Threat to 2011 elections: How we can avert crisis – SANs
By Innocent Anaba & Abdulwahab Abdulah
Some Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) say the April elections can sail through regardless of the threat posed by the large number of litigations against the polls, provided appropriate steps are taken by the authorities.
Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Professor Attahiru Jega, in a February 17, 2011 letter to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu had spoken of about 70 ex-parte orders issued against INEC by courts across the nation in what he saw as plans to sabotage the coming elections.
Nearly all the orders, according to him “contradict one another,” adding “without prejudice to the necessity or otherwise of such orders, the insinuation that it is a ploy to sabotage the democratic process needs to be seriously addressed.”
Not a few Nigerians share his fears but some SANs contacted by Saturday Vanguard believe the situation can still be salvaged. They are Messrs Solo Akuma, Yusuf Ali, Tayo Oyetibo, Emeka Ngige and Chief Robert Clark.
There views:
Solo Akuma, SAN
“As far as I am concerned, I don’t think those orders were against INEC. Most of the suits filed were against the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP and INEC. As a matter of fact, more than 70 percent of the suits emanated from the conduct of PDP and INEC and that shows you that from the look of things, the PDP did not follow the procedure laid down by the party (PDP) guidelines and the Electoral Act, 2010, as emended, particularly section 87 of the Electoral Act. It must be pointed out that non of the orders coming from the court has said that the election should not be held because the Electoral Act clearly states that no court should grant an order stopping the election.
Yusuf Ali, SAN
“Going to court is part of the solution to settling electoral or political problems. So, the court actions ongoing cannot in anyway be part of the problems confronting the election process. I wish to ask: which one would be preferred of going to court or for the people to take the law into their own hands? If people are not allowed to aggregate their grievances in court, you can imagine what could have happened.
We must also know that the law and the 1999 Constitution give everybody including the citizenry roles to play in ensuring an egalitarian society. The law also guarantees the court to be accessible to everybody. So, you cannot crucify the court for allowing litigants or attending to the cases and grievances of the people. The basic thing for the court and the litigants and the counsel is to aggregate the serious matters and deal with them as appropriate. Those ones that are not meant to be attended to, the court is at the liberty to deal with them summarily.
Tayo Oyetibo, SAN
“The problem or the worries of the INEC chairman was about the Ex-parte orders being obtained by the politicians against the commission. Actually, in my own humble view, this is not good enough for the polity and the ongoing electoral process. My advice however, is for the court to exercise restraint in granting such orders, especially for politically related cases. Presiding judges should ensure that other parties involved in any such case are put on notice and such matters, especially those affecting the conduct of the ongoing election should be disposed off timeously.
Chief Robert Clarke, SAN
“This issue is not of law but politics. I have been trying to refrain from commenting on such matters. As important as this issue is, I will say it is unfortunate that the court has taken over the polity. However, I will advise the INEC to follow due process as it is entrenched in the 1999 Constitution. Prof. Jega must obey the court orders, while also allowing the court process to run its full course. It is very unfortunate, I repeat, that things got to this level. It is now left for the INEC to determine on how it can go about the issue.
