By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
Some weeks ago, I was a guest speaker at the national seminar organized by Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) at Sheraton Hotel, Lagos where we brainstormed on the Politicization of Election Disputes in Nigeria’s Courts, Key Provisions of the Electoral Act and the Challenges of Technical Interpretation. Permit me to share my thoughts with you.
INTRODUCTION
Nigeria as an independent state is no doubt blessed with a large geography, rich culture, and wonderful people but unfortunately, also with poor institutions where politicians have plaundered the resources of this country for so long. It is common knowledge that this country is bedevilled with numerous challenges but of major concern here in this discourse is the mode and procedure she has adopted to govern the populace and indeed the behaviour of the major players in the electoral system. In some quarters, it has been said that politicians have their ways and they often do not play this game of politics according to the laid down rules and guiding laws. While I agree with these assertions, I must also use this medium to condemn the act of politicking every aspect of our society or to be more precise, I denounce the desperate act of our political players to be politically correct even on the altar of justice and the risk of rubbishing the unity of the country. Politics as it were, is a beautiful game, for it reflects the wishes of the people and also serves as the popularity test of any aspiring leader. Elections which are the true test of democracy ought to be free, fair and credible so as to reflect the true wishes of the people. Unfortunately, elections in Nigeria since the advent of the 4th republic have not really aligned with the true wishes and aspirations of the people. It is common knowledge even in this hall that elections have been marred with violence, vote buying, voter intimidation and suppression, all of which have culminated into voter apathy with the list being endless.
From the empirical facts before us, one can boldly say that elections in Nigeria are no longer conducted and concluded by the electoral bodies as almost every election so far has been subject of judicial scrutiny. The judiciary, as a crucial pillar of democracy, is entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the rule of law and ensuring fair and just resolution of electoral conflicts. In recent years, the judiciary is now increasingly involved in resolving electoral disputes and in the selection of our political leaders. What was designed to be the exception is the new normal and even this, is not spared from the invading powers of the politicians. Election petitions play a crucial role in addressing grievances related to electoral contests. However, these cases often encounter a myriad of challenges, particularly in the realm of technicalities within the Nigerian judicial system. This discourse therefore explores some of the prominent challenges facing election disputes in court while dealing with a major component of election petitions, which is technicalities.
POLITICIZATION OF ELECTION DISPUTES IN NIGERIA’S COURTS
Recently, we all watched on national television where the chieftain of a political party boasted about securing victory at the Supreme Court ahead of his political rivals. If this is not provocative enough, it might also be of interest to remind you that a serving Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria alluded to how he deployed his marital association with the head of a vital arm of the judiciary to secure judgment in favour of his colleagues. This increasing trend of politicization has raised concerns about the independence and integrity of the judicial process. One thing we can take from these two unfortunate scenarios is that politicians have taken their game far beyond the field of elections and transferred the same energy to the judiciary. They have shown and indeed there is a deliberate attempt to buy out the judiciary with the aid of some unscrupulous elements in the system.
The term politics is a common concept with much-contested definitions in the social sciences. The contest stems from the inability to submit to a consensus of opinion about what constitutes the political and where exactly politics takes place. This suggests that politics exists wherever human beings interact for certain purposes. Thus, human communication which invokes principles, statements, arguments and disagreements can be explained within the context of politics. Since individuals exist for the actualization of certain interests and such interests conflict with others, politics then becomes the instrument for resolving such conflicts. The desire to get and control power at all times has now made Nigerian politicians to politicize the judicial system.
The conduct of free and fair elections is guided by specified rules. Where the rules and regulations guiding the conduct of an election are deemed to have been compromised and election results rejected, candidates and/or their political parties have another lifeline through election petition. In Nigeria, election petition is the procedure of challenging the result of an election into the federal or state executive offices, legislative houses or local government councils. What this suggests is that the only legal way aggrieved parties can register their displeasure and check the validity of the outcome of any election in Nigeria is through election petitions. Since the outcome of electoral contests remains acceptable to some and unacceptable to others, the party to which the outcome is unacceptable is vested with the constitutional preserve of seeking redress through the election petition process.
It is no longer news that election petition is a proceeding that is sui generis and is considered distinct from other civil proceedings. It is time-bound and demands extreme urgency in the disposition of the same by the election tribunals. Election petition proceedings are free from the procedural clogs of normal civil proceedings. Importantly, the sui generis nature of an election petition translates it into a class of its own, and guided by its own rules and laws distinct from those of civil and criminal laws.
Two factors are critical to an election petition. First are the rules and laws under which it is entertained and adjudicated upon. Fundamentally, an election petition should not be viewed under the same laws that guide civil or criminal proceedings. This is to avoid unnecessary legal technicalities that could arise. Civil and criminal laws, in some situations, allow for the discretion of the judges in adjudicating in such matters; however, such discretion will be placed on the scale of political pendulum aimed at skewing the process and outcome towards certain interests if allowed in election petition proceedings. Therefore, election petitions are resolved under distinct laws of their own. Secondly, election petition is time-bound and hence, requires that any petition arising from an electoral contest should be treated with urgency since occupiers of elective positions are tied to a specified number of years in the various political offices they have vied for.
Politicization refers to the undue influence of political actors and considerations on non-partisan institutions or processes. In the context of election disputes in Nigeria, policization manifests when political interests permeate the judiciary, affecting the impartiality and objectivity that should characterize the resolution of such matters. Politicization of the elections dispute and indeed the judiciary has led to the collapse of public trust in the judiciary. Many emerging and stable democracies of the world alike are known to be battling with the menace. In a huge number of cases, the idea of frolicking with politicians directly or indirectly creates credibility gaps for the judiciary. We can beam our light on the methods of selection, retention and removal of judges to sustain independence and impartiality; the various methods of selecting judges and other judicial members, (in)appropriateness of appointment, retention and removal of judges. The judge and the judiciary in general must be free of inducements, threats, improper influences of any degree and manner, direct or indirect interference from any persons or groups and on whatever grounds.
