The recent ruling of the Enugu Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has drawn heavy criticism from the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA).
When comparing the tribunal’s decision to other similar cases, the rights group has pointed out flaws and inconsistencies that raise serious questions about the validity of the election process.
The contrast between the Enugu governorship case and previous election annulments by the Nasarawa governorship election petition tribunal and the Enugu house of assembly tribunal shocked HURIWA, who gave the panel’s ruling a scathing review.
The Enugu Governorship Tribunal’s decision has sparked allegations of improper influence and compromised proceedings, the rights group claims, while the latter cases were dismissed due to purported anomalies.
The unresolved issue with the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate submitted by Peter Mbah, the incumbent governor, is one of the primary worries, according to a statement signed by Emmanuel Onwubiko, the national coordinator of HURIWA.
Read Also:Guber Election Tribunal: Conflicting opinions after controversial rulings
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) received a counterfeit NYSC certificate that Mbah allegedly submitted, according to Labour Party candidate Chijioke Edeoga. However, the tribunal’s decision did not definitively address the authenticity of the document.
In order to set the scene, HURIWA reminded that Mr. Mbah was first proclaimed the victor of the Enugu governorship election by INEC. Nevertheless, Mr. Edeoga contested the results, claiming that Mbah gave INEC a forgery of his NYSC certificate in addition to other irregularities, such as excessive voting and the absence of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System in Nkanu East Local Government Area, where Mr. Mbah is from.
HURIWA further noted that the Nasarawa governorship and the situations of the national and state assemblies of Enugu State and Enugu stood in contrast to each other, where identical problems with overvoting and irregularities resulted in different outcomes.
The main rights group claims that this contradiction has caused people to doubt the tribunal’s impartiality and commitment to the law.
We take note of the recent annulment of Okey Mbah’s election as the PDP’s candidate for the Nkanu East State Constituency’s House of Assembly seat by the National and State Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal, which has its seat in Enugu. In accordance with the tribunal’s order, a new election must be held in the impacted polling places within 90 days. Using overvoting and other electoral irregularities as justification, the Labour Party candidate, Mr. Okwudiri Nnaji, has petitioned the tribunal to challenge the proclamation of Mbah as the election’s victor. It has been determined that only a few communities in Nkanu East LGS-OWO, UGBOKA, where more than 5000 votes were cast, will be the new Enugu governorship. Justice Akano rejected this evidence—the BVAS report and the voters register—on the grounds that the witnesses had not been approved by INEC as agents.
The tribunal, presided over by Justice Onyebuike, came to a conclusion and stated that the evidence is consistent with section 137 of the electoral act before annulling the election. The same document was used in the case of the house assembly member of Nkanu East who was contesting voting in Nkanu East and the sane communities. In the same location, INEC certified both the testimony and the evidence, and dismissed both of them.
“In rendering judgement on the case, a three-member tribunal panel chaired by Justice Adie Onyebueke annulled the election and mandated a rerun in a few polling places in the wards of Ugbawka and Owo where the election results were tainted in the favour of the second and third respondents. The court decided that the Nkanu East constituency election and return, conducted by INEC on March 18, did not meet all criteria for a credible, fair, and transparent election since they were marked by egregious violations of the Electoral Act.
“This latest ruling by the National and State Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal is in line with the claims made by the Labour Party in the petition for the governorship, particularly those relating to over-voting and electoral irregularities in the same regions. It calls into question the fairness and consistency of the legal system that similar claims and pieces of evidence were accepted in one case but rejected in another.
“The panel recognised David Ombugadu as the legitimate governor of Nasarawa following claims of irregularities and an unjustified reduction in the number of votes cast. However, the Enugu Governorship Case seems to stray from this pattern, casting doubt on the tribunal’s consistency and commitment to legal standards. It calls into question the impartiality and consistency of the legal system that these allegations were upheld in one case and rejected in another.
“The mismanagement of Petition No. EPT/EN/GOV/01/2023 and the inconsistent treatment of identical charges in many cases have grave ramifications for Nigerian justice and the rule of law. Such instances of injustice done damage public trust in the legal system and cast question on the impartiality of the election process. A functional democracy depends on the public’s trust in our judicial system, the rights organisation claimed.
The tribunal’s assessment of the requirements for candidates for governor was another area of disagreement that HURIWA underlined.
The group asserted that the tribunal’s position seemed to be at odds with the legislation, which categorically disqualifies applicants for presenting counterfeit credentials, independent of any particular conditions.
“The notion of compromised impartiality in the proceedings of the Enugu Governorship Election Petition Tribunal is perhaps the most worrying component. The tribunal’s commitment to impartiality and the overall integrity of the electoral process have both been questioned by claims of improper influence and compromised processes.
“The Enugu gubernatorial tribunal’s ruling has been regarded with scepticism, despite the fact that the Nasarawa governorship case and the Enugu House of Assembly election cases showed the readiness of courts to defend justice and fairness. There are worries that the decision may have been affected by outside forces, which could have given the impression that injustice was preferred over justice.
Given the substantial differences between this case and others with related issues, HURIWA emphasised the importance of a thorough review of the tribunal’s decision to resolve these concerns. The group reaffirmed its unwavering commitment to upholding the rights and aspirations of the Nigerian people by promoting openness, justice, and the rule of law.
