THE Nigerian public, especially the electorate who fought hard to obtain their PVCs and stood under the weather, sometimes in threatening circumstances to vote, must keenly watch proceedings at the various election petition tribunals.

The same way that it is our constitutional right to vote and be voted for, it is also our civic duty to closely monitor the goings-on in the tribunals as this will greatly help in restoring justice to those unfairly deprived of their mandates by the powers that be.

The founding fathers of our presidential democracy knew that our elections were fraught with criminality and impunity. They were aware that from time immemorial, elections in Nigeria are virtual criminal undertakings where political parties, their candidates and supporters do everything they can to gain access to power, often at the expense of those the people genuinely voted for.

They knew that the electoral umpire which, under the current dispensation, is called the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, is hardly independent. It tends to dance to the tune of the proverbial piper: the president and the party in power. They were aware that a lot of political interests always bled, with nowhere to turn to for justice after elections. Elections without avenues for justice are violence-prone.

That was why the Election Petition Tribunal was enshrined in the 1979 Constitution, which is reflected in Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended by Section 9 of the Constitution (Second Alteration) Act, 2010. The primary responsibility of the Tribunal is to “determine (election) petitions as to whether any person has been validly elected…”

Whenever any case is taken to the Tribunal, there is always the assumption that the election is not yet over until the legal processes are exhausted and final verdicts pronounced. It is for this reason that many governors and federal/state lawmakers have been made to lose their exalted positions at the tribunals. That is why we have several off-cycle elections in states like Anambra, Edo, Ondo, Ekiti, Osun and Kogi states.

We believe that if any petitioner is able to make a strong enough evidence-based case beyond the reasonable doubt of the panel of judges, it will be difficult to deny him or her justice, even at the presidential level. 

Nigerians must “closely mark” proceedings at election tribunals. They are no academic exercises. The judges are more likely than not to do justice when public interest is sustained in the cases they handle.

Sustained public interest emboldens judges to ensure justice.