The Chief Justice’s timely admonition

At a ceremony to swear in the 242 judges who had been selected to serve as chairman and members of the 2015 election petition tribunals, the CJN’s warning could not have come at more auspicious period. Given recent developments in the political landscape, these tribunals will have plenty of work to do. The disqualification of […]

At a ceremony to swear in the 242 judges who had been selected to serve as chairman and members of the 2015 election petition tribunals, the CJN’s warning could not have come at more auspicious period. Given recent developments in the political landscape, these tribunals will have plenty of work to do. The disqualification of some aspirants by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and issues arising from contentious party primaries and outcomes of the forthcoming general elections are just a few of the many probable cased that the tribunals would adjudicate on.  
The CJN warned that the National Judicial Council (NJC) would not hesitate to deal with judges who allowed themselves to be influenced by interest groups. He said their considerations in all cases brought before them must be grounded in law only and not coloured by personal sympathies, opinion or affiliations. He enjoined them to uphold the stability of democracy in that all petitions must be based upon grounds contained in Section 138 of the Electoral Act, and discount extraneous provisions. This section relates specifically to the right to present an election petition.  
 Unlike in civil proceedings, the parties to an election petition, and the grounds on which it is made, are statutorily confined. According to this section, only persons who claim to have had a right to contest the election; persons who claim that they have had a right to be returned at the election; a candidate at the election, and a political party, may bring a case before the election tribunal. There are only four grounds under which an election can be questioned. The non-qualification of the returned candidate, the invalidity of the election by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, that the respondent was not elected by the majority of lawful votes, or that the petitioner or his candidate was unlawfully excluded.
Recent experience cast the judiciary in very poor light. One of CJN Muhammad’s predecessors retired in a cloud of allegations of corruption made against him by a former President of the Federal Court of Appeal, who himself was mired in similar allegations.   
Politicians in Nigeria appear to be the most litigious in electoral issues. The volume of litigation and the number of results that have been overturned by previous tribunals reflected badly on the capacity of INEC to conduct free and fair elections. But a lot of lessons has been learnt from all these.  
It is imperative that the sanctity of the electoral system and the ballot box is maintained at all times; the election petition tribunals, as integral part of the judicial system, are uniquely placed to advance that goal. The CJN should also warn judges involved in hearing pre-election matters to tow the same line of integrity and being above board. The era of politicians picking and choosing what judge to approach in order to obtain a ‘favourable’ judgement, or procuring judgements at midnight court sessions, should be well and truly over. Those who try to abuse the judicial process in this way must be exposed by the judges concerned and dealt with.  
The CJN should also ensure that all contending issues in any election, from presidential to state legislator, must be concluded in court or tribunal before the candidate concerned is considered suitable or not to be sworn in.