THISDAYonline

Not a few have spoken against the relocation of the Enugu State Election Tribunal. Indeed the relocation has raised a lot of curiosity that perhaps begs judicial explanation. Actually what many Nigerians would want to understand is whether the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2002 give approval for such relocation. Before the relocation, the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), one of the political parties currently at the tribunal, alleged that the tribunal was likely to give judgment in favour of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). It also alleged that the state is unsafe and that the tribunal members are under pressure. Enugu State government and the state PDP have since faulted and have continued to fault these allegations, describing the relocation to Abuja as unfair.

Sequel to the controversial relocation, a lot of criticisms had been leveled against Justice Umaru Abdullahi, President of the Court of Appeal. Unfortunately, his lordship's reaction could not be obtained, as he is presently in far away Australia, attending a conference of judges. All things considered, Justice Abdullahi being the decent gentleman he is would have weighed all the options before transferring the tribunal to Abuja.

Section 285(2) of the 1999 Constitution provides that:

"There shall be established in each State of the Federation one or more election tribunals to be known as the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunals which shall, to the exclusion of any court or tribunal, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of Governor or Deputy Governor or as a member of any legislative house."

Section 19(2) of the first schedule of the Electoral Act 2002, provides that: "In fixing the place of hearing, the Tribunal or Court shall have due regard to the proximity to and accessibility from the place where the election was held."

Though there have been agitations for the relocation of the tribunal the real controversy started when on August 7, 2003, a statement signed by the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal Abuja, Alhaji A.S. Umar, pasted on the notice board of Enugu State High Court said the tribunal was relocated to ensure the security of the tribunal members and to create a conducive environment for the members to carry out their duties.

It read: "This is to inform the general public that Hon. President of the Court of Appeal has relocated the governorship/legislative Assembly Tribunal (1st panel) sitting in Enugu to Abuja. This is to provide proper security and conducive environment to the tribunal members to discharge their constitutional duties."

While many roundly condemn the relocation, not a few have lauded it. It has been argued that the relocation goes contrary to the provisions of the statutes if properly interpreted. Another argument that has been advanced is the hardship petitioners would face in coming all the way from Enugu and the cost of bringing witnesses. This, some aver, might prejudice the realization of fair hearing. Already the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais has been urged to take another look into the matter.

For the National Chairman of APGA, Chief Chekwas Okorie, the relocation of the Enugu State election petitions tribunal to Abuja will ensure their independence. He also condemned the alleged refusal of the second tribunal to intervene when the APGA House of Representatives candidate for Oji River Federal Constituency was physically assaulted at the tribunal premises recently.

It would be recalled that Okorie had earlier raised an alarm, alleging he had information that the tribunal members were operating under intense pressure from interested parties in the state. He also expressed dismay at the sudden decision of the first tribunal handling governorship petitions to proceed on a week recess, while calling for a relocation of the tribunal to Abuja. But the Enugu State government through the state Commissioner for Information, Culture and Tourism, Chief Ayogu Eze, described the call as preposterous and outrightly malicious. Ayogu who said it was absurd for APGA to make insinuations to the effect that Enugu is unsafe and cannot continue to guarantee the safety of the tribunal members added that the party is desperate to secure power through the back door.

Also the state's PDP has described the relocation as an insult on the people of the state, while insisting that no tenable reason was given for the decision. Addressing newsmen in Enugu recently, the Publicity Secretary of the party, Mr. Ugulu O. Ugulu said the party was at a loss on why the tribunal was re-located adding: "we have not heard from the judges why they decided to relocate to Abuja." Informed that a circular to that effect had stated the tribunal relocated for securing reasons, he said the state government would have beefed up security at the courts if they had complained about lack of adequate security.

Ugulu maintained it was wrong for the tribunal to hear petitions arising from an election which was held in Enugu outside the state adding that some "disgruntled elements" in the state want to give the impression that Enugu is unsafe while there is peace.

His words: "Are they expecting to come and vote in Abuja in year 2007?" he questioned, adding "they simply want to give a wrong information that there is no peace in Enugu State. It is bad. Enugu is the venue of the election, Enugu has the jurisdiction, Abuja has no jurisdiction. The venue in which a crime is committed is also the jurisdiction. Any attempt to relocate it is an insult on the people of Enugu State. Do you want the people of Enugu State to travel thousands of miles because they want to defend their mandate?"

The Enugu PDP's Publicity Secretary who said the other parties boycotted the election, wondered why those parties have gone to the tribunal to cause "confusion". Maintaining that PDP was in a better footing to win the election, he denied accusations of thuggery and violence during the elections in Enugu; adding that the party had structures on ground from the ward to state level.

Following the relocation, Mr. Charles Ugwu representing Nsukka/Igboeze South at the National Assembly, Mr. Silas Nwodo, the returning officer, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Igboeze South Local Government and others, filed an action at the Federal High Court Enugu challenging the constitutionality of the relocation. Ugwu and the others are respondents in a petition filed by Mrs. Bene Ukwueze, National Assembly candidate under the Alliance for Democracy (AD) challenging his election. Having filed the action, they asked the tribunal which began sitting in Abuja last Monday to stay proceedings in the matter pending the determination of the suit. It was their contention that the move raises the constitutional question of whether a National Assembly election Tribunal can sit outside the state for which it is constituted.

Counsel to the Independent national Electoral Commission (INEC), Chief Jerome Okolo, SAN, maintained that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to continue sitting while a suit challenging its relocation is pending at a Federal High Court in Enugu. In a letter addressed to the chairman of INEC he said, "our discreet inquiries firmly attest to the fact that in reaching this decision no one (including counsel) on the side of the respondents in the petitions was consulted or afforded any opportunity for contribution in a matter which raises issues of a constitutional nature. Furthermore, there are three petitions, a total of 3,875 respondents sued alongside the proliferation of issues raised in the petitions, which must be addressed in terms of witnesses for our proper and adequate defences to such complaints. One wonders how on earth such a number of potential witnesses can be arranged and handled with reared to finances and logistics, who otherwise would have come had to come from Enugu and environs to testify."

On his part, Mr. Peter Eze, counsel to the PDP candidate, Mr. Charles Ugwu and four others said Justice Abdullahi did not comply with the provisions of section 285(2) of the 1999 constitution in making the order and that there must be a distinction between the National Assembly Tribunal and a governorship tribunal. According to Eze, "there is no body known as governorship and legislative Assembly tribunal as referred to by the President of the Appeal Court in the press release which announced the relocation of the tribunal. If the present tribunal was envisaged in the press release, then the President of the Appeal Court has succeeded in doing nothing since there is no such body recognized by the constitution."

He then suggested that the said the Enugu State National Assembly/Governorship Elections tribunal was not the one referred to in the relocation notice. Opposing the application, counsel to the petitioners Mr. Mike Nwakaife said the request for stay was not a serous one and that the tribunal should continue sitting as it had jurisdiction. I submit that the application for a stay should be refused. Edo state Election Tribunal is currently sitting at Asaba in Delta state. What should be considered is the safety of the witnesses and not the cost of coming to Abuja," he said.

All said, the tribunal on Thursday, August 21 assumed jurisdiction saying there is no provision in the 1999 constitution that bars it from sitting in a place other than Enugu. Delivering a ruling on the preliminary objections raised by INEC's counsel, Chief Okolo, and Mr. Peter Eze, counsel to the PDP candidate, Mr. Charles Ugwu and four others, Chairman of the Tribunal, Hon. Justice Ejembi Eko said: "It is clear from the provisions of Section 285 (1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 that the tribunal can sit anywhere in the country.

"The overwhelming consideration is the security of its members. There is no question of fair hearing in the absence of security. None of the counsel addressed the tribunal on the issue of security. I do not agree with the learned senior advocate that the Court of Appeal has no powers to relocate the tribunal. The application for stay is refused." However counsel Charles Ugwu, Peter Eze, said he was going on appeal.

He also told judicial correspondents that the relocation was an unfortunate attempt to label Enugu state as insecure. Noting that section 285 of the constitution which created the National Assembly and Governorship Election Tribunal provides that the tribunal sits in the state where the election in contention took place, he said there are political undertones in the decision of the Court of Appeal's president, Justice Umaru Abdullahi to transfer the sitting of the tribunal when the second tribunal in the state was still sitting.

Questioning why government could not provide for their security since they alleged insecurity, Peter Eze said it is interesting to note that the parties who are claiming insecurity have closed their cases in Enugu but they now want others to come all the way to Abuja at extra costs when no extra cost was placed on them.

Reacting to the relocation Chief Fidel Ayogu, ANPP's gubernatorial candidate in the state said the relocation is the best thing that happened to Enugu state adding that the safety of the tribunal members is more important than location. "If I were the 1st respondent (Ugwu), I won't complain. Enugu is a part of Nigeria. Anybody who is afraid of the relocation has something to hide. They do not want people to know what is happening in Enugu. The cost of transporting witnesses down here is nothing compared to the security of lives. People are gagged. They can't express themselves. They are threatened but here we are sure of neutral reporting," said Ayogu.

Similarly, Chief Ugochukwu Agbala, APGA's gubernatorial candidate in Enugu said that by filing the action at Federal High Enugu, the State government was only trying to delay the cause of justice. The gubernatorial candidate said it was clear from the constitution that read together with the electoral Act 2002 that Justice Abdullahi had the right to transfer the case anywhere.

He averred that those outside the state might not appreciate the problem of security owing to the alleged use of thugs by the government to harass perceived opponents. Agbala said it would be better to give the petition accelerated hearing so that he could reclaim his 'mandate'. Also, he disclosed that results from majority of the polling stations showed he won the election and that he met the required number of booths for the election results to be declared in his favour.

Toeing the same line, Rev. Dr. Chris Asadu, his deputy, said the relocation is part of God's act to give justice to his party. Lauding the relocation, he said the PDP led government in Enugu had brought thugs to beat people up inside the courtroom. "We hail the relocation. Everybody now has a level playing ground to state his case. It is okay by us. In Enugu it was harassment and intimidation galore. The incidents have been reported to the police but till date no arrests have been to that effect," he said.

In what may see as another controversy, on August 5 this year, President Obasanjo had a meeting with some judges in Aso Rock and in attendance was the man handling the election petition against him, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, President of the Court of Appeal. The meeting was interpreted to mean an invitation by the president t o interfere with the pending case. But the Special Assistant to the President on Media, Mrs. Remi Oyo explained that the President met Appeal Court judges only to discuss land allocation to the Appeal Court. Her reaction came amidst widespread speculations that the meeting had other objectives other than land allocation. Said Oyo: "While it is true that President Obasanjo met with the President of the Federal Court of Appeal, Justice Umaru Abdullahi and other members of the court, the meeting was solely for the purpose of resolving matters pertaining to the allocation of land for the construction of an office for the court of Appeal." Bent on dismissing the speculations, she continued: "At no time did the subject of the on-going case brought by the former Presidential candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party come up for discussion."

However, some of those following the events would not be taken in by Oyo's explanation. The ANPP did not mince words in describing the reported meeting as a clear attempt to frustrate justice in the on-going petition filed by the party over the April presidential elections. In a statement signed by Comrade Nnamdi Olebara, the party's national publicity secretary, the party insisted that "irrespective of the subject matter of their discussion, we find the meeting at this time most inauspicious, ominous, very unfortunate and a blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice from all perspectives." The party expressly doubted the reasons as adduced by Oyo for the meeting, saying that it was lacking in detail. She was further challenged to release the contents of the tape of that meeting to the public to buttress her defence. The ANPP also stated that the meeting was a contravention of the constitution which provides for separation of powers, adding that "at this juncture, the ANPP can only pray to Almighty God to give the trial judges in this case, the strength and will of character to stand up to their 120-word oath of office, which they took as judicial officers to administer justice without fear or favour and without ill-will or affection."

Barely a week after the inauguration of President Olusegun Obasanjo for a second term in office, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Mandate Party (PMP) Dr. Arthur Nwankwo described the Election Tribunals as fraudulent and incapable of delivering fair justice. He maintained that it is founded on fraud and is also fraudulent. "Nobody can get a fair judgment there. That is why Wabara (the Senate President) did not look up to it for justice but rather went to the High Court."

Many others have said as much but if the Appeal Court President's statements are anything to go by, there is hope that the tribunals will perform creditably. Justice Abdullahi in several forums had assured that the men he sent out are men of integrity. Whither way, only time will tell.

Yet the tribunals, for all the criticisms, have made some bold decisions.

From state to state, Electoral Petitions Tribunals are passing judgments that only a few had considered possible.

In the same Enugu, the Election Petitions Tribunal, July 21, nullified the election of the House of Representative member for Enugu North/South Federal Constituency, Prince Gordi Agbo whom the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared winner in the April 12 National Assembly election.

The Justice Ejembi Eko-led tribunal said Agbo was not validly elected. His opponent, Prince Chijioke Nnaji, of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), had told the tribunal that elections did not hold in some wards. But the tribunal was silent on whether the election should be repeated, or whether Nnaji should be declared winner.

The tribunal sitting in Yenogoa, Bayelsa State has similarly nullified the election of Mr. Michael Kumosuoyo who was declared winner in the May 3 House of Assembly election for falsifying his age. The Chairman of the tribunal, Justice R.C. Agbo-led tribunal, however, declared Amanlayo Yuosuo of the Alliance for Democracy (AD) winner of the Brass 11 constituency.

The tribunal sitting in Calabar, Cross River State has also nullified the election of Mr. Alex Ebu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The Chairman, Mr. Taminu Zailani said July 23 that Ebu was not properly elected in line with the provisions of the Electoral Act. Tribunal ordered INEC to conduct a fresh election in Boki 1, state constituency.

Mr. Cletus Obum of the National Democratic Party (NDP) had said that as at the time Obum was declared winner by INEC, materials for the election were still in police custody.

But Senator J.K.N. Waku was not so lucky. Senator Waku had petitioned the Justice Wallace Afia to contest the election of Senator Joshua Adagba. But Justice Wallace dismissed the petition on the ground that Waku has no locus standi. Wallace said the name used by Senator Waku to contest election was different from the one he used in filling the petition. "It is our view that a person is not to arrange his names for fancy. We allow the submission of learned SAN, Wole Olanipekun to stand on locus standi."

However, in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, six of the cases decided by the Akwa Ibom State Electoral Petitions Tribunal led by Justice Ntiem-Adamu were taken to the Court of Appeal in Calabar. Some of the appeals are the cases involving Governor Attah and Dr. Ume Umana on the April 19 governorship election and the one involving Obong Akpan Isemin, Senator Aniete Okon and Elder Bassey Edet.

Registrar of the tribunal, Mrs. Chinyere Dike said in Uyo that Chief Utikairo Etet, the defeated PDP aspirant for the state House of Assembly for Ikot- Abasi Eastern Obolo State constituency are also challenging the ruling of the tribunal.

The Anambra State saga presents a more complex scenario. The three Senators elected on the platform of PDP are being challenged by three of their party members in the tribunal. The petitioners are claiming that the three senators declared by INEC were not the PDP's nominated candidates for the National Assembly election.

Chief Ben Obi is challenging the election of Sir Ikechukwu Abana, saying that Abana's name was never published as a contestant by INEC.

In the same vein, the tribunal led by Justice G. Nabarumu declared Nicholas Ukachukwu as winner of the senatorial election agreeing with the petitioner that Senator Ugochukwu Uba was not the candidate whose name was featured for the election. But Senator Uba has challenged the nullification of his election in the Appeal Court.

The petitioner who challenged the election of Obon Victor Attah, Akwa Ibom State Governor, had his petition thrown out by Justice Ntiem-Adamu. In dismissing the petition filed by Dr. Ume Umanah of the ANPP, the tribunal chairman said though the Code of Conduct Bureau indicted Attah, he was neither charged nor convicted by the Code of Conduct Tribunal. The chairman averred that Umana failed to show in his petition that Attah appeared before the code of conduct tribunal.

From the foregoing, it may still be too early to pass judgment on the elections tribunal. But one fact remains: the jury is already out.