By Abdulwahab Abdulah

Emeka Etiaba

Mr Emeka Etiaba is a legal practitioner who had once taken a shot at the Anambra State governorship seat. In this interview, he explained why it was not possible for the National Assembly to incorporate the Justice Muhammad Uwais recommendations, which stipulated a time frame for the determination of election petitions at the tribunal. He also advised Judges to refrain from granting ex-parte orders, unnecessarily.

Excerpts:

The Uwais Panel had made recommendations on the conduct of elections, part of which was that election petitions should be determined before the swearing-in of eventual winners. But in the amended Constitution, there is neither a time frame for election petitions, nor any provision for disposing of election cases before winners are inaugurated. Is this an oversight or an omission?

At the time President Goodluck Jonathan forwarded the suggestions of the Uwais Panel report to the National Assembly, a lot of us cried wolf, because we thought it would be a blanket submission. We thought that the report would be without an amendment, but unfortunately, they tinkered with it and that left the National Assembly with the portions they were exposed to and that was what they deliberated on. I believe we ought to have a better amendment if the entire recommendation was sent to the National Assembly. It is very difficult to legislate on a time frame within which a human being can ventilate his anger in court.

For example, it is very difficult for the legislature to legislate that every election petition must be completed within 90 days. If you are contesting the presidential election result, for example, you have to source evidence virtually from all parts of the country. And if you don’t do that, the courts will tell you that you have not proved your case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to legislate on a time frame for prosecution of election matters. Though, I know that with the practice direction that enable parties to front-load their process, the time lag is not as much. You know in the case of Governor Peter Obi, we were in court for virtually three years, and the Tribunal sat on a daily basis. I don’t think that such is still possible today.

On the issue of completion of petitions before swearing in, remember that election cases are not completed until you reach the appellate court. So, how do you now say that the person who is supposed to be sworn-in should wait? The office cannot wait. Nature abhors vacuum.

With the amended Electoral Act, both the governorship and presidential cases get to the Supreme Court. It is difficult to say that election cases should be determined before the swearing in. Many of the petitions that are pending at the tribunals will terminate at the Supreme Court because they emanated from the Federal High Court and they are pre-election matters. So, it will be difficult to legislate on that also.

When Professor Maurice Iwu was the INEC Chairman, he would rather wait for the final verdict in any court case before complying with court orders. But Professor Attahiru Jega appeared to be struggling to comply with every interim order and injunction. Is this necessary?

It is wrong to believe that under Maurice Iwu, INEC waited for the final judgement before it complied with court orders. He never did, and it was not possible to do so, otherwise, the elections would not hold. The understanding of the law is that litigation can go on. Election would be conducted. At the end of the day, whoever wins at the Supreme Court would be the one to stay in office. So, the wrong party may be sworn-in. The appellant continues his case until the final judgement. Whoever is victorious goes back to be sworn-in.

Of course, you remember that Celestine Omehia and Rotimi Amaechi case was under Maurice Iwu. He didn’t wait because there was no need for that. He conducted the governorship election in Rivers State. But at the end of the day, the Supreme Court held that it was Rotimi Amaechi that was the lawful candidate, and then, he assumed the office.

The only thing I noticed was that Jega is being more circumspect. He has developed a more listening ear. At the end of the day, the interim orders would be quashed and the courts would come out with who the rightful candidate is.

What can we do to stop the proliferation of political cases?

There is nothing we can do other than to make political offices less attractive. When you contest and you fail, you count your loses and go back. There is always another day. I am not saying that people who were rigged out should not challenge the rigging. What I am saying is that if you check the cost of court processes and what you stand to gain at the end of the day, you now ask yourself whether it is really worth it to begin to put up that kinf of a fight.

Again, part of the problem is not just the attractiveness of those offices, but political parties that will never allow internal democracy to thrive. A lot of parties never conducted primaries. In the morning of your nomination exercise, that is when you will know that you were disqualified. An individual will just be hand picked by the party leaders. That can’t be democracy. So, you find out that a lot of people are crying wolf.

But if you allow the system to produce the winner, a lot of people will not complain. I believe that beyond how juicy the offices are, we must critically address the issue of internal democracy and thirdly, we must examine the judiciary. I personally do not believe that far reaching orders should be made ex-parte when it comes to election matters. If INEC allows the wrong candidate, let the wrong candidate be there. When the right candidate wins, he takes over.