|
BNW |
|
B N W: Biafra Nigeria World News |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dispute in Anambra Central Senatorial election
THERE is something unique and mysterious about the apparent stalemate that has become the election dispute in Anambra Central Senatorial District. In our view, the issue is one that needs to be demystified urgently in order to assure all Nigerians that the present democratic dispensation and election processes are transparent and guided by the rule of law. Although many forces and persons play parts in the complication that has developed over this particular election, we have reason to hold that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has a crucial role to play in untangling the knot in the case. So far, the commission has spoken very little on the matter, preferring in a strange way to allow the interplay of legal forces instituted on the election.
The commission's attitude is strange because the law and legal processes concerning senatorial elections are very clear. And it is obvious that while the process legally and constitutionally stipulated has been exploited, the conclusion from that process is apparently being disregarded in a manner as to pave way for other processes not recognised in the constitution or election laws. Besides, INEC's attitude is strange because its reaction over election disputes similar to that of Anambra Central Senatorial District followed a pattern of recognising the finality of the court constitutionally charged with adjudicating on given elections. Yet, in the case in issue, that pattern has noticeably been jettisoned, with the result that 15 months after the election, the dispute over Anambra Central is even more deeply entrenched than when it first arose.
The facts of the matter are that Chief Ben Obi, a former Special Adviser to the National Security Adviser and first secretary of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), contested the Senate seat for Anambra Central District under the platform of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). That was in the 2003 general elections held on April 12, with a by-election on April 16. He was subsequently declared winner by INEC's Resident Electoral Commissioner, Alhaji Hassan Suleiman. Obi was given a certificate of victory, which was allegedly annulled two days later and the victory awarded to Mr. I.G. Abana. Obi contested the annulment at the appropriate election tribunal, on the ground not only that he had been issued a certificate, but that Abana did not contest for the senatorial position.
On August 8, 2003, the tribunal, in a unanimous judgment, upheld Obi's election, prompting an appeal by Abana to the Court of Appeal, designated as the final authority on senatorial election petitions. Proceedings at the court dragged for about five months, ending on May 4, this year when the five-member Appeal Court reaffirmed the tribunal's judgment, and confirmed Obi as winner. Since then, all efforts by Obi to reclaim his mandate had failed. Later, INEC, in response to one of Obi's letters, stated that the commission was holding on to Obi's sealed certificate of return because of some pending cases, particularly the one at the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Adah.
The case in issue is an interesting one. In it, Abana had sued INEC and the National Assembly, urging the court to restrain them from swearing in any person other than him as senator from Anambra Central District. Obi was not a party originally but he convinced the court that he was an interested party and obtained a joinder as a respondent. Not satisfied, Abana appealed the joinder ruling at the Court of Appeal, which has subsequently fixed October 25 for hearing.
It is judicially preposterous to postulate about the outcome of the fixed hearing at the Appeal Court, or even the substantive case before Justice Adah. There seems to be no doubt however, that legally and constitutionally, the ruling of the election Court of Appeal ought to be the final over the dispute. That ruling by now ought to have been effected and Obi admitted as a senator. The move to compound the dispute at the Federal High Court is not recognised within the laws governing senatorial election. In that regard, it should be perceived as an abuse of court process, and INEC ought not to have given in by withholding Obi's return certificate.
Election laws and processes outlined for redressing election petitions are clearly designed to put a stop to unnecessary, endless litigation which is capable of defeating election process and democratically given mandate. Where such litigation is condoned, democracy is imperilled because people's confidence in it is shaken. Fifteen months after the general elections, what is happening in the case of Anambra Central is directly an invitation to loss of public confidence in election matters. The INEC has a sacred duty to respect the Court of Appeal's decision of May 4, 2004. That will mean adhering to the laws that set it up and provided legal guidelines for its activities.
In unravelling the stalemate in Obi's case, perhaps the question needs be asked as to whether or not there is any indication of double standard on the part of INEC. Why and how, for instance is the commission holding on to Obi's sealed certificate of return when the same INEC gave certificate to one Senator Ajibola from Kwara State, who had his election as senator challenged in a fashion similar to that of Obi
The INEC must necessarily be concerned about the negative impact of keeping away an elected public office holder from his position for so long on the premise that a matter, even a frivolous one, is pending in court against him. How does that person feel if he eventually wins the case say, after about two years
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as the main ruling party, should share in the blame for the confusion over Anambra Central District because the persons caught in the drama are its members. The party could not have fielded two persons for the same office outside the primaries. Why then should it watch two of its members contest victory of an election for 15 months without a resolution
|
|
||||||||||||
