The Presidential Election Tribunal judgment
TO a large extent, the judgment of the Presidential Election Tribunal has renewed the faith of Nigerians in democracy and the rule of law. It is a re-statement that notwithstanding the flaws in our system of government, there is no alternative to peaceful resolution of political differences, if indeed the country is to move progressively along with the rest of the world.
By expressing an intention to appeal, the petitioner, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), is exercising its right under the constitution; an action that can only strengthen the nation’s system of democracy and government. It is important that Nigerians of all creed believe in the judiciary as an impartial arbiter, and as the last hope of the common man.
However, the reasons being adduced by the CPC for its possible appeal to the Supreme Court are also a pointer to an inherent deficiency in the court processes leading to the judgment. Like all systems run by human beings, the judiciary is not perfect. But as an institution invested with so much reverence, it ought to rise above the ordinary to inspire people’s confidence.
In this particular instance, the judiciary seems to have fallen short of its own cardinal principle of ensuring not only that justice is done, but that it is manifestly seen to be done. That failure underlines the CPC’s complaint of a possible manipulation of the process to its disadvantage.
The CPC had challenged the presidential election of April 16, 2011 that President Goodluck Jonathan won, seeking to nullify it for non-compliance with the 2010 Electoral Act. In particular, the party contended that the election was fraught with invalidity, rigging and arbitrary vote allocation among other irregularities.
But the tribunal, headed by Justice Kumai Akaahs dismissed the petition for lacking in merit and substance, emphasising that the CPC failed to discharge its onus of proof on the various allegations upon which it founded its complaint. According to the tribunal, the evidence of the CPC’s 47 witnesses “could be said to be unsubstantiated and worthless.”
While President Jonathan, through his Special Adviser (Media and Publicity) Dr. Reuben Abati, described the judgment as “a triumph for democracy and an affirmation of the sovereignty of the Nigerian people,” the CPC through its chairman, Prince Tony Momoh, disagreed, saying the party would contest the judgment at the Supreme Court.
It is instructive that President Jonathan commended the CPC and its presidential candidate, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, for their respect for the rule of law and the constitution. Certainly, the judicial process is preferred by civilised people worldwide as a means of resolving conflict. In any event, there must be an end to litigation or expression of grievances.
Compared with the immediate past, the prosecution and resolution of the Presidential election petition was fairly fast, coming just five months after the government’s inauguration on May 29, 2011. However, the ideal situation remains that such disputes be resolved fully and finally before a winner is sworn in. If the CPC had won in court for instance, the country would have lost five months, and a lot of resources expended by President Jonathan, as most of the decisions taken in that period may be reversed.
The CPC’s observation that the verdict was unfair to it and predictable is equally noteworthy. The party noted that following the removal of Justice Ayo Salami as both President of the Court of Appeal and first chairman of the tribunal, the final judgment was hardly surprising. The party queried not just Justice Salami’s removal, but also the reconstitution of the judges’ panel and the panel’s reversal of an earlier order that the party be allowed to carry out forensic examination of ballot papers.
Without prejudice to the CPC’s proposed appeal to the Supreme Court, changing judicial officers at critical stage of the proceedings is always capable of sending wrong signals. No matter the motive or the factors underlying them, such decisions are bound to raise questions as to whether or not justice was being circumvented. For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done. All concerned stakeholders should be more mindful of this fact.
The court’s verdict perhaps is an endorsement of the positive assessment of the performance of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the last election. The election may be better, compared to those conducted in the past 10 years, but the commission should be under no illusion that it was perfect. Rather, INEC should see the court’s proceedings and judgment as a platform to further eliminate malpractices and conduct more credible elections.
Lastly, the Supreme Court should speedily dispense with the CPC’s appeal, if and when it is brought before it, to sustain the judicial practice that seeks to avoid making decisions in futility.
By expressing an intention to appeal, the petitioner, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), is exercising its right under the constitution; an action that can only strengthen the nation’s system of democracy and government. It is important that Nigerians of all creed believe in the judiciary as an impartial arbiter, and as the last hope of the common man.
However, the reasons being adduced by the CPC for its possible appeal to the Supreme Court are also a pointer to an inherent deficiency in the court processes leading to the judgment. Like all systems run by human beings, the judiciary is not perfect. But as an institution invested with so much reverence, it ought to rise above the ordinary to inspire people’s confidence.
In this particular instance, the judiciary seems to have fallen short of its own cardinal principle of ensuring not only that justice is done, but that it is manifestly seen to be done. That failure underlines the CPC’s complaint of a possible manipulation of the process to its disadvantage.
The CPC had challenged the presidential election of April 16, 2011 that President Goodluck Jonathan won, seeking to nullify it for non-compliance with the 2010 Electoral Act. In particular, the party contended that the election was fraught with invalidity, rigging and arbitrary vote allocation among other irregularities.
But the tribunal, headed by Justice Kumai Akaahs dismissed the petition for lacking in merit and substance, emphasising that the CPC failed to discharge its onus of proof on the various allegations upon which it founded its complaint. According to the tribunal, the evidence of the CPC’s 47 witnesses “could be said to be unsubstantiated and worthless.”
While President Jonathan, through his Special Adviser (Media and Publicity) Dr. Reuben Abati, described the judgment as “a triumph for democracy and an affirmation of the sovereignty of the Nigerian people,” the CPC through its chairman, Prince Tony Momoh, disagreed, saying the party would contest the judgment at the Supreme Court.
It is instructive that President Jonathan commended the CPC and its presidential candidate, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, for their respect for the rule of law and the constitution. Certainly, the judicial process is preferred by civilised people worldwide as a means of resolving conflict. In any event, there must be an end to litigation or expression of grievances.
Compared with the immediate past, the prosecution and resolution of the Presidential election petition was fairly fast, coming just five months after the government’s inauguration on May 29, 2011. However, the ideal situation remains that such disputes be resolved fully and finally before a winner is sworn in. If the CPC had won in court for instance, the country would have lost five months, and a lot of resources expended by President Jonathan, as most of the decisions taken in that period may be reversed.
The CPC’s observation that the verdict was unfair to it and predictable is equally noteworthy. The party noted that following the removal of Justice Ayo Salami as both President of the Court of Appeal and first chairman of the tribunal, the final judgment was hardly surprising. The party queried not just Justice Salami’s removal, but also the reconstitution of the judges’ panel and the panel’s reversal of an earlier order that the party be allowed to carry out forensic examination of ballot papers.
Without prejudice to the CPC’s proposed appeal to the Supreme Court, changing judicial officers at critical stage of the proceedings is always capable of sending wrong signals. No matter the motive or the factors underlying them, such decisions are bound to raise questions as to whether or not justice was being circumvented. For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done. All concerned stakeholders should be more mindful of this fact.
The court’s verdict perhaps is an endorsement of the positive assessment of the performance of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the last election. The election may be better, compared to those conducted in the past 10 years, but the commission should be under no illusion that it was perfect. Rather, INEC should see the court’s proceedings and judgment as a platform to further eliminate malpractices and conduct more credible elections.
Lastly, the Supreme Court should speedily dispense with the CPC’s appeal, if and when it is brought before it, to sustain the judicial practice that seeks to avoid making decisions in futility.
| Next > |
|---|
No comments:
Post a Comment