Belated Appeal: A twist in INEC’s moves

recent article of August 23, 2014, titled: Senate and INEC’s belated appeal by Bukola Adegbenro made an interesting reading.

Fresh Democratic Party, FRESH, must really be a pain in the neck of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC’s, to draw so much ire from the electoral agency, which has sustained its refusal to honour the verdict delivered by Justice Kolawole at the Federal High Court 5, Abuja Division on July 29, 2014, which voided the party’s de-registration. Now, Freshphobia has created a hole in INEC’s political permutations as the party’s lawyers just unveiled the diabolical web of deception which the Commission has been weaving against the party.

After months of tales and double-speak by INEC’s spokespersons, the recent release to the party by the Commission’s lawyers of a Motion on Notice/affidavit dated 17 July, 2014: 363 days after the judgment delivered in favour of FRESH by the honourable Judge, underscored the dishonesty of INEC in this needless crisis. Part of the motion stated that, “The Appellant/Applicant being desirous of prosecuting the appeal, compiled and transmitted the records, but out of the time allowed by the rules of this honourable court…”. FRESH’s struggle for justice and respect for the rule of law has begun to yield fruit; it has compelled INEC to re-file an abandoned notice of appeal and rush a re-amendment of the relevant section of the Electoral Act by fellow respondent in the case; the National Assembly, in order to legalise its unconstitutional de-registration of parties. The Commission had failed to meet the stipulated 90 days’ timeframe for filing an appeal at the Court of Appeal. Whether the appellate court would accept its prayers for an extension of time remains to be seen.

INEC initially assumed that FRESH would accept the party’s de-registration as an “act-of-God”, and let sleeping dogs lie, especially as three other parties had engaged the Agency in court and lost. But when FRESH unexpectedly got a favourable verdict, the Commission, through its spokesperson, Kayode Idowu said they would appeal the judgment, again hoping that FRESH would be intimidated by the sheer force of INEC’s governmental influence. The Commission’s Chairman, Prof Attahiru Jega even claimed not to have seen the judgment, although a certified true copy was sent to him by FRESH’s lawyer, Barr. Kola Dopamu.

We need explanations here; what tasks kept INEC’s legal team so busy that they failed to brief their Chairman on the outcome of the INEC – FRESH court case? The excuse that the appeal was delayed for almost a year after the judgment because INEC was busy with election matters is a red herring. No reasonable Judge will accept a breach of court processes for such a flimsy reason. Then there was also the impulsive re-amendment of Electoral Act, No. 6, 2010 by the Senate, which was again supposed to deter the FRESH Party which insists on the respect of the court verdict by the electoral agency.

But if truth be told, this is another manifestation of the Nigerian factor, which is the root of Nigeria’s hydra-headed problems and stunted development. The late Gen. Sani Abacha was quoted as saying; “If insurgency lasts more than two hours, government is involved”. INEC’s long-drawn insurgency against opposition parties is evidence of executive backing!

The agency which at different times publicly claimed that it could not re-certify FRESH because there was, a subsisting court case at the Appeal Court challenging the party’s hardwon verdict, had previously charged FRESH to seek re-registration despite the court judgment and the purported appeal. In a report monitored in the Punch Newspapers (August 25, 2014), Kayode Idowu, INEC’s spokesman maintained that the issue was in court. This was in response to the charge that the agency could not stop the party’s Presidential candidate, Rev. Chris Okotie from contesting the 2015 presidency. The party meanwhile, says it would not accept INEC’s plea for an extension of time, to enable it relaunch the appeal.

According to the party, INEC had claimed in its Motion on Notice and affidavit of 17, July, 2014 to the appeal court that “… the registrar of the court below did not compile and transmit the records of appeal within the time stipulated by the rules of this Honourable Court”. INEC is trying to shift the blame for the nine months delay on the registrar of the court, and it took that long to figure this out, as they were caught up in other ‘more important’ legal matters. Pleading this excuse for denying FRESH its legal rights is being unkind. For an agency in-charge of such a sensitive function of national interest to offer such a funny excuse is unfathomable. The fickleness and venality of Nigerian politicians is counter-productive at best and vindictive at worst, especially in a country as fissile as Nigeria.

One cannot but re-emphasise the question that hangs over the competence of the agency. If the case were actually ongoing in court, would INEC’s lawyers then not continue to seek frivolous adjournments because they have other matters? That is one of the big challenges that the judicial system faces today, which begets unduly protracted litigations and denials of justice like INEC is exhibiting here. Saying INEC’s modus operandi is an out-dated and overstated cliché; a square peg trying to force itself into a nonexistent round hole, and the characteristic attitude of the Jonathan administration to the plethora of human rights abuses under his government put a question mark on Nigeria’s future. FRESH’s momentum in canvassing for recertification, if sustained will steer INEC away from its path of electoral adventurism and political brinkmanship. The appeal charade which the electoral agency is waving will not cause the party to succumb to the continuous assault on its fundamental human rights in this day and age; it is a base disregard for constituted authority being so openly expressed with impunity.