By Owei Lakemfa
THE celebrations are still on in the five states where by virtue of Justice Adamu Bello’s judgement elongating the governor’s tenure, the state executives would stay in power longer than their electoral mandate.  But for the Nigerian people, this is a period of mourning for  the new Nigeria they have fought so tenaciously to enthrone.

On February 23, 2011, the Federal High Court ruled that governors who won re-run elections following the voiding of their elections for various electoral malpractices, should complete new four-year terms from the day they took fresh oaths of office.

That judgement which subverts the electorate’s will, sent the beneficiary state governors, their families and cronies dancing; they have more months or years of access to cheap or free money.

But for those who made lots of sacrifices to chase the military hawks out of power, it is a period of grief. In the struggle to enthrone democracy, some were killed including Pa Alfred Rewane, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, Ken Saro-Wiwa and my friend and professional colleague, Bagauda Kaltho.

Many were forced into exile including Chief Anthony Enahoro, Dan Suleiman and Ralph Obiora; people who should have been enjoying some retirement but who were forced to endure the snow of foreign lands.

Retired General Buba Marwa made a sound analysis of Bello’s judgement  when he said “if allowed to stay, the ruling would become an incentive for rigging elections because now, if I rig an election and my government is annulled, I will rig again to power.  As many times as they annul my government, I will rig back again and become a life governor.  This is the precedence this ruling will set”.

In a sane polity, when a politician rigs elections or subverts the process as the Appeal Court found some of these governors to have done, the culprits are punished.  They are not only barred from re-contesting the elections and jailed, but their political parties are banned from the re-run.

But in our case, they are allowed to run state affairs, have access to state funds and using the enormous resources they have acquired, find their way back to power.  This is double jeopardy for the populace whose resources are used to organise re-run elections, whose time and energy are consumed having to return to the polls and whose will is subverted.  In summary, those who rig elections are being compensated.

I am not saying all elections are annulled based on crimes; there may be those annulled on technical grounds. But most are as a result of verifiable  electoral malpractices.  In two of the states affected, the Appeal Court found that no elections were held in the first place, but results were declared and certificates of return given.It is criminal to then go on and give such governors tenure elongation.

Justice Bello had argued that the nullification of the affected states gubernatorial elections has a legal effect of nullifying the oath of office they had taken. Having taken this path of reasoning, his conclusion is that “from nothing comes nothing” So his primary interest is not whether  elections are rigged, nor why the Appeal Court annulled the elections, he is simply interest in technicalities even if criminals are the ultimate beneficiaries.

Justice Bello blamed the loopholes on the Pre-Amendment 1999 Constitution. The learned judge’s position negates the Supreme Court judgement that the courts, especially in electoral matters should not resort to rigid  technicalities, but the justice of the case.

Justice Bello’s judgement makes a mockery of democracy and is a subversion of the electoral process.  But for the fact that it was made by the judge of a court with competent jurisdiction, I would have been tempted to say that is a criminal judgement.  However, since a certified judge is involved, the least  the higher court should do, is to throw the judgement into a trash can.

But Mallam Yusuf Olaolu Ali, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) is opposed to this.  He told the media “INEC should not open itself to allegations of bias or partisanship.  My advice is that they should let the sleeping dog lie.  What is their interest in the matter?”.

INEC is the electoral umpire which conducted the elections, it is the defendant in the suit and the judgement is capable of derailing its plans for the gubernatorial elections, yet a Senior Advocate is asking what is INEC’s interest in the matter?

A judgement is made against INEC and a lawyer asks it to do nothing.  Ali’s logic is interesting; that if INEC were to appeal it will open itself to allegations of bias or partisanship, but does Ali realise that if INEC does not appeal, it will open itself to allegations of complicity and conspiracy?  Ali asked that the sleeping dog should be allowed to lie, does he realise that this can lead to a popular uproar?

Judges must realise that they are part of the system and that when they fail to deliver justice like Justice Bello, it has implications for the entire citizenry.

Lawyers like Ali should similarly be conscious that life does not begin and end with the huge sums of money they collect in the name of electoral petitions.  In fact, lawyers who take up such petitions and ask their clients pay hundreds of millions of naira in the name of legal fees, should ask themselves where governors source the hefty sums they demand; it obviously has to be from the state treasury.

If they demand and collect such huge sums, then these lawyers have no moral right to criticise the National Assembly for  swallowing a fifth of the federal expenditure.

If Justice Bello’s judgement were allowed to stand, the opposition may lose confidence in the judicial and democratic processes and resort to self help. Similarly, the populace may be disenchanted and resort to Tunisian, Egyptian or even Libyan – type uprisings.

The principles of democracy, and peaceful transition of power are under attack and such criminality that has seen to Mexico degenerating into a state of virtual anarchy should not be allowed in our country.
I rest my case.