I HAVE  watched and followed with dismay the roles of some justices in determining election cases emanating from the last April 2011 poll. Before the amendment of the 1999 Constitution, one major complaints of majority of Nigerians was the unlimited life span of election petitions in court.

There were various allegations then that justices of the tribunals and the different divisions of the Appeal Court capitalised on the unlimited life span for delivering judgments to delay justice and at times compromised it to the highest bidder.

But now, even with the amendments of 1999 Constitution with clear specifications and provision on the number of days an election petition cannot exceed at the tribunal and Appeal Court before judgment is written and delivered on such case or cases as contained in Section 285 subsection (6) & (7) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, some Justices at both the tribunal and Appeal Courts whose constitutional responsibility under the law is to give proper interpretation of the constitution as amended by the legislature, have made themselves law interpreters and lawmakers at the same time for reasons best known to them.

While some of the justices have stuck to the provisions of the Constitution in delivering their judgments, other have imported some strange and suspicious clauses like ordering for retrial of cases after 180 days, some even go to ridiculous extent of saying that the 180 days starts from the day the Court of Appeal remitted a case back to the tribunal even when obviously such clauses are not anywhere in the country’s Constitution. Wonders shall never end!!.

So the question is; which justice or judge, who is worth his qualification, has the constitutional power to rewrite the constitution of the country or add or subtract from the ordinary meaning of the constitution in a law court in the course of dispensing justice?

The answer is NONE. Not even the President of the Federation or the Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN) has such a power or right, because such action will be in total violation of the sanctity of the Constitution and might plunge the democracy into depth of the ocean.

It also negates the principle of separation of power as enshrined in the Constitution and there is already a big tendency that a serious crisis is already brewing if judges do not take corrections and do the needful.

Clearly, it is only the constitutional responsibility of the legislature to make or amend the constitution, not the judiciary as we have witnessed in some of the judgments of the tribunals and Appeal Courts on election petitions in recent times, especially in Anambra State, and precisely on Anambra House of Representatives, House of Assembly and the senatorial seat matters where the provisions of the constitution as regard to election petitions is being given a nebulous  interpretations by the tribunal.

This is even when some courts and tribunals across the country have delivered clear judgments on such matters before now. The Provisions of Section 285(5), (6) & (7) of the 1999 constitution were collectively considered by the Supreme Court in PDP VS CPC in Appeal Nos: SC/272/2011 AND SC 276/2011 (consolidated) judgment delivered on 31/10/2011 and a decision taken to the effect that no court has power to extend the time constitutionally provided for determining petitions or appeals. (Read Ononghen JSC)

The Tribunal or Appeal Court has no power to read into the Constitution what is not contained therein, or to amend the clear wordings of a statute, which, guided the Kebbi State National and State Assembly Election Tribunal when confronted in the case of Senator Aliero Vs Senator Abubakar Atiku Bagudu in EPT/KB/SE/1/2011, delivered on 16/11/2011. Aliero’s case was dismissed based on the efflux of the 180 days time limit and was declared time bared.

The same Kebbi Election Tribunal in the above case, adopted the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Alhaji Kasim Shettimas & Ors Vs Mohammad Goni supra; where it was held that the provision of section 285 (6) supra are clear and unambiguous and should be given their ordinary meaning, and accordingly struck out the petition that was remitted for hearing on its merit, for lack of jurisdiction.

Also a good example was the petition struck out in the Imo State Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Owerri, EPT/HA/NASS/SEN/04/2011, between Amb. Dr. Kema Chikwe Vs Senator Chris Anyanwu.

In Benue State, the Senate President, Senator David Mark, triumphed last week when the Appeal of the Appellant Gen. Onoja was dismissed by the Court of Appeal Makurdi Division for efflux of time, the petition having been on for more than 60 days as stipulated in section 285 (7).

Even when an order is given for hearing of a case on merit, it is only allowed if such case was dismissed before the constitutional 180 days of which the tribunal can now use the residue days within the 180 days to retry the case as happened in Kebbi governorship election case and not to start afresh to sit for another 180 days as being witnessed in Anambra.

Mr. James Igariwey, a lawyer, wrote from Abuja.