By Abdulwahab Abdulah

Chief Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN

Chief Bolaji Ayorinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, in this interview spoke on the agitation for the creation of special court for electoral matters, arguing that it was needless. Ayorinde, who also is the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman, Governing Council, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, LAUTECH, Ogbomoso, Oyo State, noted that Nigeria has competent hands to handle election issues. He also spoke on the sectarian crisis across the country, noting that such incidents must be ended now by government before things get out of hand..

Excerpts:

How do you think we can easily resolve the petitions arising from the conduct of the general elections, particularly on the injunctions against the electoral body?

I have mentioned it before that when the election cases come before the court, they must be dealt with expeditiously. If you notice, even in pre-election cases, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, said it has been served with over 100 injunctions. It is not the number that is scaring, it is the ability of the judiciary to expeditiously deal with these cases. There is nothing wrong with a judge giving injunction, asking the parties to come back in 24 or 48 hours and make sure they are all served with the court processes, and ensure parties file their processes. It is the ability of the judiciary that we need to be concerned about. We have sufficient number of judges and this is the time they (judges) are always very busy because the stakes are very high.

In the alternative, some lawyers and politicians alike have called for the establishment of a special court to attend to election matters. Are you in support of this?

I am not in support of that particular point of view. I think that the courts as constituted today are sufficiently empowered and they have relevant manpower to deal with election matters. Most of these cases are those that don’t go on for a long period of time. The issues are very clear. A man comes to court and says oh, I am supposed to be the candidate, I was wrongly substituted. It is something that we can dealt with within a week and that really does not mean that your other cases must unduly suffered. Apart from electoral disputes, there are other issues that will come before a court and could be of very urgent nature. The court will have to concentrate and deal with it very quickly. I don’t think it will generally affect the adjudication of other cases. This is the period and they must be ready to deal with such cases.

What is your reaction to our courts granting interim injunction, especially, on primary election of political parties?

Practically, all interim orders of injunction obtained in the absence of the other party, is very rampant but at the same time, they are not things which should worry us unduly. However, the judges must be very careful in granting ex-parte orders. A good example was the one in Ogun State, where a Federal High Court judge there refused to make the order and it was for the simple reason that parties to the suit are all members of the same political party, so even if there is an urgency you know, where your opponent is, serve the opponent and come and argue the case. The problem with the ex-parte injunction is not the number but the procedure. Even where it is granted, the judge must be ready to dispose of the case expeditiously and judiciously. There is nothing wrong in asking parties to come back in 48 hours, while garnting any ex-parte. So, a party will not obtain an ex-parte injunction, keep it in his pocket and now delay the process of election by saying, we have injunction and we are in court. So even where it is granted, the court must be ready to take the case within 48 hours, so that the time table for the elections will not be affected to generate undue tension. The problem is in what happens after the injunction had been granted. Interim injunction ex-parte is just like hold on, serve the other side, come before me then let us decide which way we would go. If you grant it today, you must be ready to come back in 48 hours. You must abridge the time so that there is no unnecessary interference with the time table for the election. As long as there can be amendment for the extension of time within the purview of the Electoral Act, there is nothing wrong with INEC accommodating delay here and there. This must be within the provisions of the Electoral Act. If there is delay because of a court injunction and all that, the delay must not go beyond the provisions of the Electoral Act. I am sure that INEC can be flexible.

There is the argument that the Presidential system of government is too expensive for a country like ours and many have called for the return to the old parliamentary system of government. What is your view on this?

Every country has a way of developing its own political system. We operate a presidential system, which is similar to the America model and it ends there. It is only similar. We have gradually Nigerianised our own presidential system. If we go back to parliamentary system, we will fall into the same problem because too many people rely on government for livelihood. That is why practically all our budget is on recurrent expenditure. There is nothing wrong with the presidential system. But in a situation where a man has to cater for so many people, there lies the problem. I have always said that the legislature should be mostly part time. They should be paid allowances and most of their sittings should be late afternoon after they have all gone to do their private work during the day so that the country will not be overburdened. The same with the executive. Apart from the core offices, in a situation where you have so many Special Advisers, Personal Assistant and Senior Special Advisers and they are all paid salaries, the system might collapsed under the weight of all these offices because of the huge sum of money to be expended on them. There is nothing wrong with having Special Advisers, consultants and all that but, all these must be part-time with paid allowances according to the work they do. But we have a system where even the local government chairmen have so many aides and that is what is causing the problem, so even if we go back to the parliamentary system and we still maintain the culture of everybody trying to survive on government largesse, then we will fall into the same problem.

In Nigeria, has the judiciary lived up to its expectation as the last hope of the common man?

There is no doubt that the judiciary in Nigeria is a highly enlightened one, where judges in our own jurisdiction can hold their heads up against their counterparts in other parts of the world. Those who have been invited to hold judicial positions in other countries in Africa have shown intellectual capacity to perform up to expectation. Like in any organisation, there are bound to be some bad eggs, but, in Nigeria, these are few. In the last few years, the performances of judges have been closely monitored by their supervising authorities and those found to have abused their office have been appropriately sanctioned. This, I believe has been serving as deterrent to others. In the area of delay in the administration of justice, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have recently embarked on measures aimed at eliminating undue delays in the completion of cases before them. The various High Courts have also embarked on reforms aimed at ensuring faster determination of cases. It is understandable that Nigerians are worried that despite these measures, elections petitions are not being determined as quickly as expected. But the truth is that while it is said that justice delayed is justice denied, the law also recognises that hurried justice is as dangerous as delayed justice.

This was why when the 1979 Electoral Act provided for the determination of cases within specified periods, the Supreme Court nullified that section of the Act in the case of Paul Unongo Vs. former Governor Aper Aku of Benue State because it would not allow the judge to accord full and fair hearing to all the parties involved. The cases that have been decided are those that deal with law only where the facts are not in controversy, where dispute arise as to whether a person had been elected by a majority of votes, the party will be required to give satisfactory evidence to the tribunal to enable them decide which of the parties has the majority of lawful vb otes, or whether the election was so marred by irregularities that it must be avoided on that ground and since these pieces of evidence required in proof of the petitions and in opposition of the petitions are bound to take some time. The election tribunals should be allowed to take their time to look into these matters dispassionately and come to just decisions on the matters placed before them by parties involved. In cases where there are allegations that petitions were not filed within the time specified by law, it may be easy to strike out a petition on the basis that it is incompetent. But in other cases, tribunals are bound to take some time listening to evidence. Generally, I know that election petition tribunals are trying their best to dispose matters expeditiously and from the caliber of judicial officers deployed to the various tribunals, expectations are high that they will do justice to petitions before them without fear or favour. I will give the Nigeria judiciary a pass mark in the way it has been performing the very difficult task of its adjudicatory functions.

There are arguments that a two-party system will be better for the country than the multi-party system we have now. Do you agree?

We are not supposed to regulate political associations with regard to their existence. Now, whether a political party has sufficiently developed to now command electoral credibility and respect is a different matter. If a man and his wife want to form a political party with their children, constitutionally, they have freedom of association. It is a different thing whether they can meet certain criteria that will enable them field candidates for the general elections. We should allow for as many parties to exist and I think that has been settled by law. The court has decided that, but we should also have guidelines which will determine what kind of political party can vie for election. They must have reached a certain level of acceptability. They must command certain level of electoral respect before you are allowed to come into the field to say they want to canvass for votes. If a political party is just springing up, it should be allowed to grow. I don’t subscribe to blanket banning of political parties or reducing them to two.

How do you think INEC can conduct free and fair election in areas with sectarian violence?

Let us hope that election in those areas will be free and fair. Let us also hope that the community leaders in these places will work hard to ensure that there is peace in their domains because if elections are not successfully held in these places, it is to their detriment. Other parts of Nigeria will hold elections and move on with their lives. It is left to the political, community and religious leaders of those areas to come together and help their situation. I am not suggesting that the other parts of Nigeria should abandon those places because what affects them, affects us. But the restructuring, the foundation must start with the people directly affected. It is in theirs interest to make sure that there is peace and stability, so that elections can be held successfully.