The Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) for Akwa Ibom State, Mr Mike Igini, has upbraided the judiciary over what he described as the lack of discipline among lawyers and some judges especially in election petitions related cases. He believes that the 2007 presidential elections were fraught with irregularities and should have been annulled by the Supreme Court. He also speaks on the need for the establishment of an Electoral Offences Commission, if the electoral reform efforts in the country must have any meaning.
Having been reappointed as a Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), what should be the expectations of Nigerians given that we are still having problems with the electoral system?
Election management is not a one man show but a team work that requires the commitment of all citizens. It requires a total national effort, particularly the commitment of key national institutions and their personnel like the umpire itself and security agencies that must not and should not abuse their positions to favour one group against the other to secure dubious electoral victory. As for me, I will be fair to all who seek to participate in elections under my supervision, ensuring that established electoral laws are enforced fully, fairly and impartially. As part of a team, we shall ensure that INEC remains an independent and effective national institution for the recruitment of competent and committed leaders. We will ensure that an election takes place freely and fairly and the results reflect how the people voted, it is the greatest respect we show to them and that is what would happen here in Akwa lbom State.
The senate seems determined to sanitise party primaries and convention processes to enhance internal democracy in the selection of party candidates. Can this be achieved given the kind of politicians we have?
Political Party primaries outcomes remain one of the greatest threats to our democracy in Nigeria, so these reforms will help to sanitize the process so that parties respect their members’ choices and preferences and have defined and enforceable laws guiding their conducts. From what we have come to know, politicians do not like unequivocal definitive rules, they want to leave loopholes making it possible to swing the law as they please rather than conform to the laws. Unfortunately, when they are the victims they cry to all ends but when they are the beneficiaries they extol it. I believe that if you make the laws definitive and practice it, everyone will behave knowing there is a standard for everyone. Some of the proposals introduced by the senate to the Electoral Act will positively impact the credibility of elections if fully implemented because the devil s in the implementation.
How can the Judiciary help to stem the tide of electoral irregularities and fraud?
Lawyers either in the bar or bench are supposed to be trusted and that is the reason people go to lawyers to solve their problems but we are today loosing the trust and relevance because of the collapse of values and professional ethics. See what our colleagues in the bench at the level of the Supreme Court did in Kenya; annulling a presidential election for failure by the IEBC to adhere to what it called the ‘dictates of the constitution’ even though we are still awaiting the detailed reasons of the court. That was what the Supreme Court should have done here with the 2007 presidential election conducted in breach of both the constitution and the Act when ballot papers were not serialized and some ballot papers for the same election were still in South Africa.
Standards and ethical values are falling in our society. Our colleagues, especially a few celebrated senior ones that should show good examples are not doing so but have abandoned long held and cherished legal traditions and practices for short term expedient benefits at the expense of core value of professional integrity. We now see Lawyers in court fighting over representation of litigants, when they have not been briefed, instituting multiple suits on same matters and parties in different courts or Judges of concurrent jurisdiction; literally sitting on appeal over decision of sister courts.
Also the media has a part to play. While it must be given kudos for being in the forefront of the struggle for democracy and has largely contributed to its sustenance thus far, there is a relapse to cognitive cherry-picking, generous reporting of certain matters to the relegation of others either due to problems of ownership interest, subject matter or people involved on either side of the political divide. We seem to have lost the discipline of sustained follow-up or trailing the scoop, maybe because of a cascade of daily events. Some media practitioners now expect the scoop to fall on their laps or be brought to them. The media must continue to set the agenda for public discourse and discussion and take to task elected and appointed public officers like us on matters of service delivery and accountability on behalf of the people.
What do you make of the fact that nothing has been done in the aspect of election petition management as to whether a petition should be disposed of before swearing in of winners and whether the ‘burden of proof’ should be on INEC. Do you also see the need for an Electoral Offences Commission?
We should go back to the practice in 1979 and 1983 when all election petitions were resolved before people are sworn-in to avoid the use of public funds to prosecute individual political aspiration litigation and to avoid distraction of office holders from governing. On the question of burden of proof, I have always maintained and have demonstrated by personal field example that the burden of proof of how well an election was conducted, if challenged, should first be placed on the umpire that conducted the election; made the return and also was in custody of the entire materials used for the election in line with the provision of the Evidence Act sections 136 subsection (2) in particular and section 140. This burden of proof is not static and would shift to the petitioner who has petitioned, but first the umpire should place all relevant material evidence before the tribunal before it is shifted to the petitioner.
Election matters are sui generis and of a special class that are usually treated differently in terms of practice and procedure. Recourse to section 131 of the Evidence Act provision that whoever asserts has the onus of proof on the basis of which petitioners are placed with the back-breaking burden of proof should not be extended to election matters like other civil proceedings. Election Managers have both legal and moral duty to explain to the tribunal in rebuttal of the claims of the petitioner that they complied with the electoral legal framework in the conduct of the election and that the evidence substantially conforms to the election result as declared.
On the question of the call for the establishment of an Electoral Offences Commission, l wish to say that, every commendable efforts made so far to reform the electoral process will amount to nothing if electoral offenders are not tried and sent to jail. I propose that some carefully selected judges be made to constitute an Electoral Offences Tribunal with units across the country, like the election petition tribunal to be inaugurated from the time of commencement of voters registration when the act of rigging election begins with politicians colluding with registration officers. If the Tribunal is able to convict as many offenders as possible, many people would be restrained and afraid to violate or allow themselves to be used during the main election for rigging.
