BY JAMES IGARIWEY

WITH these judicial precedents, it is surprising to many Nigerians where the justices of some Appeal Courts and Tribunal derived the power to order for retrial of election cases afresh after 180 days and assuming jurisdictions to hear such cases after the stipulated and specified days for election cases in the 1999 constitution as amended.

To avoid further judicial confusion and legal somersaults by some tribunal judges for pecuniary reasons, there is urgent need for the Supreme Court to once again quickly interpret Section 285 (5)(6)(7) of the 1999 constitution as amended.

This will put to rest the technicalities being explored and used by some justices at the tribunals and Appeal Courts who have made themselves handy to some politicians to be used to do a dirty job which are repugnant to the dictates of the Constitution.

Section 285 is very self-explanatory and cannot be misconstrued by any judge or justice for mischievous or suspicious purposes unless such justice or judge wants to destroy our democracy. The subsections provides as follows: (6) “An election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition”.

A similar restriction placed by subsection (7) of Section 285 of the Constitution provides that: “An appeal from a decision of the election tribunal or court shall be heard and disposed off within 60 days from the date of the delivery of judgment”.

The above provisions of the Constitution is also adopted verbatim by Section 134(2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2010. An interpretation of the foregoing provisions of the law no doubt assumes on a petition the following meanings:

An election tribunal has no power whatsoever to sit beyond 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition, no matter what, even if an earthquake occurs in the area of operations.

An Appeal Court in an election matter has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal beyond 60 days from the date of the delivery of judgment of the tribunal appealed against.

Thus, by implication, once an election petition is filed, or an appeal is lodged against the decision of an election tribunal, both the petitioner / appellant, the respondents themselves as well as the tribunal itself would be counting days and dates because the matter should be determined on or before the expiration of the duration prescribed by, Sections 285 (5), (6) and (7) of the Constitution and 134(2) and (3) of the Electoral Act.

For the purpose of clarity and avoidance of judicial misinterpretation of these Sections of the Constitution, the lawmakers used the word “shall” which connotes an obligation, compulsory and hence same is mandatory and must be strictly complied with.

This provision did not give any further time to an election tribunal since the limitation rule enshrined in Section 285(6) and (7) of the Constitution, and Section 134(2) and (3) of the Electoral Act, requires the delivery of judgment “in writing” within the stipulated time. A “judgment in writing” presupposes a written and concluded judgment.

There is no doubt that the wordings in Section 285(6) of the 1999 Constitution are very clear and unambiguous and therefore as settled by law, do not need any acrobatic interpretation.

The words have to be deployed in their plain and ordinary meaning as the Court is not permitted to read into any piece of legislation words or meaning not contained therein, or stretch the meaning to include matter not in the contemplation of the drafters of the constitution or statute.

The 1999 Constitution as amended is clear and unambiguous on section 285. It only becomes unclear if one is to misinterpret and misconstrue it, and read into it technicality which will only result in technical justice. It is obvious that the days of technicality are over. The Court and Tribunal especially are more bound in doing substantial justice, to all and sundry, without fair or favour.

The law is settled that when a Court is faced with the interpretation of constitutional provision, the entire provision must be read together as a whole, so as to determine the object of that provision. It is settled principle of law that a court is faced with the alternative in the consistent of interpreting the Constitution or a statute.

The alternative construction that is consistent with smooth running of the system, shall prevail as it was held in the case of Tukur Vs Governor Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR pt. 117, 517 at 579; Chief Sergeant Chidi Awuse Vs Dr. Peter Odili & Ors (2004) 8 NWLR pt.876 481 at 513; PDP Vs INEC (1999) 11 NWLR pt.626, 200 at pg.242; Hon. Mohammed Dapianlong Vs Chief (Dr) Joshua Dariye 30 NSCQR pt.2, 1022 at 1135.

It is obvious that the intention of the lawmakers was not to create absurdity and injustice. The 180 days provided created in the present Electoral Act 2010 as amended, was done to limit time, not to expand time within which election petitions are to be heard which is further strengthened in Section 285(6) & (7) of the 1999 constitution as amended. This is for litigation not be endless!

The Constitution we know is the grund norm, superior over and above all other enabling laws and statute. Elections are carried out, a party wins, the other goes to the Tribunal with a purpose/aim, to ventilate his grievances. Section 285(5) warns him ahead of time that he has to file within 21 days from the date of the declaration of result of the election.

Section 285(6) warns him and even the Judges ahead of the danger of not been serious and tardy in presenting his case, hearing of evidence, adoption of written address and then for the Tribunal to write a judgment, all within 180 day in the bowels of the Tribunal.

In the course of the 180 days therefore, a decision is taken, stopping a party from ventilating his grievance due to non-compliance with Electoral Act 2010 as amended, can the Constitution which we all regard as the grund norm, give with one hand, and take away with the other hand? If the answer is in the affirmative, then we are in for injustice, and more judicial confusion.

We make bold to say, that it is not, and at no time did the legislature intend that confusion, injustice and deprivation should be the order of the day for its citizens and people of Nigeria, let alone in election petitions. The amended portion that is 285 (5), (6) & (7) in effect wants all Election matters to be put to rest in the following times:

a).House and National Assembly petitions;

21 days (filling time) plus 180 days (tribunal time) plus 60 days (Appeal time), ie within 261 (Two hundred and Sixty One days).

b). Presidential Petitions,

21 days + 180 days + 60 days = 261 (Two Hundred & Sixty One days)

c). Governorship Petitions,

21 + 180 + 60 + 60 = 321 (Three Hundred & Twenty One days).

These times are SAN CROSANT, not even one day can be granted by court.

Concluded

•Mr. Igariwey, a lawyer, wrote from Abuja.