Nigeria Content Online

Last Tuesday, three
and a half years after the 2007 elections, an appeal court sitting in
Benin City ruled that the 2007 governorship election in Delta state was
a sham.

Subsequently,Emmanuel
Uduaghan, who was deemed to have illegally occupied the position of the
governor of the state all along, was sent out of the government house
and the speaker of the state House of Assembly was sworn in to act as
governor pending conclusion of a rerun election, expectedly within the
next 85 days.

He thus became the
fourth governor to be sacked by the courts following the 2007 election,
usually after they have earned a lot of public money they ought not to
have had access to. Segun Oni of Ekiti state, removed only last month;
Olusegun Agagu of Ondo State, removed last year and Oserheimen Osunbor
of Edo state were the other politicians in this group.

The court ruled
that they rigged their way into positions and enjoyed the privileges of
that office, including wielded powers to sign death warrant of
prisoners – or pardon convicted prisoners.

Critics say this
throws up two major challenges to the electoral system. First, the
issue of timely adjudication of election petitions by the courts, which
analysts say is currently been “haphazardly” redressed by the second
amendment to the 1999 constitution.

Secondly,the 2010 Electoral Act does not make provision for any sanction for individuals who rig themselves into office.

No offence

Although the new
electoral laws tries to fast-track electoral court cases and check
election malpractice, the electoral act does not consider rigging to
get into office an offence punishable by law.

“It is not a
criminal offence in our laws,” Charles Musa, a Lagos lawyers said .The
electoral act only takes cognisance of offence committed within the
range of registration up to voting and declaration of votes by
officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission.

The electoral act
covers offences in relation to registration, forgery of nomination
papers, voters’ card and ballot papers, impersonation, bribery and
conspiracy, dereliction of duty, threatening, and undue influence
during and before voting day. Analysts believe these offences are
targeted on foot soldiers rather than the principals who are the
sponsors and consequential beneficiary of the offences.

“The issue of
holding offices illegally should be critically looked into,” Lai
Mohammed, the spokesman of Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the party
that has benefited most from the evictions, said.

Kayode Ajulo,
counsel to Delta Elders’ Forum – a group calling for the preosecution
of Mr. Uduaghan – argued that illegal office holders deserve sanctions
and could be tried by the state under the penal code. He lamented that
the states have so far lacked the political will to prosecute such
offenders.

He argued that for
an individual to rig his way into office, s/he must have committed
offences such as forgery, brigandage, snatching ballot box,conspiracy
against the government, and or causing public disorder which are all
punishable under the penal code.

“In Delta state,
the court ruled that there was no election; that means there was
forgery,” he argued. “Now, it is the duty of the government to
prosecute Mr.Uduaghan. The offences that are not covered by the
electoral act, the penal code covered. Our law is perfect.” Mr.

Ajulo added that it
is the responsibility of the government of affected states to call the
offender back and demand for the refund of the perks they enjoyed and
“if they don’t, take them to court and prosecute them based on the
penal code.” However,most winners of election cases would rather just
focus on governance.

Officials of the
Ekiti state government, a recent victim of stolen mandates, told Mr
Mohammed of the ACN said the fundamental corrective measure for the
issue of occupying offices illegally is a credible, free and fair
election.

“If there is free and fair elections, there will be less disputes,” said Mr.Mohammed.

Expensive journey

Petitioners who
have gone down full length of fighting electoral battles described the
process as a torturous and expensive journey designed to frustrate the
petitioner.

“I do not even wish
it on my enemy,” Alphonsus Igbeke, now a senator said after winning
back his seat at the senate in May this year, three years after the
legal battle started. He however literarily forgave Joy Emordi who
illegally enjoyed the seat.

Mojeed Jamiu, the
media adviser to Kayode Fayemi, the new governor of Ekiti state also
described their legal journey as tortuous. “We were in the trenches for
42 months; it’s been quite tortures and challenging,” he said.

He added that the
legal battle was pretty expensive, since they had to keep lawyers who
are Senior Advocates of Nigeria, witnesses and other logistics for such
a long time.

Johnson Obono, an
expert in legal costing, estimated that such protracted cases could
cost up to N150 million and in most cases frustrates broke
petitioners.Another lawyer, who asked not to be mentioned, added that
the cost is even made higher by bribe demands from judges at both the
tribunal and Appeal Courts.

Although the first
amendment to the 1999 constitution sought to fast track election
petitions and even went as far as recommending that all petitions be
dispensed with before May 29 swearing in date, the ongoing second
amendment will annihilate that provision and certainly, make
governorship election petitions more lengthy and expensive.

The latest
constitutional amendment recommends that an election tribunal shall
deliver its judgment on a case within 180 days (6 months) from the date
of the filing of the petition. It also stipulates that the petitions be
filled within 21 days after the elections.

In the case of presidential and governorship elections, the appeals
could also go to the Supreme Court, which is also mandated by the
constitution to deliver judgement in 60 days.