were rooting for Idris as successor to Governor Abdulaziz Yari. He was the candidate to beat. He gazed at the State House, but could not get to the Promised Land. Perhaps, Idris was carried away by his emergence as the flag bearer. He was unconscious of the looming tragedy after poll.
The platform was divided. Two factions led by Yari and Senator Kabiru Marafa were locked in a curious battle of supremacy. The war of attrition dragged on for so long. Marafa claimed that the Congress that produced the State Executive Committee of Zamfara APC was faulty. He claimed that his faction was excluded from the congress. The controversy over the rancorous congress was not resolved before, during and after the election.
The national chairman, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole was helpless as factional supporters continued to fuel the acrimony. Although President Muhammadu Buhari appealled to the warring leaders to sheath their swords, the pleas fell on deaf ears; reconciliation collapsed because of the hard line postures of the feuding stalwarts.
However, party followers and voters were resolute in their determination to install an APC governor. The people of Zamfara voted for Idris, despite the polarisation of the party.
After the election, the intra-party bitterness persisted. A faction of the party went to court to seek the nullification of the disputed congress.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court nullified the votes cast for APC candidates at the House of Assembly, House of Representatives, Senate and governorship elections. The court declared that the congresses that produced the party executives that produced the candidates at the primaries did not follow laid down conditions. APC was preparing for polls. But, it did not put its House in order. The party violated its rules and guidelines.
Emergency beneficiaries
Thus, PDP candidates who lost at the polls became emergency beneficiaries of the intra-party discord. The court ordered that the PDP governorship candidate, who scored the second highest votes, should be sworn in as governor. It was the height of technical knockout.
But, Bayelsa APC did not learn from the Zamfara tragedy. The obstacle to total victory was the running mate, Biobarskuma Degi-Eremienyk, who should have limited himself to his secondary school certificate, which would have adequately attested to his attempt at post-primary education. But, he opted for multiple identities to his own peril.
The Bayelsa chapter was lazy in terms of screening or scrutiny. It failed to do a diligent check on the resume, particularly the academic certificates, tendered by Lyon’s running mate. Therefore, the chapter played into the hand of the PDP.
The court declared that the deputy governorship candidate tendered false personal information. The forgery could not be condoned.
Admitting the error of defective screening, a party chieftain, Davies Ikanya, said efforts should be made to ensure that the mistake is not repeated in the future.
Lyon was in high spirit on Thursday. He was at the proposed inauguration venue for rehearsals. The news of his dethronement as governor-elect met him there. He was dazed by the devastating tidings and turn of events.
Lyon ‘won’ the poll. He defeated his PDP rival, Senator Diri. But, the position of the law, according to the Supreme Court, was that he could not walk with one leg. His albatross, therefore, was his running mate, who was reckless and careless.
According to the court, Lyon was not on the ballot because he cannot run alone without a validly nominated deputy governorship candidate. The candidate and his deputy are inseparable. Therefore, Lyon and his running mate stood disqualified. To the people of Bayelsa, the duo was given the mandate to rule. But, to the Supreme Court, their candidatures were a figment of hyperactive imagination.
The Supreme Court verdict has not doused the brewing tension in Bayelsa. To forestall people’s revolt, police declared a three-day dusk to dawn curfew. The people are not conversant with the constitution and the Electoral Act. In ignorance, they are taken aback that their votes did not count.
The controversy and confusion linger in the court of public opinion.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the party with the second highest votes and constitutional electoral spread should take the mantle.
Opinion is divided. Diri met the first criterion; the second highest votes. But, APC is kicking. Oshiomhole has alleged that PDP did not meet the second criterion; geo-electoral spread.
The Supreme Court handled a difficult situation. After delivering its judgment, which does not go down well with a party in the dispute, it has no post-judgment explanation to make. Legal minds believe that, at the apex court, there is no political consideration. The focus is law and its interpretation.
A Lagos lawyer, Jimmy Abia, who spoke on a television programme, said the Supreme Court could not have closed its eyes to the inadequacy of the running mate whose fate had jeopardised the joint aspiration and wreaked havoc on the platform.
Also, Ebun Adegboruwa (SAN), who spoke on the judgment during a television programme, said when the voided votes of the APC are removed from the total votes cast, only 145,199 votes remained as lawful votes. The PDP candidate scored 143, 172, thereby meeting the criterion of spread, which was 25 percent of lawful votes. The lawyer said since 25 percent of voided votes cannot be counted Diri had to be sworn in, adding that there was no ambiguity.
Adegboruwa said the option opened to APC is to return to the court and ask for a review of the case. But, he maintained that a vacuum did not exist in Bayelsa.
The lawyer advised that courts should determine pre-election matters on time so that they will not linger and this kind of suspense will be avoided.
Comparing Imo and Bayelsa elections, he clarified that the Bayelsa case was not about the merit of the election, but about the multiple identities of the APC running mate. He said the calamity would have been avoided, if the deputy governorship candidate had been substituted before the election.
He pointed out that, clearly, the people of Bayelsa voted for APC, stressing that it is unfortunate that the will of the people will not count. Therefore, Adegboruwa called for constitution amendment, urging President Buhari to leave a legacy of electoral reforms.
Generally, elections are important cornerstone of democracy. They are held to either choose or reject political parties and candidates. Voting underscores the power of people. But, writhing in pains under the yoke of judicial technicalities, franchise is vanity.
There are puzzles: what will be the perception of the majority of Bayelsa people about the Diri administration because they did not endorse his candidature?
Is it possible for the will of the people to be respected by courts and other authorities without the regression to technicality?
In an earlier judgment in the historic case involving Rotimi Amaechi and Celestia Omehia, the Supreme Court ruled that people voted, not for candidates, but for parties. Does it have bearing on the Bayelsa situation in any respect?
How consistent are court judgments? In Kogi State supplementary governorship election, James Faleke declined to be deputy to the emergency candidate, Yahaya Bello, who ran without a deputy governorship candidate. Could Lyon have run without a deputy?
Are people not been short changed to the advantage of unpopular parties and candidates who were rejected at polls? Is the people’s will not been sacrificed or truncated on altar of technicalities?
Are courts, the last hope of the common man, not arrogating to themselves the duty of determining who should govern, contrary to the wishes and preference of the people for candidates of their choice?
Would by-elections not have been better than the judicial annulment of people’s votes as it would give people a fresh opportunity to express and affirm their choice or preference in Zamfara and Bayelsa?
Power is said to reside with the people. But, are people not been relegated to the background in the choice of their leaders?
Does it not amount to rigging of sorts when losers approach the court only to emerge as winners?
Can people who voted for a particular party and candidate be happy when the ones they rejected became their rulers for the next four years?
More questions are begging for answers: If politicians and parties play by the rules, and they do not indulge in manipulation, would there be any post-election litigation?
Does these scenarios not make an urgent constitution amendment compelling?
Also, should the conduct of desperate political operators and actors not be amended, as suggested by lawyer Chukwuma Ezeala, so that they can play by the rules?
Is it not better to resolve post-election matters before elections take place?
Will special tribunals of courts for the trial of electoral criminals restore electoral discipline?
Leave a Reply