The Political terrain in Edo State is calm as pundits awaits the flexing of legal muscles soon at the Appeal Court over the tribunal judgement of the governorship election.
The Executive Governor of Edo State, Senator Oserheimen Osunbor filed an appeal challenging the judgement of the Justice –Umeadi led Election Tribunal which gave judgement to former NLC President, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole.
Since the judgement was passed, a lot of water has passed under the bridge with various interpretations to it. Some legal experts have since picked holes in the rush-rush and disjointed judgement that has made the opposition, Action Congress to panic.
These experts continued to expose the error of judgement, miscarriage of justice, the bias, loopholes that had made the exercise a nullity. The issues raised by these legal experts will definitely form the basis of the legal fireworks as the Appeal Court resumes sitting.
Even the laymen who analysed the Edo State tribunal judgement have also agreed that there were certainly elements of misjudgement and bundles of errors, and problems inherent in it.
These are the issues now before the Appeal Court and other allegations leveled against the tribunal are really disturbing.
From a thorough analysis of the judgement given by an erudite professor of law at the University of Benin, Lawrence Atsegbua gave a run-down on the practice directions and right of appeal.
In the work titled, “Election Petitions practice directions, and right of appeal”, by Professor Lawrence Atsegbua said that the words “election” and “petition” are two distinct and separate words.
He pointed out that “election are governed largely by different and distinct procedural rules. He added that “election” “petition” rules are made primarily to achieve justice for both the petitioner and the respondent within the rules themselves and the time schedules stipulated thereto.
Professor Atsegbua argued that rules and procedures which will defeat the peculiar nature of election petition cases should be avoided.
He stressed that undue hair splitting should not be brought into play by judges in the interpretation of electoral laws. The University don said that “uniformity and consistency in the interpretation of electoral laws is vital for the sustenance of judicial independence and the rule of law.
Professor Atsegbua added that in order to ensure that the parties have a day in court, election petition tribunals or courts must ensure fairness, and equity in the application of electoral rules.
He said that “election petitions” are described as sui generic, they are different from other proceedings, they are neither allied to civil or to criminal proceedings. “They stand on their own, bound by its own rules made under the law”, he added.
Professor Atsegbua went on to say that election petitions are governed largely by different and distinct procedural rules.
He said that election petition rules are made primarily to achieve justice for both the petitioner and the respondent within the rules themselves and the time schedules stipulated thereto.
He argued that it was clear for the distinctiveness as succinctly described by Ibileye, JCA in Osunbor v Oshiomohole (2007) 18NWLR, Pt1065 at Page 40, “Time, no doubt, is of the utmost essence by virtue of the generic nature of election petition “which subsume appeals there from”. That it is a result of this special nature that time within which to deal with any election matter has been considerably abridged and all unnecessary delays avoided by making statutory or procedural provisions to that effect.
Professor Atsegbua added that the duty of the courts is to interprete the words contained in the constitution and indeed any statue in their ordinary and literal meaning. In a similar vein, Professor Dominic Badaiki, Dean, Faculty of Law, Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, said that the case of the Edo State tribunal was that the petitioners failed to discharge the responsibility on them to prove falsification of the election results.
The University don explained that instead they concentrated on attacking the results of the PDP and Senator Osunbor without presenting the results of the AC and Comarde Oshiomhole. Professor Badaiki argued that to prove falsification of results or inflation with non-existent voters the petitioner ought to present at least two results one of which is genuine and the other one false, citing Obinwunne vs Tabansi Okoye (2006). 8NWLR (pt 981) 104; Adun v Osunde (2003) 16 NWLR pt 847 (643) Hashidu . O Goje (Supra).
Professor Badaiki asserted that the petitioners failed to do so and the tribunal did not advert its mind to this essential requirement of proof. He pointed out that ‘ a complaint that a candidate did not score the majority of lawful votes cast at an election
was an invitation to compare and contrast figures.
He stressed that to ‘establish the complaint, there must be a proper tabulation of the registered voters, the total number of votes cast and the votes scored by each candidate; Anorie v Obichere (2006) 8 NWLR (pt 981) p.140 at 155 -156. All these legal requirements, he stressed were not met in the case.
Hear Professor Badaiki, “the petitioners canvassed two contradictory positions and being thereby speculative their petition ought to have been dismissed and must be dismissed by the Appeal tribunal Ayogu v Nnamani (2006) 8 NWLR (pt 981) 160 at 171.
On the whole, Professor Badaiki said that much industry was put into the petition by the petitioners, respondents and their counsel and witnesses and in particular the tribunal. But that it will ever remain unforgetable and yet it is over.
He argued that it was likely that the findings of facts and the entire judgement will be set aside and the election of Osunbor as Governor of Edo State be upheld because the hard laws favoured the respondents and that the Appeal tribunal had the final say.
In the source magazine edition of September, 1, 2008, on a report on the Edo petition tribunal it stated that “Justice Umeadi, in his six-hours judgement read thus” There were no Berlin walls separating electoral and polling unit, and as a result, violent acts, that affects one, would easily affect the other” Against this backdrop why then did the tribunal rule to favour Oshiomhole.
These are some of the unanswered questions that Edo Appeal tribunal will definitely answer. Edo people are waiting for the answers to these unanswered questions and judgement by the tribunal in the Appeal Court.
|
