Tardy Election Tribunals
In an apparent response to widespread complaints about the slow pace of the election petition tribunals at both the primary and appellate levels, the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, has offered what would appear like a defence for the appeal tribunals.
Replying to a petition by the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) complaining against "undue delay in the disposal of its appeal petitions by the appellate court," Justice Abdullahi blamed the tardiness on the scarcity of judges occasioned by a number of retirements at the court. "The present number of justices on ground are overstreched. I am hoping to have additional hands soon," he explained.
The complaint by the APGA is without doubt one that many Nigerians share. More than one year after the 2003 elections, many petitions are still at the primary tribunals. Only a few of those that have got to the court of appeal have been disposed of. Many are therefore wondering whether the petitions will ever be resolved before 2007 when the tenure of the incumbent officers would have expired. This is a legitimate concern given the limited tenure of political offices. In fewer circumstances is the dictum that 'justice delayed is justice denied' more applicable than in election petitions. If a petition is granted when the tenure of a particular office has already expired, of what benefit is such a victory? It is in this context that the concern about the tardiness of the judicial process should be understood.
Of course, it could be argued that the tribunals appear slow only because the volume of cases is high. But this, in turn, must be a pointer to the degree of irregularity that characterised the 2003 general elections. If there is so much dissatisfaction with the election, it must be a direct reflection of the amount of rigging that occurred during the polls.
This is a sharp contrast to the second republic when all election petitions were disposed of within three months of the election. This could only have occured clearly because the petitions were far fewer obviously as a result of less rigging.
By their nature, election petitions call for speedy handling. But going by what the president of the court of appeal has said, the systemic disabilities of the courts are partly responsible for the ponderous pace of the tribunals.
It has become obvious that the tribunals are not immune to the chronic shortages of personnel and material that are responsible for the slow pace of the nation's criminal justice system. With judges having to take notes by hand, their pace cannot but be slow. It is not unlikely that this is partly responsible for the slow pace of the election tribunals.
For the court of appeal, we are aware that the Constitution provides for no less than 49 judges as its members. While this may seem enough, the volume of election appeal cases coming to the court has, as its president said, put the court under immense pressure. We see a need for a proper study of the number of judges needed at the court of appeal for optimal performance. Moreover, those who have retired should be promptly replaced.
All said, it must be remembered that the speedy disposal of election petitions is central to the practice of democracy. When a person who rigged his way into office is allowed to serve out his term because of a tardy judicial system, democracy is imperilled.
So, while action is being taken to hasten the pace of electoral adjudication, attention must also be paid to the drastic reduction of election malpractice and rigging so that election courts are not clogged up by a suffuse of petitions.
|
