The Imo governorship tussle: As judgement day is awaited

The role of the judiciary in the growth of democracy in Nigeria is better underscored by the fact that some of its landmark decisions have all gone a long way to redefine issues we, for a long time, took for granted. The judiciary has by taking these decisions in no small measure, clarified issues that […]

The role of the judiciary in the growth of democracy in Nigeria is better underscored by the fact that some of its landmark decisions have all gone a long way to redefine issues we, for a long time, took for granted. The judiciary has by taking these decisions in no small measure, clarified issues that add up to our democratic experience.

It is in the context of the above that we must situate the decision of the Supreme Court to ask all the parties in the Imo governorship tussle to return to the Court of Appeal for the later to hear the merits of the Appeal of Chief Martin Agbaso against a ruling delivered against him on April 30, 2007. The substance of the matter is the Judicial Review of INEC’s administrative action in cancelling the Imo State Gubernatorial election held on 14th April 2007 despite upholding and validating that of the State House of Assembly held simultaneously with the same materials at the same venue, time and by the same officials.

This cancellation took place after results had been announced in 3,419 polling Booths out of 3,532, collated in 299 Political Wards out of 305, and collated in 24 out 27 Local Government Areas. All that was remaining was for the Resident Electoral Commissioner acting as the Imo State Governorship Election Returning Officer to collate the Local Government Areas results (INEC Form EC8C) into a State–wide result sheet (INEC Form EC8D), announce the winner and issue a Certificate of Return as required by law.

The sing–song of INEC, Sir Ikedi Ohakim and Senator Ifeanyi Ararume and their respective apologists has always been that the April 14, 2007 Governorship election was inconclusive and produced no results. They usually take the argument a step further by claiming that in so far as INEC says there is no result then there is no result. They also go ahead and twist the issue by posing a rhetorical question: whose responsibility is it to announce the result of an election? They posit that as far as INEC has (or did) not announced (not announce) a result for the April 14, 2007 Imo Governorship election, then there is no and could not have been a result for the election.

This in my view is just plain stupid talk because the INEC appointed the Presiding Officers who oversaw the election in the 3,419 polling Booths out of 3,532 in Imo State where results were announced and INEC Form EC8A issued. In the same vein INEC appointed the Ward Returning Officers that collated the results from the Polling Booths in the 299 Political Wards out of 305 where Ward collation took place and INEC Form EC8B issued. The same INEC as well, appointed the Electoral Officers who functioned as Local Government Returning Officers in the 24 out 27 Local Government Areas where results arising from the Wards were collated and INEC Form EC8C issued. In fact in the case of the Electoral Officers at the Local Government Area level, these were full INEC pensionable staff performing their statutory responsibility by reason of having also been named the Local Government Returning Officer for the election. Under the Electoral Act (2006) these INEC appointed officers / officials had legal responsibility and authority for announcing the results of election at their respective levels and spheres of authority. Not even the INEC Chairman can assume that responsibility and authority.

The question which the Court of Appeal will expectedly take a critical look is:

•    Is it justiciable for INEC to declare an election inconclusive and then cancel it nearly twenty four (24) hours after the election had taken place with results collated up to the Local Government Area level in twenty four (24) Local Government Areas?

•    Is it in consonance with the rule of and due process that the Imo State REC working hand in glove with the INEC Chairman, Professor Maurice Iwu decided to subvert the electoral process by refusing at “the last port of call” in the Governorship “election chain” to discharge his Statutory responsibility of collating the Local Government Results as captured in INEC Form EC8C into a statewide result sheet (INEC Form EC8D) and declare a winner based on those results?  

•    Is it justiciable to allow the audacity, arrogance and arbitrariness of INEC and its Chairman – Prof. Maurice Iwu to become the benchmark for our democratic practice? Will this in the fullness of time not become an invitation to self help, terror and anarchy?

Even if for the purposes of this discourse, if we assume, but do not concede that there was as the Imo State INEC REC claims, violence in nine (9) Local Government Areas (never mind that the same REC accepted and endorsed the House of Assembly election results in those “violence-ridden nine (9) Local Government Areas”), what happened to the results of the remaining eighteen (18) Local Government Areas where there was by his own “reverse” admission no violence Were those eighteen (18) Local Government results caught up by “estoppel”, “abuse of Court Process” or “academic exercise”.

Since INEC fraudulently claims that they do not have the results for the April 14, 2007 Governorship elections in the state, it is my sincere hope that the Court of Appeal will as an adjudicating authority and  with a view to determining “where the justice of the matter lies” put to appropriate validity test, the results tendered by Chief Martin Agbaso and if the results pass the validity test, declare him duly elected, order iNEC to issue him a Certificate of Return, and cause him to be sworn in.  It is only then that the legal maxims of:   “ubi jus, ubi remidium” – where there is an injury to a right, there must be a remedy and “Fiat justicia ruat coelum” – “let justice be done even if the heavens fall” will be seen to have found real expression in the context of Nigeria’s democratic experience.

Elvis Eruba is a Public Affairs commentator