By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
It is not in doubt that the judiciary has in recent times played defining roles that not only greased the wheels of our democratic voyage, it has also conferred mandate on candidates involved in one form of electoral  dispute or the other.

Though pundits have continued to advocate the creation of a special court with the sole jurisdiction to handle electoral matters, others however warned that we may have gradually evolved a new system of governance that could best be described as ‘democracy by court order’.

This assertion could have aptly captures the palpable tension that may have overwhelmed the sitting governor of Bayelsa, Sokoto, Cross River, Adamawa and Kogi states, who are apprehensive of what the judgement of the Supreme Court would be.

The fate of the affected governors is currently hanging in the balance following an appeal challenging two separate judgments that ab-initio elongated their tenure till this year.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, is expected to head a 7-man panel of Supreme Court Justices that will tomorrow, determine whether the 4-year tenure of the governors, commenced on May 29, 2007 when they were first administered Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance.

The apex court had on November 29, 2011, reserved judgment on the matter after it heard the arguments from all the parties regarding how Section 180(2) of the 1999 constitution ought to be interpreted.

In their consolidated appeals, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and the governorship candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, in Adamawa state, Gen. Buba Marwa (Rtd), contended that the Federal High Court in Abuja and the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal had erroneously extended the tenure of the five governors in their separate judgments.

The appellants maintained that the lower courts misapplied the provision of Section 180(2) of the 1999 constitution in holding that the statutory four-year tenure of the benefiting governors had not expired as at the time the elections were being conducted.

Consequently, they prayed the apex court to hold that the tenure of governors Ibrahim Idris of Kogi state, Aliyu Wammako (Sokoto), Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Liyel Imoke (Cross River) and Timipre Sylva (Bayelsa), ought to have expired on May 29, 2011.

Though the initial judgment on the controversial matter was delivered by trial Justice Adamu Bello on February 23, subsequently, a 5-man panel of Justices of the appellate court on July 31 affirmed the decision.

Specifically, Marwa and INEC insisted that “the learned Justices of the court of appeal erred in law and occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice when they held that the oaths subscribed to by the governors pursuant to their victory in the re-run elections conducted in the states were the oaths of office and of allegiance taken by them as persons first elected as governors under the constitution.”

Governor Idris of Kogi state was the first to instruct his counsel, Chief Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, to sue INEC shortly after his state was listed among states where election was slated to hold last year,  even as his colleagues latter joined the foray

As the world await the judgment of the apex court which will finally lay the matter to rest, it is also remarkable to note that the decision will not be an easy one, considering that the verdict, whichever way it goes, will definitely set another judicial precedence.

The dilemma the apex court is faced with over the matter was further emphasised by conflicting opinion that was expressed by the three constitutional lawyers and Senior Advocates of Nigeria, who were invited to help the court to as amicus-curiea (friends of the court), to arrive at a dependable conclusion on the interpretation of section 180 (2).

The three SANs, Chief Richard Akinjide, Prof. Itse Sagay and Chief G.O.K. Ajayi, expressed dissenting views on the matter vis-à-vis the lower courts judgments.

Whereas Chief Akinjide, SAN, advised the apex court to uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal which elongated the tenure of the five governors, the duo of Chief Ajayi and Professor Sagay, advised it to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal.

In the brief or argument he submitted before the court, Akinjide had posited  that, “it is my view and I so submit that the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office taken by the 1st Respondent on May 29,2007 based on the nullified election cannot be a valid reference point for the calculation of the four-year term of office.

His four year tenure started to run, in law, following the April 30, 2008 Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office taken pursuant to the re-run election as ordered by the Court of Appeal.”

After all said and done, the final decision rests on the shoulders of the apex court panel, a burden it has undertaken to discharge tomorrow.