Supreme Court Decision Raises Questions About the Timing of Election Petition Conclusions
The recent Supreme Court ruling affirming President Bola Tinubu’s election win has ignited a debate among legal experts regarding the timing of election cases.
Some senior lawyers argue that election cases should be concluded before elected officials are sworn in to prevent potential conflicts of interest, especially among presiding judges.
On the other side, some legal experts contend that the existing timeline provided by the 1999 Constitution is sufficient to handle election petitions, regardless of whether they conclude before or after the swearing-in of elected officials.
The 1999 Constitution, as amended, stipulates in Section 285 that election tribunals should deliver their judgements in writing within 180 days from the date the petition is filed.
It also requires election petitions to be filed within 21 days after the declaration of election results.
Both the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) and the Supreme Court spent 140 days deliberating on petitions brought by various candidates in the recent presidential election, including those by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, Mr. Peter Obi, and others, ultimately upholding President Tinubu’s victory.
Legal expert Prof. Awa Kalu supports the idea that election cases should be concluded before the swearing-in of elected officials.
He argues that it makes sense to finish the competition, i.e., the election process, before declaring the winner and presenting the trophy.
Kunle Adegoke, SAN, suggests that the Electoral Act may need to be amended to allow election cases to conclude before the swearing-in.
He proposes that elections should be held ten months before the inauguration of elected officials to accommodate the 180-day timeline provided in the Constitution.
While some lawyers advocate for amending the law to ensure election cases conclude before the swearing-in, others emphasise the importance of ensuring that elections are conducted fairly, transparently, and without interference.
The goal is to create an environment where elections are held peacefully with minimal manipulation.
Election lawyer Ebenezer Apata supports the notion that there should be no swearing-in until election cases are concluded.
He argues that the candidate declared as the winner of an election already has an advantage, and this could lead to an uneven playing field for petitioners contesting the result.
Professor Paul Ananaba, SAN, calls for a review of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, which currently requires witnesses to be called in every polling unit.
He suggests that election petition cases should conclude within three months and that elections should be held earlier, allowing ample time for legal matters to be resolved.
In conclusion, the debate around concluding election cases before the swearing-in of elected officials reflects the need for potential legal reforms to streamline the electoral process and ensure fairness and transparency in Nigeria’s elections.
It remains to be seen whether legislative changes will address these concerns and improve the electoral system.
Source: Vanguard Newspaper
