By Dapo Akinrefon
CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer, Professor Itse Sagay (SAN), has called on Nigerians to insist that the courts put an end to what he described as the deliberate misinterpretation of the country’s electoral laws in elections petitions.

He argued that though there are good laws, credible election might elude Nigeria if men and women of integrity fail to execute those laws.

He said: “Nigerians must insist that the Courts must stop deliberate misinterpretation of electoral laws to suit the party in power in election petitions.

“It is clear that we may have good laws, but without men and women of integrity to execute them, there will never be credible elections.”

He said this in Lagos, Tuesday, at a lecture series on electoral integrity organised by Obafemi Awolowo Institute of Government and Public Policy, with the theme, The Crisis of Election Petitions and Decisions.

Sagay, who faulted the continued disregard for the nation’s laws especially on election petition matters, argued that once there is evidence of substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act, the election must be voided.

He said: “The petitioner does not have to prove that the substantial non- compliance also substantially affected the result.  That is perverse double jeopardy. It is only if the non-compliance is not substantial, that the Petitioner has to show that it had a substantial effect on the result of the election.”

Commenting on the conduct of the 2007 general elections, which he said was flawed with irregularities, he said those found who do not have the mandate of the people should not be allowed to occupy public office.

His words: “Once there is any malpractice, fraud, manipulation, which affects the outcome, the election must be nullified regardless of whether the beneficiary of fraud had a hand in the malpractice. No one who does not have the electoral mandate of the people should be sneaked in by such a perverse logic.  That is mandate stealing by judicial assistance.”

He further argued that the doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not hold water in election cases.

According to him, “ The doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt has no place in election petitions.  Just disregard the invalid votes, count the valid votes and declare the true winner.  It is only if the perpetrators of election crimes are to be tried that the doctrine of beyond reasonable doubt becomes relevant.”