The Kogi election conundrum

The Kogi election conundrum

The Kogi election conundrum

THE controversy trailing the stalemated
gubernatorial election in Kogi State,
following the sudden death of Prince
Abubakar Audu, the All Progressives
Congress candidate in the polls,
manifestly points to the glaring absence
of an appropriate constitutional
provision to guide the legal conundrum
that has ensued.
But the resolution does not need to be as
heated as it is, if only the actors and
stakeholders would sheathe the sword
and carefully explore the options of the
law and particularly, a judicial
intervention.
From the declaration of the election as
‘inconclusive,’ call for supplementary
election – scheduled for Saturday,
December 5, 2015 –made by the
Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC); the objection of the
Peoples Democratic Party to INEC’s
request that the APC submits a
replacement for the deceased; to the
tension within rival camps in the APC
over fielding of fresh candidates, and the
rather hasty pronouncement of the
Attorney-General of the Federation and
Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami
(SAN), and the equally hasty acceptance
of same by INEC, the stage was set for a
political and constitutional crisis.
Amidst a dissonance of legal
interpretations, this complicated
circumstance may be embarrassing to
INEC; but it poses some hard lessons to
the nation. It also passes a strong
message about the necessity for the
electoral body to pre-empt all possible
cases of anomaly and act judiciously.
Furthermore, owing to the high
propensity for further conflict, the
verdict on the Kogi election demands
prompt and judicious interpretation,
with finality, from a superior court. If
this means delaying the election, then so
be it.
What promised to be a forecast and a
preview of the forthcoming Bayelsa
governorship election became a debacle,
when the INEC returning officer for Kogi
State, Professor Emmanuel Kucha
declared the election inconclusive,
shortly after news of the death of one of
the governorship aspirants, Prince
Abubakar Audu, was made public.
Audu, who polled 240,867 votes as
against the Peoples Democratic Party
(PDP) candidate, was leading the poll
with a margin of 41,353 votes when INEC
made its declaration. According to INEC,
though Audu was leading, the winning
margin must be in excess of the total
number of votes in units where elections
were cancelled. Whilst elections were
cancelled in 91 units across 18 local
governments, where the ballots totalled
49,953, Audu scored 41,353 votes.
Judging by the INEC guidelines, Audu
must have votes exceeding 49,953 before
he can be proclaimed a winner.
Therefore, there is need for a
supplementary election.
Unfortunately, that decision has
provoked conflicting legal pontifications
and political interpretations, of which
the Attorney General of the Federation
and Minister of Justice fired the first
salvo by saying that the APC could
substitute its candidate in the
supplementary election under Section
221 of the Constitution (as amended) and
Section 33 of the Electoral Act. According
to Malami, Section 221 of the
Constitution, which ascribes votes to
political parties, and Section 33 of the
Electoral Act, which stipulates the right
of a political party to substitute its
candidate in case of death, empowers the
APC to plan a primary to select a
substitute for the late Audu.
Ordinarily, the governorship position
being a joint ticket of the governorship
aspirant and his running mate, it
probably would have been appropriate
for the APC to declare the running mate
of the late Abubakar Audu, as its
replacement candidate. But in the
absence of a clear legal provision
envisaging the death of a candidate in
an inconclusive election, it is suggested
that concerned parties should seek the
court’s view.
Beyond this, the development has
thrown up several lessons, chief of which
is for INEC and the National Assembly to
amend the electoral guidelines and laws,
respectively. The electoral body should
by now be considering an update of its
guidelines to include proper health
screening of aspirants, to ensure that
they are physically and mentally fit to
withstand the rigour of election and
political office. The demands of seeking
election and running the affairs of state
have their toll on the health of the actor.
Adequate health screening is required to
avert this kind of crisis.
Politically, it should be clear to the
actors, particularly Audu’s running
mate, that the political configuration of
Kogi State, indeed the ethnic divide,
reflects fundamental concerns that
demand extra-legal counsel.
Ultimately, there is wisdom in INEC and
other stakeholders seeking the view of
the court, not only to test the legal
propriety of this seeming precedent, but
also to ascertain the moral value of the
court’s decision, and thereby put all
aggrieved parties at rest. The situation in
Kogi requires political expediency based
on equitable, just and fair processes. The
initiative to seek legal counsel may come
from INEC itself or any of the key actors,
none of whom should preempt the
outcome, or do anything to undermine
the court’s process.
In seeking judicial intervention, regard
should be given for accelerated hearing;
as well as the exploitation of relevant
constitutional provisions to refer
fundamental issues of law to the
Supreme Court for necessary
interpretation. This is important because
no pronouncement below the voice of
the apex court is likely to provide the
desired succour and finality to the crisis.
Every effort should be made by INEC, the
Attorney General of the Federation, and
the leadership of the two main political
parties to resolve the Kogi election crisis
quickly, fairly and without rancour. Care
must be taken to prevent prolonged
litigations and their adverse effects on
the country’s democratic process. Above
all, all stakeholders must give pre-
eminence to Nigeria’s national interest,
and to recognition that the country’s
democracy is yet evolving.