It is a well known fact that the April 14, 2007 governorship elections in Sokoto State ended in litigation principally because the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) glossed over issues it should have considered while it was screening the candidates for the elections.

While setting aside the elections of April 14, the Appeal Court, Kaduna Division, cited the non-qualification of the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Aliu Wamakko, and his running mate, Muktar Shagari, for the election as part of the reason for the cancellation of the election. The court took that position because Wamakko’s candidature was irregular. He was not properly nominated by the PDP.

In a normal setting, INEC ought to have noticed the anomalies in Wamakko ‘s candidature and insisted on having him and his party do the right thing within the time frame allowed for nomination of candidates. But instead, the electoral body chose to flout its own rules by allowing Wamakko to contest for an election he was not qualified for. It was this gross violation of the Electoral Act 2006 and the relevant section of the 1999 constitution by Wamakko and PDP that the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) and its candidate, Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi frowned upon and decided to challenge it in court. Unfortunately, the Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Sokoto treated such gross violation of our electoral laws as a non issue. It accused the DPP of crying wolf.

But the injustice and irresponsibility of the tribunal was taken to the Appeal court by the DPP and its candidate. There, revisionist forces could not have their way. The court delivered its judgment and copiously blamed INEC and PDP for breaking the rules. In fact, the court described INEC as a spineless body which was ever willing to do the bidding of the PDP.

This pronouncement on INEC by the Appeal Court smacks of lack of confidence. It is an indictment on the electoral body for a job that is badly done. As a way out, the court has ordered for fresh elections in the state. Unfortunately, another round of controversy is brewing. The PDP and the DPP are locked in a battle of supremacy.

From the judgment of the Appeal Court, neither Wamakko nor PDP is qualified to run for the fresh elections. Curiously, the PDP and Wamakko are claiming to be qualified for the polls. This claim by Wamakko brings us to the reason for the cancellation of the elections in the first place. The April 14, 2007 election was set aside because Wamakko was not qualified to stand for that election. Going by the provisions of the Electoral Act, nomination of candidates closes 60 days before the elections. Now, under the elections to be re-run, there is no room for the nomination of fresh candidates since nomination closed sometime in February 2007. That was why the Appeal Court expressly stated that only those who contested for the April 14 elections will stand for the fresh elections.

The logic of this position of the Appeal Court is that Wamakko cannot be a candidate in the fresh elections. This is because there is no room for him to rectify the anomalies in his candidature. His nomination by PDP for the April 14 election was irregular. It remains so till tomorrow. Since nomination closed long ago, Wamakko has lost the opportunity to put right what was wrong in the first place. In the same vain, the PDP cannot substitute its candidate in the April 14 elections for the simple reason that nomination of candidates closed long ago. Technically therefore, neither PDP nor Wamakko will feature in the rescheduled elections. That is the way it is.

This is where INEC comes in. Having bungled the first opportunity to do the right thing in Sokoto State, INEC must tread cautiously this time around so that it does not get involved in the brewing controversy. INEC must be patient with the parties concerned. It must take all legal issues and their implications into full view before it reschedules the elections. During the first election, INEC was obviously on the side of PDP. The commission did not behave like an umpire. Rather, it pitched its tent with one of the parties in the contest.

That was why it treated everything PDP and Wamakko did as the right thing. When the commission ought to have disqualified Wamakko, it cleared him for the election. But the Appeal Court has called INEC and PDP to order by cancelling the election. INEC must therefore detach itself from the stranglehold of the PDP in order not to run into trouble again.

In fact, under the new order, INEC must be seen to be neutral. It must not take steps that are illegal. As a body created by law, INEC must act within the bounds of the law. It cannot afford to disobey the pronouncements made by a court of law. Thus, as the parties in Sokoto State sort the issues in dispute out, INEC should not take hasty steps that may lead Sokoto State to crisis of any sort. It should also not create a situation of stalemate for the state by acting illegally. The next election in Sokoto State cannot afford to be bogged down by litigation on account of the illegal acts of INEC or any political party. If the commission does anything illegal, the good people of this country will hold it responsible for anything that goes wrong.

While we expect INEC to do the right thing, let us spare a thought for Wamakko and PDP. In doing this, one will necessarily ask: what qualifies Wamakko or PDP for the fresh election? Certainly, one cannot find any reason. Elementary logic, even common sense, makes it clear that the man for whose sake an election was cancelled on the ground of irregularity of his candidature cannot parade himself as a candidate when he has not had the opportunity to correct what was initially wrong. If Wamakko’s candidature were right, there probably would have been no reason to cancel the elections. Or, if the elections must be cancelled, it would have been for some other reasons.

As it is, the irregularity of Wamakko’s candidature necessitated the cancellation of the elections. If he is allowed to run again, then where lies the reason for the cancellation of the election in the first place? Wamakko may do well to answer this question. If he is unable to offer a plausible reason, then he should stop spoiling for confusion in the state. He should just take an honourable exit out of the race and give peace a chance in Sokoto State. In fact, to say that he qualifies to stand for the election is the same thing as saying that the Appeal Court has no reason to cancel the April 14, 2007 elections.

On its part, the PDP should learn one or two lessons from the fallout in Sokoto State. The party should learn to obey its own rules. Having done that, it will realize that the election process is guided by certain laws as spelt out by both the electoral Act and the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. If the party realizes this, it will, henceforth, strive to do the right thing. It will recognise that you cannot bend the rules and expect every person to clasp his or her hand in desperation and surrender. Both PDP and Wamakko erred, and that is why they have fallen by the wayside.

They should learn from their mistakes.

But if they fail to do so, then INEC as the umpire has a responsibility to make them conform. Having been carrying the excruciating load of infamy due to the way the 2007 general elections turned out, INEC has an opportunity to mend its ways. It still has the chance to do the right thing. The Sokoto scenario presents INEC with a golden opportunity to redeem its name. INEC can begin this process of redemption by calling Wamakko and PDP to order. They must not be allowed to be the jinx in the affairs of the electoral body and the good people of Sokoto State.

Yinusa writes from Kaduna