By Onyedika Agbedo
AS Senator Abubakar Danladi and Hon. Herman Hembe continue to brainstorm on the way forward politically following their sack from the National Assembly (NASS) through a Supreme Court judgment penultimate Friday, Nigerians have welcomed the judgment, which also ordered them to refund all salaries and allowances they had collected while in office.
Many Nigerians who spoke with Sunday Sun on the issue also had no empathy for the affected lawmakers, but rather urged the concerned authorities in the country to ensure that the duo comply with the orders of the Supreme Court appropriately, even as they called for stiffer penalties against electoral fraud of any sort in the country.
Danladi, who represented Taraba North Senatorial District on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and Hembe, who represented Vandeikya/Konshisha Federal Constituency of Benue State in the House of Representatives on the platform of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), were both sacked in two separate judgments of the apex court, which held that they were not proper candidates of their parties for the last legislative elections.
In the lead judgment of a five-man panel headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, the apex court ordered the two legislators to refund all the salaries and/or emoluments which they had collected while occupying their respective seats in the National Assembly. It also ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the certificates of return issued to them.
The court had further ordered INEC to issue a fresh certificate of return to Alhaji Shuaibu Isa Lau to replace Danladi as the representative of Taraba North Senatorial District in the Senate; while also ordering the electoral umpire to issue a fresh certificate of return to Mrs Dorathy Mato to replace Hembe as the lawmaker representing Vandeikya/Konshisha Federal Constituency.
The two judgments were delivered in appeals marked SC/ 583/2016 and SC/733/2016 by Lau and Mato respectively.
Those who spoke with Sunday Sun on the development urged the Attorney General of the Federation, the Accountant General of the Federation and the NASS leadership to ensure the enforcement of the judgment to the letter so as to serve as a deterrent to intending usurpers of elective offices.
National Chairman of United Progressives Party (UPP) and former presidential candidate, Chief Chekwas Okorie, however, insisted that the solution to electoral fraud in the country lies in the determination of all election disputes before the inauguration of successful candidates in an election into their offices.
Okorie said: “The Supreme Court is the final court of the land. The Supreme Court has the power to make laws through its judgments. For instance, it was the Supreme Court that introduced staggered elections in Nigeria through its judgment in the Peter Obi versus Andy Ubah case in 2007. So, once the Supreme Court has said it, it becomes law. There is nothing anybody can do about it; it’s only God that can query it.
“But my own take is that in future, all election disputes should be settled before anybody is sworn into office. There is no point in swearing somebody into office and then discovering a year or two later that the person was wrongly sworn in.”
He further said the judgment was an indictment on the political parties that sponsored the candidates for election and urged the National Assembly to come up with a legislation that would prescribe sanctions for political parties whose nominated candidates fail the test of the law in the courts.
His words: “The judgment is a very serious indictment on the political parties; any political party whose nominated candidate(s) is found to either not be qualified to be nominated or wrongly nominated through an undemocratic process, should be ashamed of itself. And as a matter of fact, the Electoral Act ought to have a provision that would ensure that any indicted political party is sanctioned even if it is by way of a fine for using an undemocratic process to distort our democratic process. It is not right for somebody to be occupying a position while the rightful person is sitting in the cold for one year or more. If the person doesn’t have the money to continue to fight for justice up to the Supreme Court, he may have to live with the injustice forever. So, the Electoral Act should carry some sanctions for offending political parties.”
Okorie added: “I think there is a provision in the Electoral Act that all election related disputes should be determined up to the highest court in the land before the date of inauguration of either the National Assembly or the governorship. So, no dispute should be seen to continue when a party to the dispute is already enjoying the benefits of that office. It is a disservice to the electorate and a distortion of our democracy; it’s like rewarding political brigandage. So, the solution lies in the determination of all election disputes before the inauguration of the various organs of government.”
Human rights activist, Ebun Adegboruwa, in his comments, commended the Supreme Court on the judgment, saying it would help to put those who want to truncate the country’s democracy in check.
“I commend the Supreme Court for its boldness, sagacity and courage to confront election riggers and those who want to truncate our democracy. The innovation in asking the losers to refund salaries and allowances they collected while in office illegally will be a discouragement to election rigging and attempts to occupy an office when you know you are not rightfully qualified for the office. In the past, even though the judiciary sacked them, they had always pocketed the salaries and allowances they collected while there. I think that has been the encouragement for them to remain in office; but now, if you know that you are not genuinely qualified to be in an office, you will think twice before you force yourself to be there. So, it is commendable and it will help to sanitise our democratic system and method of choice of leadershi,.” he said.
Reminded that the sacked lawmakers could have expended their earnings while in office on their constituents and might not have the wherewithal to refund the money, Adegboruwa noted: “It is the consequence of the fact that if your election has been nullified, as you are not entitled to be there in the first place, whatever you did is illegal; whatever service you rendered you rendered it for yourself; it is of no consequence to anybody because it was an illegal service. Any constituency project you embarked upon is of no consequence to the electorate because the law does not recognise you. And if the law does not recognise you, it does not recognise your service, it does not recognise your contribution, it does not recognise your projects because you can’t build something on nothing. So, since the election or appointment lacked foundation, every other thing built on it must collapse.”
Adegboruwa, who practices as a lawyer, noted that the onus was now on the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Accountant-General of the Federation and the bureaucracy of the National Assembly to enforce the judgment.
“Section 287 of the 1999 constitution makes it mandatory that the judgment of the Supreme Court must be enforced by all persons exercising executive, legislative and judicial authority. So, all the concerned authorities must ensure that the judgment is enforced,” he noted.
He told Sunday Sun that the judgment was a clarion call on politicians to stop manipulating the electoral process or continue to be punished by the courts.
“Politicians should take a cue from all that we have seen starting from the case of Rotimi Amaechi versus Celestine Omehia and know that a leadership choice is that of the people. Whoever it is that the people have given their mandate should be allowed to exercise office.
So, our politicians should stop the game of manipulations and imposition of candidates and allow the people to have a choice because that is the beauty of democracy — government of the people, for the people and by the people. The message that the Supreme Court has sent to our politicians is that they don’t have to continue to truncate the will of the people and that so long as they continue to do that, they (the court) would continue to return it back to them,” he added.
Public affairs analyst, Jide Ojo, also expressed a similar view, saying the judgment was a good omen for the country’s democracy.
“The judgment is a good omen but it’s an indictment on the political parties in Nigeria. When you look at it, you find out that the issues are about pre-election matters as regards the party primaries or the nomination processes of the political parties. It is not today that it started happening. We had the case of Rotimi Amaechi versus Celestine Omehia in 2006 and several other pre-election matters that were decided by the courts.
“I believe that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the two cases under review is good, but the implication is that it unduly gives the judiciary a role in the electoral process, which should not ordinarily be. Elections are ordinarily conducted by INEC but you find out that because of flawed electoral processes, the judiciary is brought into the whole thing and is now playing a prominent role. Now, the courts are already over burdened with so many cases and a pre-election matter cannot be dealt with expeditiously like a post election matter because there is no time limit for pre-election matters to be disposed of. So, you find that the recent judgment under discourse has taken two years to be determined. And until the political parties start playing by the rules, it’s going to remain so.”
Ojo added: “So, I really do appreciate the Nigerian judiciary for its stand in righting the wrongs being perpetrated by the political parties. We can’t continue along this path; we need to do the right thing and the right thing should start from the political parties through to the election management body and the judiciary. We should not allow the judiciary to be playing too much prominent roles in our electoral process. We need to immune our judiciary against being unduly involved in the electoral process because politicians are very desperate and they will not stop at anything; they will always want to compromise any institution that has a role to play in their emergence. However, the signal from the Supreme Court is that if you don’t do it right, we will continue to punish you for it,” he said.
Ojo stressed that the Supreme Court was quite on track in asking the sacked lawmakers to refund monies they received while in office.
His words: “It is part of the punitive measures, which I think is right. When they run into debt in trying to comply with this order, they will now know that they have to behave themselves another time. I think it’s a good omen because if we have 20 of such cases ahead of 2019, if anybody wants to go and take advantage of any electoral process, he/she will think twice. So, let them bear their cross.
“The judgment should be monitored and there should be a receipt issued within the 90 days window the court said the money should be refunded. There must be evidence before the court to show that the order has been complied with. We need something drastic to sanitise our electoral process. And if we don’t do that, we will continue to have this issue of corruption in governance. We need to sanitise our electoral process ahead of 2019 so we can continue to have better elections.”