After reaching the obligatory retirement age of 70 years old, Justice Peter Olabisi Ige of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, stepped down from his position on the previous Monday. During his graduation speech, he addressed a variety of legal and constitutional problems that are relevant to the voting process in Nigeria. This section is being presented by YEJIDE GBENGA-OGUNDARE.
At a valedictory court session held in his honour at the Court of Appeal, Ring Road, Ibadan to mark his retirement at the mandatory age of 70 years last week, Justice Peter Olabisi Ige JCA spoke on comments and observations on legal impediments in electoral adjudication. A major focus of his speech was the necessity to amend either the Constitution or the Electoral Act. He spoke on the topic of comments and observations on legal impediments in electoral adjudication.
Justice Ige offered a number of suggestions that stemmed from the lessons he learned while serving on election petition tribunals. These suggestions concerned methods for ensuring that justice is not only carried out, but that it is also visibly carried out.
The investigation and resolution of election complaints
He was of the opinion that in order to give the justices some room to breathe, it is important that the National Assembly alter the relevant sections of the constitution to expand the number of days from sixty to eighty for the hearing and determination of appeals in the interest of justice. This was conveyed in the context of the interest of justice.
"Alternatively, the National Assembly should change the provision of Section 285 (7) to read as follows: 'An appeal from a decision of an election tribunal or Court of Appeal in all election matters shall be heard and disposed within 60 days from the date an appeal is entered in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.'
According to him, "in that way, there will be sufficient time for the Appellate Courts to attend and decide election appeals."
He is of the opinion that the provision of Section 285 (7) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) which states that "an appeal from a decision of an Election Tribunal or Court of Appeal in an election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the day of the delivery of judgement of the tribunal or Court of Appeal" and Section 285 (12) which states that "an appeal from s decision of a court in a Pre-Election matter shall be heard and disposed of, within 60 days" should be
In addition, he stated that this disadvantage is made more apparent in circumstances in which the appellant files notice on the final day of the 21-day period that is mandated by the law in Section 138 (2) and Paragraph 6 (1) of the Election Proceedings Practise Direction 2023. These provisions state that an appellant who is dissatisfied with the judgement of the Tribunal or Court of Appeal in an election matter must file his notice of Appeal against the final decision of the tribunal or court wi
He argued that in such cases, the 21 days out of the 60 that are provided by law, in addition to the 10 days that are provided for the tribunal to transmit the record of appeal to the Appeal Court and the seven days that are provided for the appellant to file his brief as well as the five days that are provided for the respondent to file his brief of argument as provided by Paragraph 9 of the Practise Direction, amount to 45 days, leaving the justices 15 days to work diligently, often to the poi
In his discussion of the quorum of the Election Petition Tribunal and the implications of variations in composition, Justice Ige revealed that the quorum of an Election Petition Tribunal is the chairman and one other member, as specified in Section 285 (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). This provision states that a quorum must be present in order for the tribunal to conduct its business. The implication of variations in composition was also discussed. He emphasised that this is sacred and unchangeable from the beginning of proceedings in an election petition presented to the tribunal until after the resolution of the election petition. He said this applies from the time the petition was presented until after the election petition was decided.
Therefore, a member of the tribunal, including the chairman, who does not take part in the hearing of a motion or in the taking of evidence from witnesses is not eligible to take part in the delivery of a finding or judgement in the petition. And with regard to the quorum, Justice Ige is of the opinion that an adjustment is required.
"There has been no amendment to the provisions of the constitution or provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 on what happens in the event that a chairman (God forbid) passes away or he is removed at the tail end of a hearing of an election petition or for other reasons, a member or two are removed for cogent verifiable reasons. This includes the situation in which a member or two are removed for cogent verifiable reasons. This means that the trial will have to start over from the beginning, and the petitioners or respondents might not be able to bring the requisite witnesses before the deadline of 180 days passes. This will result in a tremendous amount of injustice being meted out to the parties, especially the petitioner.
"I am of the opinion that it is not too late for the National Assembly to amend the constitution or the Electoral Act in order to accommodate any unforeseen circumstance depleting the membership or the quorum of a tribunal or court. If this does not happen, then a well-conducted election petition or trial will be rendered null and void.
Internal party concerns before to elections
According to Justice Ige, pre-election concerns among members of the same political parties are another contentious topic in the area of electoral law and jurisprudence. He stated that there is a need to remove pre-election topics concerning political parties and their members from the Constitution and the Electoral Act 2022. Those are the two pieces of legislation he was referring to.
He advocated for the removal of "Section 29 (4) (5) (6) and Section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act from the Act. Based on its lengthy and enduring judgement in ONUOHA v OKAFOR (1983) 2 SCNLR 244; (1983) 14 NSCC 494 at 501 per Obaseki JSC, the Apex Court has decided time and time again that it is not the function of the court to pick candidates for elections on behalf of political parties. This decision has been upheld in every instance.
"However, the courts have been given limited jurisdiction under Section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act 2022 and Section 285 (14) (a) (b) (c) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) to adjudicate over party primaries as a pre-election matter. This is the case when an aspirant in a party primaries complains about breach of the guidelines of his political party and the Electoral Act.
"The majority of members of the general public have a misunderstanding of what this jurisdiction of the courts entails and believe that it is equivalent to using the court to subvert the will of party members who have nominated a candidate for the political party whenever the court finds that the primary was conducted in violation of electoral laws or where the aspirant who approaches the court is declared by the court to be the winner. This is a misinterpretation of what this jurisdiction of the courts entails. This could not be further from the reality. The National Assembly is exclusively responsible for passing laws, hence the court's only job is to interpret such laws.
On the difficult topic of whether election concerns should be decided before victors are sworn in, he noted that, as the name implies, pre-election matters must be matters instituted and decided prior to the holding of elections conducted by INEC. This was in response to the contentious question of whether election matters should be decided before winners are sworn in.
According to what he had to say, "it is strongly suggested and advocated that pre-election matters be determined before the holding of general elections and post election matters ought to be determined to finality before the winner of an election is sworn in into office for the mutual benefit of all the stakeholders in Electoral process and adjudication." "It is strongly suggested and advocated that pre-election matters be determined before the holding of general elections."
"I am of the opinion that the earlier pre-election matter is removed from electoral laws, the better it would be for our political parties and our fledgling democracy. I believe this to be the case because..." In the context of the electoral process, pre-election concerns are considered to be superfluous decoy and technicalities. The National Assembly is hereby requested to make the necessary amendments to the Constitution and the Electoral Act in order to prevent the injustice that could be caused by a variation in the membership of a tribunal or court in an election matter. This is because the unjust scenario or situation concerning the variation in the membership of an Election Petition Tribunal or court, could cause to the parties or one of them, due to the death or removal of a member of a tribunal or court, could be remedied by the National Assembly.
It has been requested that the National Assembly do what needs to be done and make the required changes to the constitution in order to address the issue of the quorum required for the tribunal. In the event that the chairman is rendered unable to continue serving for any reason, in my opinion, one of the other members can be selected to fill the role of chairman. This would allow them to maintain the quorum required by the constitution, allowing the matter to move through with the judgement process.
He pushed for this course of action by stating that "I think it is in the interest of justice and to forestall a situation where the judiciary will be accused of sabotage in a matter that is entirely within the portfolio of the legislative arm of government to address and remedy by necessary amendments."
During this interview, Igboanugo Annastatia, who recently received first-class honours for her degree, reflected on some of the most memorable occasions that...
On Thursday, students at Aquatech College of Agriculture and Technology went through a terrifying ordeal because...
Ayodele Fayose, a former governor of Ekiti State, has come under fire from Nigerians for his unexpected support of Bola Tinubu for president. These Nigerians believe that Fayose is just...
A young woman from Nigeria who goes by the name Precious has spoken up about the harrowing journey that she went through as a result of being sexually molested by...
Forbes' annual ranking of the highest-paid sportsmen in the world places Cristiano Ronaldo at the top of the list for the first time since 2017 (and for the third time overall), thanks to his earnings of...
THE continuing atrocity in the South-East, which is being carried out by individuals who are believed to be members of the Indigenous Peoples of...
blogpay
Total Comments: 0