Rochas Okorocha Has A Good Case If He Has Good Lawyers;

By Obidike Chukwuebuka, MBBI

Two days ago, I keenly followed an electoral program on channels TV ,where Festus Okoye who's the INEC national commissioner said that Okorocha's certificate of return was withheld because the returning officer for IMO west senatorial district declared him winner under duress.

I didn't just follow that program as a lawyer but I also followed the program as one who believes that law could be viewed from two angles ; statement of case versus statement of law. You may sometimes win the argument in statement of case but lose the verdict when viewed from the statement of law.

The law doesn't give INEC the legal power to upturn any result after it has been announced. It is only the election petition tribunal that can order that or even cancel any election already announced by the returning officer if such election was declared either erroneously or under duress.

Mr Festus Okoye's submission was wrong. In fact I was quickly reminded of the provisions of section 68 of the electoral Act which says "
The decision of the Returning Officer on any question arising from or relating to unmarked ballot paper, rejected ballot paper and declaration of scores of candidates and the return of a candidate,shall be final subject to review by a Tribunal or Court.

Honestly, Okorocha has a good case, his legal team should swiftly approach any court of competent jurisdiction to obtain a "WRIT OF MANDAMUS" based on this ground. Every lawyer knows what this means. This writ would automatically compel INEC to issue him with a certificate of return.

If INEC fails to Issue him with a certificate of return even after obtaining this Writ of Mandamus. He shouldn't worry. Okorocha could be sworn in without the certificate of return. One would ask how possible that could be, but I will explain.

This is possible pursuant to the provisions of section 75(2) of the electoral act which says "Where INEC refuses or neglects to issue a Certificate of return, a certified true copy of the order of a court of competent jurisdiction shall, ipso facto, be sufficient for the purpose of swearing-in a candidate.

I am not a fan of Rochas Okorocha, I am only standing by the statement of law as it is without minding whose ox would be gored. Kindly permit me to borrow the words of Femi Falana before dispensing with his services to defend Ken Sarowiwa in 1995. " I want my learned friend here to appreciate that it is Ken Sarowiwa today and it could be anybody tomorrow " it is Rochas Okorocha today and it could be anybody tomorrow.

I love cases like this and it makes me research further. Thanks Amb Timothy Chukwuma Nwachukwu for igniting my attention towards this point of view.

#Obidike Chukwuebuka, MBBI
docobidike@yahoo.com