ON Wednesday, last week,  a Federal High Court sitting in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, ruled that five state governors, namely, Ibrahim Idris of Kogi, Aliyu Wamako of Sokoto, Murtala Nyako of Adamawa, Liyel Imoke of Cross River, and Timipre Sylva of Bayelsa who won re-run elections in 2008  would remain in office till 2012 contrary to the assumption that their terms were a continuation of the time they had spent in office prior to the invalidation of their mandate by Appeal Court Tribunals. Following the conduct of fresh elections in the states, and the re-emergence of the five governors, they had gone to court to seek interpretation of their tenure in response to INEC’s directive that they should prepare for the April elections as required by the amended 1999 Constitution.

The ruling has weighty implications for the ongoing democratisation process and particularly the scheduled 2011 general elections. In the first instance, gubernatorial elections would not hold in the affected states.  Secondly, the efforts of all the gubernatorial aspirants in the affected states who had worked hard through the party primaries would come to naught. Thirdly, it would seem that electoral malpractices are somewhat rewarded. Above all, the new development complicates the dynamics of the democratisation process in the country which is underpinned by a constitution whose deficits have often come under critical focus. Truly, the country is paying a heavy price for its inability to fix the law enabling the electoral process.  If the laws had been right and election cases were determined timeously, before swearing in of new public officers, as had been recommended by the Uwais committee,  the present quagmire would have been avoided.

The crux of the matter is Section 180 of the 1999 Constitution on the Tenure of Office of the Governor which inter alia made the point about the governor vacating his office at the expiration of  a four-year period beginning from the date the elected person took his/her oath of allegiance and oath of office. But this section has now been made more explicit in the 2010 amendment to the Constitution in Section 180 (2) (c) which states specifically that in the determination of tenure of office of a governor in cases of re-run in which the former occupant of the office wins, his expended time prior to the re-run is taken into consideration. Arguments and counter-arguments have been made whether the amended section can be applied retroactively. But the Federal High Court ruled that the five Governors cannot be held down to the amendment as, this would amount to the law having a retroactive effect, and since their election had been declared null and void and they won the fresh election prior to the constitutional amendment, it is to be deemed that they are entitled to a fresh tenure of four years.

While political watchers are grappling with this new reality and aspirants are yet to rise to the challenge it poses, other governors who had also won re-run elections and were not party to the current case, such as the governor of Delta State, have also gone to court to seek redress. But matters are not helped by the electoral umpire, INEC. It has indicated that it would appeal the court verdict and there are sketchy details as to whether its legal team had filed the appeal.

We wonder whether it is the right of the electoral body to go to court.  The onus, it seems, lies with the sundry aspirants in the affected states to go to court to challenge the court verdict. There are indications that over 20 aspirants are planning to do so. With divided opinions on the matter, the ultimate decision lies with the courts. However, with a nation-wide election in the offing, and plethora of court orders and logistic problems to sort out, we think that INEC has so much to chew than to flex its muscle over this particular case. INEC should resist the temptation to act as a busybody in a case it which has so far not been implicated in any way; lest it exposes itself to charges of partisanship. Let the aspirants, and their political parties take up their own case, while INEC faces the onerous and more urgent tasks before it, chief of which is the need to inspire public confidence in its capacity to ensure credible polls in April.

-Guardian

Posted by admin on Mar 4 2011. Filed under Elections 2011, INEC Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry