What is the Supreme Court saying?

Last week Thursday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that Mr Rotimi Amaechi, and not Celestime Omehia was in the eyes of the law, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the April governorship elections in Rivers State. Based on that premise, (which in my view is based on sound law and reasoning), the court proceeded to hold that Amaechi is deemed to have been the one elected by the voters in Rivers State when they voted for a governor (which is more debatable). The Supreme Court then ordered Amaechi to be sworn in as Governor of Rivers State. He has already assumed office, since in law the judgment of the Court is final and all authorities and persons in Nigeria are obliged to comply with the judgment of the Court.

The precedents to this judgment are well-known and may be summarized as follows-when the PDP conducted its governorship primaries in Rivers State, Amaechi was the clear winner by a landslide. Celestine Omehia was not a candidate in that or any subsequent primaries. The first clear indication that there was a problem with Amaechi’s candidacy emerged when former President Obasanjo refused to present the party flag to Amaechi on the ground that his candidacy had a “K leg” Subsequently the PDP informed INEC of its substitution of Amaechi’s candidacy by Omehia citing “error” contrary to the stipulation in the electoral law requiring a “cogent and verifiable” reason for any such substitution. Ex post facto, the PDP (in collaboration with the Obasanjo Presidency and regrettably the EFCC) manufactured an “indictment” against Ameachi which it sought to use to justify Amachi’s replacement with retroactive effect.

Prior to the formal substitution of Amaechi by the PDP, he had upon rumours or information about his impending substitution and/or disqualification gone to court and obtained a favourable judgment against the PDP which responded by expelling him from the party. We may also note the disconcerting behaviour of the Court of Appeal which played “hide and seek” refusing to adjudicate on the matter until compelled by the Supreme Court, and then departing from its precedents in the Atiku and Araurume cases. It is thus clear that the PDP, EFCC and INEC which collaborated to prevent Amaechi from contesting as the PDP candidate had acted as outlaws in the face of the law by seeking to subvert the law and foist their will upon the society in defiance of law. The Supreme Court by its judgment is rising up against this impunity and asserting that Nigeria will willy nilly be governed by law and not men or might.

It is against the above background that one can sympathize with the Court which has in effect declared as governor a man who was not known to the electorate to be a candidate when they were voting. That is a position I find slightly troubling but then I believe the Supreme Court acted in the wider interest of Nigerian democracy. The other option open to the court was to nullify the election and order a fresh election in which the PDP is mandated to field Amaechi as candidate. The Supreme Court may have been disinclined to this approach because of the shocking behaviour of the PDP in the Araurume case.

If we recall, the same court ruled just before the Imo State governorship elections that Ifeanyi Araurume was the rightful candidate of the PDP and not Charles Ugwu with whom he had been arbitrarily substituted by the party (also based allegedly on the same “error” justification). The PDP responded by in effect asserting its supremacy and directly confronting the court by expelling Araurume and directing the party machinery in support of candidates presented by other parties-first seemingly Martin Agbaso of APGA and then overnight Ikedi Ohakin of the PPA. Can one then blame the Court for rising to the challenge of impunity offered by the PDP by in effect imposing Rotimi Amaechi on the party? Perhaps after the politicians learn to act with respect for the law, the Nigerian Constitution and even their own party rules, regulations and constitution, the Supreme Court will find an opportunity to overrule itself.

The judgments of the Supreme Court in the Atiku, Araurume and Amaechi cases suggests that the sitting governors in Delta (where Mr Peter Okocha was arbitrarily disqualified by INEC) and Adamawa (ditto for Ibrahim Bapetel) should be preparing for fresh elections. It is not impossible that the Court may in fact find in the case of Adamawa that Bapetel was in fact elected governor since he may be quite validly deemed to have been a candidate and to have been voted for in the election. The election tribunals in Kogi and Kebbi have already invalidated the governorship elections in those states. If the thinking of the Kebbi tribunal is sustained on appeal, that may have implications for other states in the North where the PDP agreed to adopt the candidates of the outgoing ANPP governors as PDP candidates even though these persons were technically not members of the PDP!

Apart from that, there are many states where there are strong challenges on the facts against the conduct of the elections-Oyo, Ondo, Edo, Enugu, Abia amongst others. In Ogun State where the tribunal dismissed Ibikunle Amosun’s petition on technical grounds one can expect an appeal. The implication of all these is that for several months (hopefully not years) the permanent occupant of governorship offices across the states may not be known, heightening instability, reducing effective governance and probably raising the incentive for office holders who are not sure when their certificate of occupancy may be revoked to start stealing for the rainy day! All of this because the political class was simply unprepared to play by the rules of the game and adopted impunity as their standard operating procedure.

So what is the Supreme Court of Nigeria saying to the political class as it takes an increasingly activist approach in its interpretation of our laws and Constitution? Why is the court becoming more radical in striking down dubious elections? Why was the court willing to take the unprecedented step of restoring Mr Peter Obi of Anambra State to office till 2010? Why can one predict that at every opportunity the Supreme Court is likely to undo as much of the actions of the ancien regime as possible even when occasionally it may strain or stretch the law in so doing?

I believe the Court is telling the political class that it insists on an end to impunity. The Court is insisting on the rule of law and democracy rather than arbitrariness and chicanery as the principles upon which our political system will be based. The court is also sending a signal that it will rise up to its role as the last bastion of defense of the people if other institutions of democracy-political parties, the legislature, the executive and others fail to play their role. I hope we will all listen to their Lordships!