Nigeria Content Online

A few lawyers have frowned at the Abuja High Court ruling
extending the tenure of the governors of Adamawa, Bayelsa, Cross River, Sokoto
and Kogi states based on the fact that they swore new oaths after rerun
elections were conducted in their states.

Presiding judge, Adamu Bello, said any elections in Kogi,
Sokoto, Adamawa, Cross River and Bayelsa states would have to wait until next
year. The ruling also set new dates for the termination of the governors’
tenures. Ibrahim Idris, Kogi will stay on till April 5, 2012; Aliyu Wammakko,
Sokoto remains till May 28, 2012; Timipre Sylva, Bayelsa leaves on May 29,
2012; Liyel Imoke’s tenure in Cross River terminates on August 28, 2012; and
Murtala Nyako, Adamawa got his tenure elongated till April 30, 2012.

According to Ubani Monday, a lawyer: “We have to have this
matter resolved at the appellate court, but in my own opinion, that judgement
is legally right but morally wrong. Because allowing a situation where someone
who has been in power without the people’s mandate to spend three and a half
years and you now send him for a rerun election and the system is manipulated
in his favour and now give him extra four years.

“Then all those years that he spent without the people’s
mandate, what has happened to it? They didn’t punish him, they did not bring
him to any justice, they did not in any way query him and they now feel very
emboldened to add to his years, and morally, it is wrong to give such people
this traditional tenure elongation.”

Malachy Ugwummadu, also a lawyer, told NEXT at the High Court
premises, Ikeja that only the Appeal Court could resolve this, as the electoral
commission had two controversial rulings to deal with. However, the Independent
National Electoral Commission says it is still studying the case to be sure
weather election will take place in the states.

Baffling judgement

According to Aghanya Dennis, former CPC national publicity
secretary, “the matter should be appealed by INEC and the Supreme Court should
give it accelerated hearing. Maybe the judgment may be upturned at that level.”

According to him, “the danger in the judgment is that electoral
crime is encouraged rather than discouraged. For somebody who was confirmed to
have enjoyed a stolen mandate in the first place and his victory was upturned
by a court of law to be given this reprieve by the same court of justice is a
contradiction to the same justice the court is expected to give. A thief is a
thief however you look at it. But whom do you blame, the judge who abided by
the constitution or the beneficiaries of the judgment who are exercising their
constitutional right?”

Basssey Ewa-Henshaw, a senator representing PDP, Cross River
said that he was baffled by the judgment.

“If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court had already taken a decision on
the matter that if you were the incumbent and you had to go for a rerun and you
won, your tenure continued from where it stopped. This judgment is a bit
baffling to me and I need to be able to look at the two judgments to know what
the judges used as a foundation to arrive at their decisions.”