Imo and the Arithmetic of Injustice By Olusegun Adeniyi

There is a famous scene in Tunde Kelani’s movie, ‘Ti oluwa Ni
ile’, which speaks to a time like this in our country. At his
meeting with the two young men who were trying to co-opt him into
the deal to sell a piece of sacred land which belongs to the entire
community, Oloye Otun (the inimitable Kareem Adepoju aka Baba
Wande) felt he was being short-changed. He had been offered N50,000
out of the N200,000 he was told the land would be sold for. In
assuring him that each would take N50,000 while the remaining
N50,000 was reserved for a lawyer, it became very clear that the
whole transaction was centred on the use of court process to
legitimise what was not only fraudulent but also against tradition.
And the community title holder who ordinarily should be a custodian
of that tradition was central to the plot.

We can easily draw parallel between that scene and the judgement
delivered on Tuesday by the Supreme Court on the Imo State
gubernatorial contest. The man allegedly at the centre of the
unprecedented judicial assault is a deputy police commissioner who
authenticated ‘results’ dismissed as spurious by the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) officials and were considered
strange to all the other candidates except Senator Hope Uzodinma
who conjured it. Yet at the end of the day, that was what the
supreme court relied upon to hand the governorship of Imo State to
a man who came fourth in the election.

We must recall that gubernatorial elections were held across the
country on 9th March 2019. According to the results declared by
INEC for Imo State, Emeka Ihedioha polled 273,404 votes followed by
Uche Nwosu who garnered 190,364 votes and then Ifeanyi Araraume who
secured 114,676 votes. Hope Uzodinma came fourth with 96,458 votes.
But with the addition by the supreme court of contentious votes
from 388 polling units, Uzodinma’s tally now reached 309,753 while
the votes by others remain unchanged. But the absurdity of that
judicial arithmetic was brought to light yesterday on Twitter by
@dondekojo: “Just ran the numbers again. According to @inecnigeria
website. This is the total results for Imo State. With 823,743
accredited voters and 714,362 votes. With the new number from the
Supreme Court, the votes go up to 948k which is accredited voters.
More votes than accredited voters.”

If the supreme court based its judgment on a tally of votes
higher than the total number of accredited voters, then the
Justices stand accused of mimicking the vices they are meant to
correct in the society. Even the drama surrounding the composition
of the panel that sat on the case is a compelling story on its own.
On Monday, following his announcement that one of the Justices (who
turned out to be Justice John Inyang Okoro), was ill, the Chief
Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Tanko Mohammed suspended sitting
until the next day. Meanwhile, on the panel was Justice Nwali
Sylvester Ngwuta who has been having a running battle with the
State Security Service (SSS) and would be sitting on such a panel
for the first time since his travails begun. And then there was
Justice Aminu Sanusi who is due for retirement in the next couple
of weeks. Instructively, it was on the basis of his imminent
retirement that Justice Sanusi was believed to have been recused
from another election panel on 17th December last year. But he was
allowed to sit on the Imo panel! At the end, it didn’t matter that
Uzodinma’s All Progressives Congress (APC) did not even win a
single seat in the Imo State House of Assembly, despite the fact
the election was held on the same day.

Let me be clear here. It is an open secret that Emeka Ihedioha
is my friend. But my concern in this matter goes beyond friendship.
Democracy is about the people deciding who rules them. While it is
the responsibility of the court to settle disputes, including on
electoral matters, it is wrong to render the votes of the
electorate ineffectual on the basis of reasons that are difficult
to understand. And when such is done in a manner that leaves
question mark on the integrity of those who preside over the temple
of justice in the country, it should worry all of us. I have
interrogated this issue in the past. For instance, in my column on
17th March 2016 titled, ‘Judicial Black Market: Anambra as Case
Study’, I wrote that “it is not only elections that are rigged in
Nigeria, many judgements, especially on election petition matters,
are now also traded.”

For a long time in our country, when many politicians go for
elections, part of the preparation has always been the plot to use
the tribunal to upturn the verdicts of the people in the event that
the results do not go their way. Whatever may therefore be the
merit of election tribunals, it should worry critical stakeholders
that Judges are replacing the electorates to determine who win
elections. That has encouraged all manner of electoral petitions.
According to INEC, over 1,689 cases were filed in different courts
in connection with the 2019 general election. The commission said
about 890 of the cases were pre-election matters arising from the
conduct of political party primary elections, while 799 were
election petitions at the various tribunals across the country. Of
the contested 1,490 federal and state legislative seats, about 776
(52.08%) were decided by the courts.

Meanwhile, for those who have been calling me to ask after
Ihedioha, he is in good spirits. He is obviously disappointed by
the judicial outcome on which he has no control but Ihedioha is a
strong character. He will be fine. I was with him for much of
yesterday so I can attest to that. But the greater implication of
what happened is the danger it poses to our democracy as it has
further expanded the manuals of election rigging. From the Supreme
Court judgement on Imo State, neither those who cast the ballots
nor those who count them now matter in Nigeria. That message will
not be lost on our politicians. All they now need to do is get
their own result sheets ready and on election day, try and force
them on INEC officials. Even if such spurious results put together
with the connivance of some senior police officers are rejected by
the electoral umpire, the courts are there to complete the job!

Ordinarily, the finality of its judgments ought to dictate that
those who adjudicate in the highest court in the land leaves no
room for elementary doubts on the logic and parameters for the
justice they dispense. What makes this judgment troublesome is the
possibility that a mathematical error may have been entered as the
basis by the apex court to determine who governs a state. Worse
still, the questionable composition of the presiding panel of
judges on the matter leaves serious doubts. The ultimate reliance
on the evidence of the police, a non-electoral witness, in deciding
the total votes cast is equally worrisome. That police evidence was
admitted over and above that of INEC on admissible votes is itself
suspect in the public mind. Given the reputation of the police and
the fact INEC is the body statutorily responsible for the conduct
of elections and declaration of results, this is indefensible.

Taken together, there are far too many grounds for
inconsistencies and loopholes on which lawyers and the general
public now question both the integrity and indeed the professional
competence of the Supreme Court. It is a sad day for the nation if
the apex court displays traits that undermine confidence in the
quality of justice available to the people. It is even more tragic
when the slant of decisions tempts the public to suspect that these
respected men and women may have succumbed to partisan
pressures.

On the whole, the damage election petition cases have done to
our judiciary is enormous. In recent years, we have seen courts
assuming jurisdictions they do not have. As a result of this
anomaly, other cases that the courts are primarily established to
cater for now suffer. A simple contractual dispute takes years to
decide because judges are busy with election cases since they have
to stop hearing other matters. And because some judges make a kill
while serving as members of these tribunals, the lobby to be
enlisted is usually intense. It is therefore no surprise that the
Court of Appeal is riddled with conflicting judgments. Yet, this
happens only on election matters.

On 16th March 2016, INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, spoke
to this at a conference of Appeal Court Justices in Abuja: “The
Court of Appeal, in one judicial division, ordered INEC to conduct
fresh election ‘in which only the duly qualified candidates shall
participate’. In another division, the Court of Appeal, under
similar circumstances, nullified the election, disqualified the
candidate and allowed the political party to submit the name of
another candidate for the re-run election. Yet in another division,
the Court of Appeal nullified the election and ordered INEC to
conduct fresh election but is silent about the status of the
disqualified candidate, thereby giving room for endless commentary
and new rounds of litigation on the eligibility of the disqualified
candidate to participate in re-run elections.”

All said, I want to make it clear that I have much respect for
our men and women on the bench. In fact, in all the years that I
have written this column, if there is one institution I try to
defend, it is the judiciary. It is not because Judges are
infallible that I do that but rather because the institution is
central to holding a functioning society together. But in the light
of some recent judgements that clearly do not advance public good,
it will be a disservice if we do not speak out against the growing
perversion in the justice sector.

In my piece on 3rd January 2018 titled ‘When Judges Imperil
Democracy’, I wrote: “At all times and in all circumstances, the
role of the courts as the interpreter of the law, resolver of
disputes and defender of the Constitution, requires that Judges
abide by their oath. That explains why a judiciary debilitated by,
or prone to, all manner of misconduct, including corruption and
political interference, is a danger to society. Sadly, we can see
the evidence of this in our polity and it is important for critical
stakeholders to understand that we cannot continue like this if our
nation must develop and thrive.”

The fact that this submission, made two years ago, retains its
resonance should keep all of us awake.

You can follow me on my Twitter handle, @Olusegunverdict and on
www.olusegunadeniyi.com

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!