By Emma Ovuakporie
Abuja—Edo State former governor, Senator Oserheimen Osunbor, has said the one man, one vote mantra of the present government would be difficult to actualise during the 2011 elections because of corrupt judges handling election petition matters.

He also observed that poor quality lawmakers could only succeed in making poor quality laws for the society.

Osunbor, a Professor of Law, spoke at this year’s Dr. Felix Okoye’s Memorial Lecture, tagged “Deepening democracy in Nigeria through Law: An analysis of some contemporary issuues in national transformation.”

He said: “Regrettably, no matter how hard we try, votes will not count so long as there are corrupt judges out there that are willing and ready to hand over victory to the loser at the polls in some cases, even after holding that the elections were marred by malpractices on both sides.”

Osunbor, however, proposed that “the jurisdiction of an election petition tribunal should be limited to either upholding an election or annulling it where it is satisfied that the elections were marred by malpractices or substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

“Where an election is nullified, the only order open to the court should be to order fresh elections which will, of course, be subjected to close monitoring by election observers to prevent a repeat of the malpractice.”

“It is an absurdity for a flawed election to produce a winner, especially where a very large number of the votes recorded have been nullified and a large number of the voters disenfranchised.

“A situation whereby both INEC and the Judiciary share the job of declaring a winner after an election should stop, elections should be won or lost at the polls, not in the court of law.”

Senator Osunbor also observed that poor quality lawmakers could only make poor quality laws for the society, adding that “ Nigeria needs legislators who are able to work speedily and painstakingly through the process of law making but due to years of prolonged military rule, legislative experience became stunted.”

He explained further that “at the restoration of democracy in 1999 majority of legislators at the three tiers of government lacked legislative experience, in fact many even at the National Assembly were just primary school children in 1983 when democratic governance was truncated.”

“As a result of inexperience, governance proceeded at a rather sluggish pace and a large part of the period 1999 to 2003 the usual refrain or excuse was that we are going through a learning process.”

On the qualification of legislators, Osunbor had this to say:  “The minimum qualification under the constitution is quite low, being education up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent [Sections 65 and 106], it is not necessary that the candidate should have even passed the School Certificate or other examination, a fail is acceptable.

“Under Section 318 of the constitution, the school certificate is defined to include education up to primary six certificate or its equivalent and ability to read, write, understand and communicate in English Language to the satisfaction of INEC, or indeed any qualification acceptable to INEC.”

He stressed further “in spite of the huge resources put into training and capacity building, the nation is deprived of the full benefits due to the high rate of turn over especially at the National Assembly.”

“When a legislative house has a preponderance of first timers over ranking members, precious legislative time is wasted and the pace of legislative activities slowed down to enable the new members to learn the ropes and catch-up.”

On the role of judiciary in deepening democracy, the former governor said, “along with the legislative and executive arms of government, the judiciary must play its complementary role to enthrone good governance, entrench democracy and thus help bring about national transformation.”

“Without any doubt, the judiciary, in the estimation of most Nigerians including this writer, has acquitted itself best of the three arms of government, nevertheless, our democracy and by extension, national transformation will be imperilled and remain unfulfilled unless the judiciary overcomes some of its current challenges and negative tendencies which has cast a big dent on its image and become a source of serious concern to many.”

“For the judiciary to fulfil its purpose in the advancement of democracy, two ingredients are essential: firstly, it must enjoy financial independence and secondly, its integrity must be unimpeachable and above board.”