REVISITING THE HISTORICAL CHOICE OF LEGAL BATTLE OVER MANIPULATION AND MALPRACTICES ON ELECTIONS IN NIGERIAN POLITICAL SCENE THROUGH LEGAL UNCERTAINTY BY THE VICTIMS OF CORRUPT NIGERIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
By Musa Ali Maishanu
More immediately important to Shehu Shagari, however, was the challenge of his victory by Chief Awolowo and Alh. Waziri Ibrahim through legal battle, the GNPP presidential candidate, who asked the Electoral Tribunal (ET) to declare his election invalid. The issue turned on the definition of the constitution’s requirements, intended to emphasise the “national” character of the presidential office, that a successful presidential candidate, where there were, as in this case, more than two candidates, must win not only the highest number of votes cast but “not less than one quarter” of the votes in “at least two-thirds of all the states in the Federation”. The Electoral Tribunal found in favour of Shehu Shagari. Chief Awolowo and Alh. Waziri Ibrahim then took the case to the Supreme Court (SC).
Delivering the judgment of six of the seven Supreme Court judges that Shehu Shagari’s election was valid, the recently appointed Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Atanda Fatayi Williams, a distinguished legal scholar, and a Yoruba Muslim, said that the President had secured the highest number of votes of any candidate, 772,000 more than the appellant, Chief Awolowo. His votes were also more evenly spread geographically; he had secured a quarter of the votes cast in each of twelve of the nineteenth states. But in a thirteenth, Kano, he had secured 19.94% of all votes cast, while, Chief Awolowo had secured 1.25% there. The Court upheld the view of the Electoral Tribunal that since 19.94% of all votes cast in Kano State exceeded a quarter of two-thirds of those votes, this constituted the necessary one quarter of this thirteenth state,thus satisfying the constitution’s requirement concerning “at least two-thirds of all the states”. This gave Alh. Shehu Shagari the majority in “at least two-thirds of the states”.
The dissenting judge,Mr Justice Kayode Esho, concentrated on a single point. How could one say,even for the purpose of an election, that a state consisted not of its entire lsland area and of its total population, but only of the votes it cast? The Electoral Decree, in speaking of “at least two-thirds of all the states” must mean, he said, the totality of any state, and so the totality of all the votes it casts, not two-thirds of those votes in any state.
This is a tenable case; but the other judges, with the exception of Mr. Justice Andrew Obaseki, who did not, however, agree to grant Chief Awolowo the “relief” he sought, supported the view of the Electoral Tribunal forcefully put by Shehu Shagari’s counsel, Chief Richard Akinjide, who became President Shehu Shagari’s Minister of Justice and Attorney- General. Chief Akinjide claim that since the number of States, had not stipulated of three, and the framers of the decree,who were well aware that Nigeria had only nineteen states, had not stipulated that two-thirds of these must be taken to the thirteen, the Electoral Tribunal must follow the path of common sense and decide as it did.
The persistence of Nigeria’s commonwealth connection is shown by the use of as his main precedent by the resourceful Chief Akinjide of the case of Magor and St Melons Rural District Council and Newport Corporation, a 1952 decision by Lord Justice Simons.
Unfortunately, nobody asked whether, if for the purpose of the constitution only two-thirds of the votes cast in Kano State should be taken into consideration, only two-thirds of the President’s votes there should also qualify-which would have left him where he was. But equity and the interests of Nigeria would have left suffered from any other than the decision taken. The figures showed that Chief Awolowo could not possibly have beaten the President in any nationwide vote. Submission of the issue to the National Assembly and the State Houses of Assembly, for which the constitution then provided if no candidate won outright in the first round, would have exposed those newly elected,if not entirely guileless, bodies to intense political horse-trading, and to the flourishing of bribes by supporters of the candidates.
In fact, the framers of the constitution had simply not allowed for the possibility of a candidate securing such a narrow lead. And resulting from this case, as one of its last acts before leaving office, the Supreme Military Council (SMC) amended this provision of the constitution. Now, if a candidate for the presidency fails to secure a quarter of all the votes cast in “two-thirds of the states” there will be a second, and if necessary a third, nationwide election, with no reference to the legislatures. The Supreme Court ruling on what “two-thirds” means, however, is now part of Nigeria’s constitutional law unless and until the legislature changes it.
Moreover, after the Supreme Court verdict both Chief Awolowo, a devout Christian and Alh. Waziri Ibrahim, a Muslim, declared that they placed their appeal “before Almighty God. The Almighty Allah will surely give justice to those who have been cheated”. While, Dr. Azikiwe, however, urged all Nigerians to accept the verdict with good faith.
Undoubtedly, paragraph 8 of this article must surely happen in Nigerian political process. Therefore, the diehards of Peter Obi (LP) and Alh. Atiku Abubakar (PDP) around the globe should prepare themselves for the swallowing of the final decision of Peter Obi (LP) and Alh. Atiku Abubakar (PDP). Because the later and former can never exceed what Chief Awolowo, Dr Azikiwe and Alh. Waziri Ibrahim did to their supporters in Nigerian political action.
Historically written by,
Comrade Musa Ali Maishanu.
