So far, the outcomes of the judicial panels set up to investigate petitions arising from the April 2007 elections have left a number of impressions which may be relevant to the future hopes for improved political behaviour and stability in the country.

The decisions from States like Enugu, Edo and Bayelsa indicate that the tribunals in those parts of the federation believed or were sufficiently persuaded that the elections there were seriously flawed and therefore that the ballots deserved to be scrupulously scrutinized, to verify which votes were valid or voidable.

The tribunal in Edo State went statistical in its own work, separating the fake ballots from the genuine ones, to eventually arrive at its own verdict on the real victor and vanquished in the governorship polls.
In Enugu State, the tribunal must have seen that there was much substance in the alarm raised by former Senate President, Ken Nnamani, over the airwaves during the voting exercise in Enugu, that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), was wrong in insisting there had been legitimate elections in every part of the state.

Of course, the INEC did not take kindly to that assertion and it was quite interesting when Nnamani, on air, asked a correspondent to confirm from Prof. Maurine Iwu, the INEC Chairman, why his own father had been having difficulties locating his polling booth on April 14, 2007, if the elections were truly free, fair and proceeding as planned.

In the case of Bayelsa State, the critical plank on which the supposed election of Timipre Sylva as governor was overturned by the Appeal Court in Port Harcourt on Tuesday, April 15, was the court’s reasoning that the elections did not really meet the conditions of the federal constitution and the “Electoral Act 2006”. For that reason, he quashed the Governor’s election and ordered that fresh elections to that position be held within 90 days, with the Speaker of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly, Mr. Werinipre Seibarugu, acting as governor until the new governor emerges.

As there appear to be many “powerful toes” that must never be stepped upon in Yenagoa, the Acting Governor has studiously avoided moving into the Government House at Yenagoa, and chosen to use the conference room as his office, instead of moving into the one meant for the State Governor.
You cannot fault Mr. Seibarugu’s sense of respect for his party (the PDP) and the erstwhile governor, can you? It’s good to have people like him who know how to be discreet around, no doubt. But that is one of the problems this contribution wishes to highlight now.

You see, there is a dangerous and untenable feeling in some political circles that once the tribunals and appeal courts have given their verdicts, that is the end of the matter. Nobody talks about the disciplinary actions to be taken against those whose acts of omission and commission brought about the lapses which the tribunals adjudicated upon.

It is already well established that one of the reasons for the thriving of crimes like thuggery, hooliganism and all forms of electoral malpractices, is the official lack of seriousness in the area of law-enforcement.
Instead of using the laws already in the statute books to deal with the culprits, some people in responsible positions pretend there must be a new set of laws before such individuals can be disciplined.
And so the crimes continue unchecked.

Perhaps the tribunals and appeal courts are to blame for not stipulating punishments outlined in the “Electoral Act 2006” against those they considered as violators of the voting or democratic process, while considering the various petitions.

The mere award of costs against the INEC in one of the petition verdicts does not exhaust the penalties that could have been meted to wrong-doers, notably those who acted improperly during the elections.
For the moment, it is noteworthy that the Federal Government, through President Umaru Yar’Adua, had, as far back as last year, set up an electoral reforms committee with a clear mandate. It may well be that the committee is expected to come up with ideas on what must be done to those who can be proved to have bastardized the electoral processes in any way. Until that is done, however, just what is wrong with enforcing the laws, as stated in the constitution and the current Electoral Act?

And therein lies another assumption. Under normal circumstances, it should be the duty of the electoral commission to take the appropriate steps which can ensure that those who assault provisions of the Act are brought to book. But since those who must seek equity should have clean hands themselves, the inability or neglect of all electoral commissions from 1979 to 2007 to insist on the prosecution of such wrong-doers, can easily be understood.

It is true that the politicians do not always behave properly and account for much of the confusion generated at and around polling centres during election periods, but that does not mean INEC can endlessly and credibly claim self-vindication in view of all those electoral shortcomings.

The Appeal Court’s ruling in Port Harcourt confirms the need for early fence-mending on INEC’s part in that regard.
What the court affirmed in that widely respected but surprising verdict (because nobody thought Bayelsa elections would be controversial), was that the exercise was flawed beyond pardon. Which was why the governor had to be removed and replaced by the Speaker for 90 days, when fresh elections must have been held.

However, some questions need to be considered by those charged with the responsibilities of safeguarding democracy, the rule of law, truth , justice and political stability in the country at this time.
First, when a competent Appeal Court (as in Port Harcourt), gives a fatal indictment on the probity and behaviour of an electoral body (INEC), what is the guarantee that it can be trusted to do a wholesome job of conducting elections, next time around?
Second, what convincing assurances will the general public get from the electoral body that it will use all the requisite forms and other materials which made the court doubt the integrity of its last outing at the polls?

Third, when an electoral body is indicted by a court of law as in this Bayelsa State election petitions tribunal case, should it not itself be subjected to leadership changes or re-organization of some sort? If the necessary managerial and operational changes are not effected as due, what lessons can the body (INEC) be said to have learnt?
The problems in Kogi State (blamed on unruly politicians) were quite different from those in Bayelsa State, because the Appeal Court highlighted what you may well regard as an election process failure in Bayelsa State, pure and simple. What do we do about that: Just pretend things will be done better next time, and not take the necessary precautions?

Although the People’s Democratic Party (PDP)is still rooting for the out-gone Governor, Mr. T. Sylva, all members of the Party in Yenagoa and elsewhere who love Nigeria need to answer some questions also.

First, since Mr. Sylva was the beneficiay of an election nullified by an appeal court, can anyone claim his hands were clean in the matter?
Second, what percentages of the faults cited by the appeal court in Port Harcourt are attributable to Mr. Sylva and INEC, separately? It appears, in view of that ruling ,that he is not the right material to be fielded by the PDP for a re-run of the race for Bayelsa’s top seat. The clouds are ominous; there are hardly any visible silver linings, and the bells will soon start ringing.