26 Oct 2007 |
|
Amaechi's victory at the Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruling yesterday in the case of Amaechi vs Omehia has finally laid to rest, to the great relief of interested parties, the confusion and politicking which threatened to turn the case into a big, judicial embarrassment. It is a personal victory for Rotimi Amaechi, who has fought long and doggedly to get justice. The ruling further re-affirms the significance of the judiciary as the last hope of the aggrieved common man. The Supreme Court Justices have helped to affirm the integrity of the courts, especially against the background of the curious conduct of the Court of Appeal in the matter. As in the Peter Obi case in Anambra, and the removal of the Kebbi and Kogi Governors by the Election Petition Tribunals, attention has again been forcefully drawn to the failings of the 2007 April elections. Each of these cases passes disturbing comments on the country's political party system, the integrity of the electoral process, the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, the National Electoral Commission, INEC, and the character of the professional political elite. The value of the various rulings lies in the lessons that should be learnt therefrom as useful planks for improving upon the Nigerian system. Rotimi Amaechi's historic journey to the Supreme Court began in December 2006. A two-time Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party he had taken part in the party's Gubernatorial primaries, preparatory to the April 2007 elections. At the primaries. Amaechi scored 6,527 of the 6,575 possible votes while seven other aspirants shared the remaining 48 votes. Amaechi's name was subsequently forwarded to the National Electoral Commission on December 14, 2006 in compliance with Section 32(1)&(2) of the Electoral Act 2006. INEC then duly published Amaechi's name as the Gubernatorial candidate of the People's Democratic Party in Rivers State. But in a curious twist Amaechi was accused of corrupt practices, an allegation that was obviously politically motivated, and on the basis of this the PDP purported to replace him as the party's candidate in the then forthcoming elections. Amaechi immediately rushed to the High Court in Abuja. While the case was still pending in court, the PDP submitted Celestine Omehia's name to INEC as substitute for Rotimi Amaechi. This was not only in gross violation of Section 34(2) of the Electoral Act, it was also sub judice. The action was also obviously in bad faith. At the time, Amaechi had not been found guilty of any offence. He was not indicted for any malfeasance. Celestine Omehia whose name was sent to INEC as substitute did not even take part in the party's Gubernatorial primaries. But the party's action was in keeping with the culture of "do-or-die" politics initiated and loudly promoted by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. In the lead up to the 2007 elections, the PDP leadership elite conducted itself with impunity. The party had no regard for democratic principles, or the values of due process or decency. Amaechi was one of the poor victims who were wrongfully excluded from the elections through the grand conspiracy between the PDP and the Electoral Commission. Nor was this restricted to Rivers State. There is therefore cause for celebration that consistently the Nigerian judiciary has proven to be the voice of reason in the land. With the people rendered powerless in the presence of otherwise privileged persons in the corridors of power, the judiciary continues to intervene to give voice and strength to the wronged party, and re-affirm the supremacy of the law. This is the import of the decisions in Ararume vs INEC, the principles of which are in pari materia with the Amaechi case, also Atiku vs INEC, the Peter Obi case also, and the recent decisions of Election Petition Tribunals in Kogi, Kebbi and now Rivers State. Thanks to the judiciary, it is now established that "do-or-die" politics as practised by the Peoples Democratic Party in the April elections is unacceptable in a community that is founded on the rule of law. In Ararume's case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unjust to exclude a man from an election simply because some people do not like his face. In Atiku's case, the former Vice President's right to participate in the election was upheld, even if the former President, his arch-enemy had sworn that Atiku would never succeed him as President. The Supreme Court ruled that INEC had no powers to disqualify a candidate from the election, only a court of law can validly do so. In the Peter Obi case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Governor's right to complete a four-year tenure as Constitutionally prescribed. By the same token, it declared the Gubernatorial election in Anambra State in April, null and void. In Kogi state, the Election Petition Tribunal has ruled against unfairness and injustice by asserting that the wrongful exclusion of the ANPP candidate Abubakar Audu, had rendered the Gubernatorial election in that state null and void. In Kebbi state, the PDP presented as Governorship candidate, a man who was not even a member of the party at the time his name was sent to INEC. In Rivers State, the Supreme Court has further exposed the chicanery of the PDP. Thus, general and far-reaching lessons have been sign-posted for the future but taken together, the judicial response to the April elections is an indictment of the Obasanjo administration, the electoral system, and a loud condemnation of the PDP. Four Governors have so far been removed from office. How many more would be so dethroned? The law has risen stoutly against the receivers of stolen goods who have been in office and power since May 2007. By the time the audit process is completed, the true extent and nature of the crisis of legitimacy that stood out in the last elections would have been well-exposed. Secondly, the Supreme Court ruling in the Amaechi case exposes and settles the mischief of the Appeal Court in this particular case. With its conduct in the Omehia case, the Court of Appeal nearly brought the entire judiciary to ridicule. Amaechi had gone to the Court of Appeal to demand that Celestine Omehia's imposition as PDP Gubernatorial candidate in the Rivers State elections be voided. Omehia filed a cross-appeal. But the Court of Appeal's response was to deny jurisdiction over the matter. Determined to have his case heard, Amaechi went up to the Supreme Court. On May 11, 2007, the Supreme Court returned the case to the Appeal Court, asking for "expeditious hearing." Again, the Court of Appeal turned down the case, dismissing the apex court's directive as "inconclusive and ambiguous". While this to-ing and fro-ing was going on between the two top courts, Celestine Omehia was sworn in as Governor of Rivers State. When the case again went back to the Supreme Court, it was an angry Supreme Court that threw it back a second time. But by then, questions had already been raised about the interest of the Justices of the Court of Appeal in the matter. An ugly situation soon arose in which the litigant, Rotimi Amaechi publicly accused the Court of Appeal Justices of bias. His suspicions seemed to have been confirmed later when in a rather strange ruling, the Court of Appeal ignored the clear and unambiguous precedents in the Ararume and Atiku cases and determined the case in favour of the cross-appellant. The attitude of the Court of Appeal seemed predictable. The Court was accused of mischief. In its editorial of July 19, 2007, The Guardian added as follows: "It is an established fact that the judiciary is the last bastion of democracy. That being so, it has to be independent of all outside forces. An independent judiciary is an indispensable requisite of a free society under the Rule of Law. Today, there is in Nigeria a hierarchy of courts. The lower courts are bound by the decisions of the higher courts. Where the second highest court in the land operates in utter disregard of that rule, then there is a problem justifying the intervention of the National Judicial Council, which is constitutionally empowered to mete out disciplinary measures to erring judicial officers by recommending either to the President or the Governor the removal from office of such officers. The innuendo in the foregoing cannot be lost on their Lordships. With its ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the independence of the judiciary from "outside forces." The basis of its ruling is so commonsensical, it is strange that the Justices of the Court of Appeal missed the point. A strong judiciary is essential for the sustenance of democracy. There is a personal dimension to it all. Amaechi has demonstrated faith in the judicial process, and he has found the justice that he seeks. His example shows how useful recourse to the rule of law can be, even if the contradictions of the Nigerian justice system were exposed in the process. As far as we know, Amaechi did not take the law into his hands. Victory must be sweet for him and his supporters. The actual Governorship election in Rivers State took place not in April 2007, but yesterday at the Supreme Court with the announcement of the correct result of that election. Celestine Omehia should accept the judgement in absolute good faith. Since he got to power, he has never hidden his indebtedness to former Governor of Rivers State, Peter Odili, who is widely regarded as his Godfather. Now, that the Gubernatorial election in that state has been concluded, the urgent task before the Amaechi administration is reconciliation and the restoration of peace. Rivers State, particularly the city of Port Harcourt has not known peace since April. Port Harcourt has been under siege; fear rules Rivers State. Amaechi may be tempted to embark on a round of grandstanding and triumphalism but let him resist the temptation to do so. He will be judged on the long run by the quality of his performance in office not by the size of his ego. Let him get the job done. Let him also watch his back. One question: Amaechi was expelled from the PDP for taking the party to court. Can he possibly still serve as PDP Governor of Rivers State? Granted, the Supreme Court ruling has the effect of rendering Amaechi's expulsion from the PDP null and void but can the court impose a member on an unwilling political party? What is certain however is that in the reckoning of the Supreme Court, Omehia was never Governor of Rivers State. Its judgement has the effect of chasing a thief or a trespasser out of Government House. The PDP elite in Rivers state and Abuja should respect the ruling of the Supreme Court and do nothing that may be remotely contemptuous of that ruling. Rivers State has now joined for good, the list of states ( Anambra, Kogi, Kebbi...) whose dates of Gubernatorial elections would henceforth be different from the general pattern. There is a lull in governance in the land; the combined effort of the rulings of the Courts, and the Election Petition Tribunals is that in the states in particular, many of the Governors are not too certain that they will survive in office. The judiciary is in an activist mood and given the other examples of injustice in the conduct of the Gubernatorial elections in April, more Governors, currently parading themselves as legitimate custodians of the people's mandate may soon find themselves, like Celestine Omehia, saying their farewells. The Supreme Court has ruled that Rotimi Amaechi should be sworn in immediately as Governor of Rivers State. It is a good moment for democracy and the rule of law. So let it be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.