This intervention has become necessary in view of recent flagrant abuse of court processes and untoward attitude of some of our judicial officers, especially in election tribunal matters. We believe that our democracy will be doomed if such judicial anomalies and abuse in the temple of justice are swept under the carpet.
It is our contention that the tribunal chairman stood justice on its head because the tribunal, after agreeing that Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2010 does not allow for any other party other than statutory parties to be made parties in an election petition, still went ahead to strike out the petition for non-joinder of PDP even after accepting that PDP is not a statutory respondent by Section 137 of the Electoral Act.
To us, the tribunal exhibited clear bias and abuse of judicial process when it vehemently failed to consider the distinguishing of the case of Agbaje Vs INEC made by the petitioner’s counsel, during oral application of the motion for striking out of the petition, on the ground that the counsel ought to have distinguished the case in his written submission.
It is also worth pointing out that the case of Agbaje Vs INEC that the tribunal relied upon in its ruling does not apply to the petition as it is not an authority on who should be made a respondent in an election petition rather than the Supreme Court case of APC Vs PDP delivered on April 14, 2015 which clearly specified who should be made a respondent in an election petition.
Unfortunately, it was based on the wrong position of the tribunal on non-joinder of the PDP that led to the striking out of several paragraphs of the petition and reliefs.
We believe that there are, indeed, so many grounds to reject the tribunal’s judgment. We note that it is a big surprise that the tribunal wrongfully struck out reliefs a, b, and c which are that, the 1st Respondent did not score the majority of the lawful votes cast, on the ground that the petitioners did not ask for the nullification of election in the various units complained of, as a principal relief. This is even when it observed that one of the grounds for the petition was that the 1st respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast and that the petitioners were also complaining of exclusion of votes and wrong computation made by INEC in some units and wards.
Equally confounding is the fact that the tribunal in its mission of dismissing the petition prematurely made computation of votes of the parties in its ruling on a motion, without hearing evidence from the parties first. By so doing, it thereby left out other areas where there were omission of votes of petitioners as pleaded in the petition and wrongfully held onto the motion that if the omitted votes of the petitioners and 1st respondent are collated that the 1st respondent will still be leading.
Despite the fact that the petitioners complained of wrong computation in Ohafor, and non-inclusion of the results of two units in Isu ward, the tribunal went ahead to base its findings on the omission of the votes of the parties in Okamu ward. We observe that the tribunal wrongfully held that failure of the petitioners to seek for relief for the nullification of election of the units complained of, makes the reliefs for declaration that the petitioners be declared the person that scored the majority of the lawful votes cast without recourse to Section 140 (1) (2) (3), particularly (3).
We also believe that the nullification of election in units and wards are not principal reliefs in accordance with the Electoral Act. We hold that the relief only requires the tribunal to collate only the valid votes and leave out the invalid ones. It is also important to state that sub paragraph 4 of section 140 of the Electoral Act 2006 which provides for the striking out of petitions for non-compliance with Section 140 has been deleted by the amendment made in the 2010 Electoral Act.
In view of the glaring disregard of the petitioner’s grounds of appeal, we call on the NJC to dispassionately look into this matter. This is, indeed, one case that the NJC must revisit so that some justices are not allowed to bring the judiciary into disrepute. It is obvious that the tribunal chairman is patently biased and the tainted judgment will not pass the scrutiny of any legal test.
The Sun, therefore, calls on the NJC to reexamine the case so that the inherent abuse of court process and travesty of justice be urgently rectified. It will be recalled that several tribunal cases were set aside by the Appeal Court justices in 2011 and 2015. We also suggest that all tribunal judgments be published in law reports so that this type of judicial absurdity will be seen by the public. If this is done, we believe it will stem the tide of judicial recklessness in the country.