Election Petition Tribunal and Effective judicial System
A close study of political landscape today on the approach of politicians to politics, convey that a lot still need to be done to enable us have election which is free and fair as referred by sections 15 – 18 of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria. The major set back on our elections has been a direct effect of corruption in the land, which has metamorphosised into a full fledge poverty among the masses in the society. A poor, illiterate citizen is myopic as regards his future. He would rather be contended by accepting #20 bribe from politicians to meet his immediate needs. Section 16(2) (d) of 1999 constitution enjoins the state to ensure that suitable and adequate food, reasonable national minimum living wage, old age care and pensions, unemployment, sick benefits and welfare of disabled are provided for all citizens. In a situation where all these are not in place as we currently have in Nigeria, elections are far from being free and fair!
Since elections are virtually fair, disputes are common aftermath. It is therefore imperative to all intents that aggrieved parties should not take laws into their hands, as the 1999 constitution section 285 provides and established one or more election tribunals to be known as the National Assembly Election Tribunals, which shall to the exclusion of any court of tribunal have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions. Its subsection 5 indicates the establishment of the state election tribunal to be known as the governorship and legislative house election tribunals has the original jurisdiction to hear the petition as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office as Governor or as a member of any legislative house.
I therefore agree that election petition tribunals of recent have been so impressive with a lot of disappointments to many. To be factual, it has been spree of unexpected, as most of them in various states of the federation have relatively restored hope in our judicial system. I would however submit that election petition tribunals should work more on fair hearing and justice in a timely fashion because the popular saying that justice delayed is justice denied seems to be an important watchword for effective judicial system.
Since elections are virtually fair, disputes are common aftermath. It is therefore imperative to all intents that aggrieved parties should not take laws into their hands, as the 1999 constitution section 285 provides and established one or more election tribunals to be known as the National Assembly Election Tribunals, which shall to the exclusion of any court of tribunal have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions. Its subsection 5 indicates the establishment of the state election tribunal to be known as the governorship and legislative house election tribunals has the original jurisdiction to hear the petition as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office as Governor or as a member of any legislative house.
I therefore agree that election petition tribunals of recent have been so impressive with a lot of disappointments to many. To be factual, it has been spree of unexpected, as most of them in various states of the federation have relatively restored hope in our judicial system. I would however submit that election petition tribunals should work more on fair hearing and justice in a timely fashion because the popular saying that justice delayed is justice denied seems to be an important watchword for effective judicial system.
Comments