Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,148,907 members, 7,802,952 topics. Date: Saturday, 20 April 2024 at 04:55 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Review Of Supreme Court Decision In Zamfara State By Prof. Ijaodola (300 Views)
PDP Members Turn Prayer Warriors Ahead Of Supreme Court Imo Guber Review / Jime: Akume Meets Father Mbaka Ahead Of Supreme Court judgement (Photos) / Governorship Tussle: Tanko Muhammad storms out of Supreme Court (2) (3) (4)
Review Of Supreme Court Decision In Zamfara State By Prof. Ijaodola by Johnnyessence(m): 4:24pm On Jul 09, 2019 |
It is common knowledge that the Supreme Court of
Nigeria recently nullified all the elections won by the
candidates of the All Progressive Congress (APC) in
Zamfara State in the 2019 General Elections and declared
the candidates who had the second largest votes in the
elections as winners on the ground that the candidates of
the APC who were declared winners of the elections did
not participate in any valid primary election as required by
the constitution of the party.
Therefore, the APC, to the Supreme Court, did not field
candidates for the elections and could not be held to have
scored votes in the said elections. In view of this
decision, the APC candidates lost their seats to the
Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) candidates in the said
elections since they scored the second largest votes in
virtually all the elections conducted in Zamfara State
except two seats in the House of Assembly Elections that
went to some other parties.
The question is, was this decision of the Supreme Court
right in law particularly if subjected to the paraphernalia of
what true democracy entails? This question is informed by
the following issues:
a. Whether or not the Peoples Democratic Party and its
candidates that had the benefits of the Supreme Court’s
decision in the APC’s case was a party to the intra party
dispute among the members of the APC right from the
High Court to the Supreme Court?
b. Whether there was a relief before the Supreme Court
that candidates who had the second largest votes in the
elections should take the benefits of the decision of the
Supreme Court by being declared winners of the elections
in Zamfara State in 2019?
C. Whether the Electorates were aware of the
disqualifications of the candidates of the APC for the said
elections in view of the decision of a High Court in
Zamfara State prior to the said elections that there was a
valid primary election conducted by the APC in the State?
d. Whether or not the relevant Electoral Act contains a
provision allowing a court to declare a person who scores
the second largest votes in an election as winner where
the person who scores majority of lawful votes becomes
disqualified, particularly, when the person who scores the
second largest votes is not a party to the case before the
court?
e. Whether the electorates were justly treated in allowing
persons they did not vote for to be declared winners of
the elections conducted in Zamfara State when they were
not given an opportunity to re-exercise the franchise in a
fresh election as required under section 140 (1&2) of the
Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)? f. Whether voters in
Zamfara State ought to be blamed for voting massively for
the APC and its candidates when they could not be held
to be aware of the disqualifications of the APC and its
candidates for the said elections and when they were not
informed of the consequences of voting for APC and its
candidates during campaigns for the election by the
eventual beneficiaries of the Supreme Court’s decision
which allowed candidates who scored the second largest
votes in the said elections to be declared winners? g.
Whether the said Supreme Court’s decision is in line with
the rudiments of true democratic values?
In order to properly treat the above issues, there is need
to refer to the decision in Prince Kola Bukoye v. Chief
Rasheed Ijaodola & ors. In this case, the Court of Appeal,
Kaduna Division, in 1992 refused to declare a Cross
Appellant winner of the House of Representatives Election
into Offa Federal Constituency having decided that the
Appellant or Cross Respondent was not qualified to
contest the election held into the said constituency on
July 4, 1992 for being a Public Officer who did not resign
from the post before participating in the said election. The
Court of Appeal, like the trial Tribunal, instead, ordered a
bye-election. The decision of the Tribunal which the Court
of Appeal affirmed is as indicated below: |
Re: Review Of Supreme Court Decision In Zamfara State By Prof. Ijaodola by Johnnyessence(m): 4:25pm On Jul 09, 2019 |
On the whole, this Tribunal finds the 1st Respondent was
duly elected by majority of lawful votes and that no
malpractices or undue influence have been proved as
required by law (i.e. by preponderance of evidence)…
However, in view of the findings of this Tribunal that the
1st Respondent was a Public Officer at the time he
contested the election which he should not have done, as
he was disqualified from contesting election at the time
he did, the petition succeeds as no Public Officer can
contest election to the House of Representatives… The
election of 1st Respondent as a member elect of the
House of Representatives for Offa Federal Constituency of
Kwara State is hereby declared null and void. The NEC is
therefore ordered to conduct fresh election in the Federal
Constituency of Kwara State.
Consequently, the Petitioner filed a Cross Appeal against
the Tribunal’s refusal to declare him as winner of the said
election but the Court of Appeal dismissed his Cross of
Appeal. Niki Tobi JCA as he then was reacted to the cross
appeal as follows: Let me now take the cross appeal.
There is not much to it. Section 42 (3) of Decree No. 18 of
1992 provides thus: ‘Where the Tribunal or the Court of
Appeal finds that a candidate elected was not duly
nominated or elected, the Tribunal or the Court of Appeal
shall order a bye-election and no more.’ The cross
appellant cited a number of Nigerian and foreign
authorities. With respect to him, they do not apply in the
face of the above clear statutory provision. The function
of a court of law is to interpret the raw provisions of a
statute and not to rely on decisions which have dealt with
different statutes. I hold that since the cases cited by the
cross appellant dealt with quite different statutes, I cannot
go into them. I hold the view that in the light of section 42
(3) of Decree No. 18 of 1992, the Tribunal correctly
ordered a bye-election.
To the Court of Appeal, since Prince Kola Bukoye was not
qualified for the said election, all votes given to him were
wasted votes but not the less, the court did not declare
the petitioner/cross appellant who scored the second
largest votes as winner. Instead, the court ordered a bye-
election. It must have done so in order to give effect to
the true values of democracy by allowing voters or
electors to perform their functions of electing the person
they wanted to represent them.
In Prince Kola Bukoye v. Rasheed Ijaodola, the Court of
Appeal that was the court of last resort in respect of the
said election in 1992 made an order of bye-election
having found that the declared winner of the election was
not qualified for the said election in line with Section 42
(3) of Decree No. 18 of 1992 but in the said APC’s case,
where there was a similar situation and a similar provision
in the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), particularly
section 140 (1&2), the Supreme Court did not make an
order of bye-election, instead, the Court declared those
who scored the second largest votes as winners of the
said elections in Zamfara State when they were not parties
to the suit and they did not file any application for joinder
as interested parties and when voters could not be held to
be aware of the fact of the disqualification of those they
voted massively for and consequences of voting for them.
The above are the crux of the matter.
Evaluation of the Decision of the Supreme Court
A court is bound to follow the relevant Electoral Laws in
respect of an election; the court is expected to rely on the
raw provisions of the Electoral Law in arriving at its
decision as to whether to make an order of bye-election
or to declare the candidate who scored the second
largest votes as winner of the election. The Court of
Appeal in Bukoye v. Ijaodola relied on the raw provision of
the then Electoral Law to order a bye-election upon the
disqualification of the declared winner.
The question now is, did the Supreme Court follow the
raw provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) in
making the order declaring candidates who scored the
second largest votes in the said elections conducted in
Zamfara State in 2019 as winners of the elections when
they were not parties in the proceedings before the court
and when there were no reliefs to that effect before the
Court? An acceptable answer requires the need to
consider the relevant sections of the Electoral Act 2010
(as amended) on the issue. Section 140 (1, 2 & 3) and
Section 141 of the Act are the relevant sections on the
issue. They provide: 140 (1) Subject to subsection (2) of
this section, if the Tribunal or the Court as the case may
be, determines that a candidate who was returned as
elected was not validly elected on any ground, the
Tribunal or the Court shall nullify the election. |
Re: Review Of Supreme Court Decision In Zamfara State By Prof. Ijaodola by Johnnyessence(m): 4:25pm On Jul 09, 2019 |
(2) Where an election tribunal or court nullifies an election
on the ground that the person who obtained the highest
votes at the election was not qualified to contest the
election, or that the election was marred by substantial
irregularities or non-compliance with the provisions of this
Act, the election tribunal or court shall not declare the
person with the second highest votes or any other person
as elected, but shall order a fresh election. (This the
Supreme Court did do). (3) If the Tribunal or the Court
determines that a candidate who was returned as elected
was not validly elected on the ground that he did not
score the majority of valid votes cast at the election, the
Election Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be, shall
declare as elected the candidate who scored the highest
number of valid votes cast at the election and satisfied
the requirements of the Constitution and this Act. (This is
not applicable to the case before the Supreme Court).
141. An election tribunal or court shall not under any
circumstance declare any person a winner at an election
in which such a person has not fully participated in all the
stages of the said election. (One of the stages of the
election was to inform electors about the non
qualification of the APC candidates and the
consequences of voting for them. The PDP candidates
that took the benefits of the Supreme Court’s decision
failed to take these steps during the campaigns).
It is clear from sections 140 and 141 of the Electoral Act
2010 (as amended) that a Court or Tribunal has the
following rights; a. A court or tribunal can nullify an
election where a candidate who was declared elected was
not qualified for the election; b. Where the election of a
person who scored the highest number of votes in an
election was declared a nullity for disqualification, a court
or tribunal shall not declare the person with the second
largest votes or any other person as winner but shall order
a fresh election; c. Where a candidate who was declared
as elected is found not to have scored majority of lawful
votes, a court or tribunal shall declare the person with the
correct highest number of votes as winner provided he
satisfied the requirements of the Constitution; d. Where a
person fails to participate in all the stages of an election,
a court or tribunal shall not declare him as winner of the
election.
It is a fundamental principle of litigation that a court or
tribunal can only make an order binding parties to an
action before the court or tribunal and the order should be
in respect of reliefs before the court or tribunal. For a
court or tribunal to make an order nullifying an election
within the ambit of section 140 of the Electoral Act 2010
(as amended), the focus must be on the parties before the
court or tribunal and the order must be based on the
reliefs before the court. No court of law can make an
order that is not contained in a relief before the court as
decided by the Supreme Court in Bola Ige v. Victor
Olunloyo. It was also held in this case that a court cannot
make an order to bind parties not before it. Jurisdiction is
fundamental. Where a court lacks it, it acts in vain.
It is very clear that all the candidates from the Peoples
Democratic Party or the Peoples Democratic Party itself
were not parties to the intra party suit of members of the
APC in Zamfara State on primary elections before the
Supreme Court and there was no relief that candidates
who scored the second largest votes in the elections in
Zamfara State in 2019 should be declared winners of the
elections. Paragraph 2 of section 140 of the Electoral Act
(as amended) is very clear. If read in conjunction with
paragraph 1 of the same section, it is very clear that a
court of law or a tribunal can only make an order of fresh
election where a declared winner is found not qualified for
an election. The court or tribunal ‘shall not’ declare the
candidate with the second largest votes as winner but
order a fresh election so says section 140 (2) of the
Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
The word ‘shall’ as used within the context of section 140
(2) is a word of command that ought to have been given
effect by the Supreme Court. It was the decision of the
Supreme Court in Bucknor-Maclean v. Inlacks Ltd that
where the word ‘shall’ is used in a statute, it is a word of
command that must be given “a compulsory meaning as
denoting obligation”. It is most humbly submitted that the
Supreme Court did not give effect to section 140 (1&2) of
the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). It ought not to have
made an order allowing those who scored the second
largest votes in the elections in Zamfara State to be
declared as winners of the elections contrary to section
140 (2) of the said Electoral Act of 2010 particularly when
they were not even parties to the suit and there were no
prayers before the Court on the issue. It is also very clear
that section 140 (1) envisages the need for a case before
a court or tribunal and a determination in respect of a
candidate, without doubt, who must be before the court as
to whether or not the candidate was validly elected.
Orders can only be made in respect of parties before a
court and in respect of reliefs made before the court.
These were not before the Supreme Court in respect of
those who took the benefits of the decision of the Court. |
Re: Review Of Supreme Court Decision In Zamfara State By Prof. Ijaodola by Johnnyessence(m): 4:26pm On Jul 09, 2019 |
It is again most humbly emphasized that the errors
committed by the Supreme Court have been further
demonstrated by the following facts: a. The PDP and the
affected candidates who eventually took the benefits of
the decision of the Supreme Court were not parties before
the Supreme Court. b. There was no relief before the
Supreme Court that persons with the second largest votes
who were not parties in the suit should be declared as
winners in the election conducted in Zamfara State.
Therefore, a good analyst should be surprised about the
rational for the decision of the Supreme Court. C. The
PDP and its candidates did not fully participate in all the
stages of the said election in line with section 140 (3) of
the Electoral Act since they did not inform voters of the
non qualification of the APC candidates for the elections
and the consequences of voting for them during the
campaigns but they kept mute like Shakespearian’s
Patience “smiling at grief”.
(ii) The Position in England on the Issue
Although it is very clear that under the position in England
a person who scores the second largest votes in respect
of an election can be declared as winner upon the
disqualification of a declared winner, it is very clear that
the circumstances in the English cases that informed the
decisions are different from the case before the Supreme
Court. For example, in Bristol South East Parliamentary
Election, it was held thus: Where the facts which
constitute incapacity or disqualification by status of a
candidate from election exist and are made known to the
electorate before their votes are cast, and the voters are
also made aware that the legal consequences of those
facts might constitute disqualification, votes given to
such candidates are given at the electors’ peril, and where
disqualification in law is established, such votes are
thrown away and are null and void, and the court is bound
to declare that the candidate for whom the (next) highest
number of valid votes was cast has been duly elected.
It is very clear from the above English decision that before
a person who scores the second largest votes at an
election can be declared the winner of the election, the
following must exist: a. The declared winner of an election
must not be qualified for the election, b. The non
qualification of the declared winner should be made
known to the electorates before casting their votes and C.
The voters must be made aware of the legal
consequences of proceeding to vote for a disqualified
candidate.
It is most humbly submitted that steps in (b) & (c) above
are stages in an election within the meaning of section
140 (3) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). It is only
when the above facts are established before a court that
votes given by electors to a disqualified candidate can be
declared null and void or wasted votes. Further, it is
submitted that the person that is expected to make the
facts of disqualification and the consequences of voting
for such person known to electors must be the person or
persons who will benefit from the proceedings of a court
upon disqualification of an elected candidate that should
inform electors about the facts of disqualification and the
consequences particularly during the conduct of
campaigns. There was no such evidence on record before
the Supreme Court that the Peoples Democratic Party and
all the candidates who have now taken the benefits of the
decision of the Supreme Court informed the electors
during campaigns of the APC candidates disqualifications
for the said elections. They could not have even informed
electors of facts that did not exist because as at the time
of the election there was a subsisting decision of a High
Court in Zamfara State that the APC duly conducted a
valid primary election and it was on the basis of this fact
that the Independent National Electoral Commission
(INEC) fielded the nominated APC candidates for the said
election. |
Re: Review Of Supreme Court Decision In Zamfara State By Prof. Ijaodola by Johnnyessence(m): 4:27pm On Jul 09, 2019 |
(iii) The Position in Nigeria from Previous Cases
The Nigeria courts also support the view as stated under
the English electoral process. For example, in Raphael
Omoruyi Ebogen v. Richard Oni Obadiaru, the Court of
Appeal held as follows: In our view, on the authorities, the
points which must all be present before a second
candidate, at an election could be declared duly elected
where there was another candidate who scored a majority
vote are: (i) That there is a law which disqualifies the
candidate from contesting the election if a certain set of
facts exist; (ii) That the candidate who scored majority
votes was in point of fact disqualified from being elected
at the time of the election; and (iii) That the fact that he
was so disqualified was either notorious or was brought
to the notice of the voters in a form sufficiently definite
before they cast their votes for the disqualified candidate
who scored majority votes. Similarly, in Ameokoja v.
Eyiowuawi, the rudiments of this position are emphasized
in the following manner:…Where a disqualified person is
elected, the votes cast for him are thrown away and his
opponent is deemed to be elected if, but only if, the facts
giving rise to the disqualification were so notorious as not
to require proof that they were within the knowledge of
the electors or the evidence clearly shows that the facts
were brought to the knowledge of the electors; otherwise
the election is void and a new election must be held.
The decision of the Court of Appeal in 1992 in Prince Kola
Bukoye v. Rasheed Ijaodola did not have all the above
rudiments required of voters, so one may not support the
view of the Court of Appeal ordering a fresh election upon
disqualification of the Appellant but for the express
provision in the Electoral Decree of 1992 (section 42 (3)
of Decree No. 18 of the 1992) to the effect that a court
could only make an order of fresh election upon
disqualification of an elected candidate. Section 140
(1&2) of the Electoral Act 2010 is on all fours with section
42 (3) of the said Decree. The Supreme Court in the
APC’s case did not make such an order of fresh election
although there is a clear provision in the Electoral Act
2010 (as amended) that provides for a fresh election only
under the circumstances of disqualification of an elected
candidate as indicated above.
(iv) Condition under which a person can be declared
elected
Section 140 (3) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
states that an Election Tribunal or Court “shall declare as
elected the candidate who scored the highest number of
valid votes cast at the election and who satisfies the
requirements of the Constitution and the Electoral Act.”
This can happen where a Court “determines that a
candidate who was returned as elected was not validly
elected on the ground that he did not score the majority
of valid votes cast at the election.” This section must
have influenced the Supreme Court in arriving at its
decision of awarding the benefits of an election to
persons not before it and in the absence of a relief to the
effect before the court. But this is also erroneous. It is
most humbly submitted that section 140 (3) of the
Electoral Act envisages a situation where a person who
participated in an election but was declared as winner
when he did not score majority of lawful votes and the
votes of the rightful person who won the election is
restored. Where the arithmetic calculation of the votes are
effected and it is discovered that the person who scored
the second largest votes was actually the winner of the
election, justice demands that it should be so declared.
The APC’s case at the Supreme Court did not fall within
this ambit. It actually fell within the ambit of section 140
(1&2) because it was all about disqualification for the said
elections as in Bukoye v. Ijaodola’s case already
mentioned above and not a case of two qualified persons
that contested an election and the results were declared
in favour of the person who did not win the election.
Indeed, with utmost respect, this is another error
committed by the Supreme Court.
(v) Effect of the Inaction of the PDP
The PDP is a political party that fielded candidates in the
Zamfara State elections. Without doubt, they were aware
of the intra party disputes in the APC. After the conduct of
the election the party and its candidates ought to have
filed an application for joinder in the APC’s case in court.
They ought to have stated that they were the rightful
winners of the elections in Zamfara State because the
APC could not be said to have fielded qualified
candidates for the elections. The PDP and its candidates
did not take such step. Equity aids the vigilant and not the
indolent so the saying goes. They just sat in their homes
and became beneficiaries of a court decision for which
they were not parties in the suit. Also they ought to have
fully participated in all the stages of the said elections by
informing the electors in Zamfara State during campaigns
of the non qualification of the APC candidates and the
consequences of voting for them. These they did not do,
thereby contravening section 140 (3) of the Electoral Act,
2010 (as amended). In view of these omissions, it is very
safe to reason that the PDP candidates in Zamfara State
did not fully participate in all the stages of the said
elections as required by that section. For this reason and
others already stated, they ought not to have taken the
benefits of the decision of the Supreme Court. This is
case of judicial imposition on electors of persons they did
not vote for. In a democracy, it is a decision that will give
effect to its values that matters and not otherwise. One of
such values is to allow electors to perform their functions
of electing representatives to govern them and not a court
doing that for them in a democracy. It is contrary to its
values.
(vi) The Issue of Justice
It should be stated that the Supreme Court was probably
genuinely informed by the issue of the justice of the
matter in respect of the parties before it. This might have
been predicated in not declaring any of the combatants in
the APC’s intra party dispute as winners in order to teach
them lessons of not getting their disputes resolved
properly at the political party level. A lesson, ought to be
learnt by the APC. The Supreme Court must have
reasoned in this line. However, be that as it may, justice of
an electoral process must be to the electors. It is not
justice, to impose on them persons they did not vote for,
to govern them. The essentials of democracy emphasize
“government of the people, by the people and for the
people” and not government by imposition by the courts
that lacks legal backing. With due respect, the Supreme
Court’s decision in the Zamfara APC case is a good
example of how not to treat electors with injustice within
the ambit of true democratic traditions. A court is not
expected to be a Father Christmas. This is exactly what
the Court has done by allowing candidates who had
second largest votes in Zamfara State to become leaders
of the people when the facts of disqualification of the
APC candidates electors voted for was not brought to
their knowledge and the consequences of voting for such
candidates was also not brought to their knowledge. An
order for a fresh election within the ambit of section 140
(2) would have provided the justice of the matter.
(vii) The Correct Path
There is nothing wrong for the APC to return to the
Supreme Court and to urge it to review its decision in the
said case for the sake of the development of our laws.
There should be no irritation about this step. It is a good
and sweet development when you put to task the
pronouncements of judges whose decisions are final
when there are good reasons to do so. A court has
jurisdiction to correct its own errors when they are made
known to it. Issue of jurisdiction can be raised at anytime
and anyhow. Obaseki JSC made a jurisprudential
statement on this position when he declared in Paul Odi &
Ors. v. Gbaniyi Osafile as follows: Man is fallible, so are
the thoughts of man. This fallible nature of man demands
that, whenever errors of thoughts and thought processes
surface and are exposed and brought to the attention of
its authors, there should be power of jurisdiction to depart
from the errors and thread the correct path.
The fundamental errors in the Supreme Court’s judgment
are very clear from the ratio of its decision which is
couched in the following manner in the judgment
delivered by Paul Adamu Galumje, JSC. For the avoidance
of doubt, a party that has no candidates in an election
cannot be declared the winner of the election. This being
so the votes credited to the alleged candidates of the 1st
Appellant in the 2019 general elections in Zamfara State
are wasted votes. For that reason it is hereby ordered that
candidates of parties other than the 1st Appellant with the
highest votes and the required spread stand elected into
the various offices that were contested for in Zamfara
State in 2019 General Elections. The questions arising
from the above decision are; whether the decision has
support in the reliefs before the court and in respect of
the parties before it and whether or not voters in Zamfara
State were aware of the non qualification of the APC and
its candidates they voted for massively in the said
elections? If they were aware of the non qualification and
they still went ahead to vote for the disqualified
candidates, then their votes can be regarded as wasted
votes within the judgment of the Supreme Court but there
was no evidence on record that the facts of
disqualification of the APC and its candidates were
brought to the knowledge of voters and the consequences
of voting for them by the eventual beneficiaries of the
decision of the Supreme Court who were not even parties
to the proceedings. There were even no reliefs for any
declaration for their benefits in the suit.
This is a case of injustice to electors. It would have been
better if they were allowed to exercise their franchise in re-
electing candidates they wanted. This would have been
the case assuming an order of fresh election was made.
The electors in Zamfara did nothing wrong and they ought
not to have been punished by not allowing them to vote in
a fresh election. Instead, blame may be apportioned to the
PDP for its inaction as indicated above and for the APC
for its inability to resolve its crisis that arose from the
conduct of primary elections in Zamfara State.
It is apparent that in the attempt by the Supreme Court to
punish a political party for treating electoral regulations
concerning primary elections with levity, it closed its eyes
to the rights of electors in a democracy to elect
candidates they wish should govern them. Why should
they be denied these rights in the name of punishing a
political party when there was no evidence on record that
electors were also culpable in what actually happened
within the APC in Zamfara State and on the political
terrain? The focus in a democracy is on electors; they
should be allowed to exercise their franchise without any
hindrance. To deny them the right to vote under any guise
is not true democracy. |
Re: Review Of Supreme Court Decision In Zamfara State By Prof. Ijaodola by Johnnyessence(m): 4:28pm On Jul 09, 2019 |
That the Supreme Court’s intention was to punish the APC
and its candidates in the Zamfara elections is very clear
from the judgment of Paul Adamu Galumje, JSC when he
said; The democratic system this country has adopted
was borrowed from the United States of America and
other Democratic Nations of Europe. Those from whom
we borrowed this system are steadily forgoing ahead in all
areas of endeavour in order to create a stress free and
economically viable nations. For this great country, some
politicians either are ignorant of what party politic is, or
out of mischief, have continuously dragged this nation
backward. If care is not taken, this class of politicians will
drag this nation to the Stone Age, where all of us will be
consumed. I once again, as this court has consistently
preached, urge this class of politicians to play the game
according to law and guidelines which they themselves
have enacted. It is only when this is done that sanity will
take center stage in the domestic and international affairs
of this great nation.
It is not justice in a democratic system to punish electors
by denying them the opportunity to elect their
representatives for offences they did not commit. In the
attempt to punish political parties for their inactions, it is
not proper to close our eyes to the rights of electors that
constitute the bedrock of a true democracy. The decision
in Prince Kola Bukoye v. Rasheed Ijaodola that allowed
electors to re-exercise the franchise by the ordering of a
fresh election by the Court of Appeal in Kaduna in 1992
must have been motivated by the need to allow electors
to vote for their true representatives. At best, what the
Supreme Court did in the APC’s case in Zamfara State by
allowing persons who were not parties in the suit before
the Court to enjoy the benefits of the decision of the
Court can be described as judicial imposition in a
democracy. This is strange; it is not in the spirit of what
true democracy entails. The Court even spoke of
candidates with the second largest votes in the election
and still refer to them as candidates with the highest
number of votes having stated that all the votes of the
APC were wasted votes. If there were candidates with the
second largest votes that took the benefits of the decision
the Court, then it becomes a subtle contradiction in terms
to still refer to them as candidates who scored the
highest votes in the election. Referring to them as persons
who scored the second largest votes presupposes that
there was an election in which some candidates who were
disqualified scored highest votes.
Conclusion
It is very clear from all that have been stated above, that
the following facts have been established: a. That electors
in Zamfara State could not have been taken as having
been informed about the disqualification of the APC
candidates they voted for overwhelmingly and the effect
of voting for them more so when there was a subsisting
court order by a High Court in Zamfara State that the APC
conducted a valid primary election. They ought not to
have been punished, b. That there was no relief in the suit
before the Supreme Court that the PDP or any other
candidate that participated in the elections and scored the
second largest votes should take the benefits of the
election upon disqualification of the APC candidates, C.
The PDP and its candidates that took the benefits of the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Zamfara APC’s case
were not parties to the proceedings before the Supreme
Court. They ought to have filed an application for joinder
as interested parties since the election concerned them
too but they did not do this.
They should not have benefitted from their inaction, D.
That the decision of the Supreme Court that benefitted the
PDP and its candidates is not in line with section 140 (2)
of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) that provides for
an order of fresh election only upon disqualification of an
elected candidate, E. The persons who scored the second
largest votes in the elections did not perform their duties
to electors in Zamfara State before the elections of the
disqualified APC candidates which is a condition
necessary before a person can be declared as winner of
an election upon disqualification of another in line with
section 140 (3) of the said Electoral Act; they ought to
have inform electors of the non qualifications of the ACP
candidates for the elections and the consequences of
voting for them. Their inactions were fatal and they ought
not to have enjoy the benefits of the Supreme Court’s
decision more so when they were not party to the suit, F.
That the justice of the matter is not one that imposes on
electors those they did not vote for as their leaders but
one that gives them an opportunity to vote for the
candidates they wanted in a fresh election.
In view of the above, it is a good case for a review by the
Supreme Court itself when the errors are brought to its
knowledge. The Court has jurisdiction to do so in the
interest of real justice to all stakeholders in a true
democracy. Electors in Zamfara State have been unfairly
treated by denying them the rights to vote for persons
they wanted to govern them, which would have been
made possible by an order of fresh election as required by
law.
Prof. Ijaodola is the Dean, Faculty of Law, Igbinedion
University, Okada, Edo State. |
Re: Review Of Supreme Court Decision In Zamfara State By Prof. Ijaodola by Johnnyessence(m): 4:28pm On Jul 09, 2019 |
Re: Review Of Supreme Court Decision In Zamfara State By Prof. Ijaodola by myddmodnabastard: 5:13pm On Jul 09, 2019 |
welldone |
(1) (Reply)
The Lifelong Consequences Of Obasanjo Handing Over Bakassi To Cameroon / Ogun Tribunal:Drama As INEC Fails To Defend Akinlade’s Allegation Over Alleged.. / Change Your Ways Or Relocate From Anambra State – Police Chief Thunders
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 98 |