INEC’s Appeal On Five States

Posted by admin Elections 2011 Tuesday, March 1st, 2011

ON what grounds will the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, appeal a federal high court decision excluding five states – Bayelsa, Cross River, Kogi, Sokoto and Adamawa – from the governorship polls?

Justice Adamu Bello ruled that the tenure of governors Timipre Sylva (Bayelsa), Liyel Imoke ( Cross River ), Ibrahim Idris (Kogi), Aliyu Wamakko (Sokoto) and Murtala Nyako (Adamawa) will end next year, instead of this year as INEC assumed.

It was a straightforward decision. The judge relied on Section 180 (2) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for a four-year tenure of office for a governor from the day he took the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance.

He stated that the amendment of Section 180 of the 1999 Constitution in 2010 could not affect the five governors since the re-run elections were conducted in 2008. It is trite knowledge that laws do not take retroactive effect.

INEC thinks otherwise. It is clinging to the amended Section 180, which states, “In the event of a rerun election, the time spent in office before the date the election was annulled shall be taken into account.”

“There is nowhere in the world where a Constitution takes retroactive effect as erroneously held by the INEC. The said amendment cannot be used to determine the tenure of the governors who took oath of office in 2008,” Justice Bello ruled.

Of course, the amendment did not provide for a retroactive implementation of the Constitution and INEC was clearly acting outside the Constitution by insisting on using its new provision in settling a matter predicated on an earlier version of the Constitution.

What would be the bases for INEC’s appeal, except it wants the Constitution to be retroactive or it is biased, as some are already accusing it? Individual politicians whose interests have been hurt can appeal, they have that right, not a public body that is assumed to act for collective public interest.

An INEC appeal will be a waste of public resources, considering the hefty legal fees it pays. It is equally a distraction. This distraction is not ordinary. Its pursuit by INEC confers a certain legitimacy to the quest and is capable of raising new levels of tension in the affected States.

If the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, is INEC expecting a verdict different from what Peter Obi obtained against INEC when he sought the Supreme Court’s position on the duration of his tenure? Justice Bello’s judgement aligned with the Supreme Court on Peter Obi.

The confusion began last year through an INEC statement that governorship elections would hold in all States except Rivers (June 2011), Edo (July 2012), Ondo (November 2012) and Anambra (November 2014). INEC based its position on the amendments to Section 180 of the Constitution.

We advise INEC to concentrate on the coming elections. It should be seen as an unbiased umpire that respects the Constitution that created it.

-Vanguardwp_posts