HURIWA highlighted its disapproval of the discrepancy between the Enugu gubernatorial case and the recent annulments of elections by the Nasarawa gubernatorial Election Petition Tribunal and the Enugu House of Assembly Tribunal, in a negative evaluation of the tribunal's ruling.
The aforementioned instances were invalidated on the grounds of alleged anomalies, whilst the verdict of the Enugu governorship tribunal has sparked allegations of improper influence and compromised proceedings.
One of the primary issues articulated by the Human Rights Writers Association (HURIWA) pertains to the unresolved matter surrounding the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate issued by the current governor, Peter Mbah.
As per the statement made by Emmanuel Onwubiko, the national coordinator of HURIWA, Mr. Chijioke Edeoga, the candidate of the Labour Party, alleged that Mbah had presented a counterfeit NYSC certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). However, the tribunal's verdict did not definitively establish the genuineness of the certificate.
In light of the given backdrop, it is worth noting that HURIWA has brought to attention the fact that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) initially announced Mr. Mbah as the victor in the Enugu gubernatorial race. However, Mr. Edeoga contested the outcomes by asserting that Mr. Mbah had submitted a counterfeit NYSC certificate to INEC. Additionally, he raised concerns about anomalies such as over-voting and the absence of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System in Nkanu East Local, which happens to be Mr. Mbah's place of origin.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Enugu governorship case presents a contrasting scenario when compared to the Nasarawa governorship case, as well as the Enugu State national and State Assembly cases. These aforementioned cases also involved instances of over-voting and irregularities, yet resulted in divergent outcomes.
The presence of this contradiction, as highlighted by the prominent human rights organization, has prompted inquiries regarding the tribunal's impartiality and commitment to legal tenets.
It is worth mentioning that the National and State Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal, which convened in Enugu, rendered the election of Okey Mbah from the Peoples Democratic Party invalid. This decision pertained to his victory in the March 18 House of Assembly race for the Nkanu East State Constituency. The tribunal issued a directive for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to organize a repeat election in the polling units that were impacted, with a deadline of 90 days.
The tribunal received a petition from Mr. Okwudiri Nnaji, the candidate representing the Labour Party, contesting the designation of Mbah as the victor in the election. The grounds for the challenge included allegations of over-voting and several electoral violations.
The Enugu governorship election has been focused on specific areas inside the Nkanu East Local Government Area, namely Owo and Ugboke. These communities have been identified as the locations where an excessive number of votes, amounting to 5000, were cast, potentially indicating overvoting. The evidence presented, including the BVAS report and voters register, was submitted for consideration. However, Justice Akano disregarded it on the grounds that the witnesses lacked accreditation from INEC as agents.
The aforementioned document was utilized by the house of assembly member representing Nkanu East, who was involved in a dispute regarding the voting process in Nkanu East and its surrounding communities. Subsequently, a tribunal led by Justice Onyebuike deliberated on the matter and arrived at a decision, stating that the presented evidence aligns with the provisions outlined in section 137 of the electoral Act, leading to the nullification of the election. The aforementioned location and corroborating evidence, duly validated by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), were both supported by statements from INEC officials. However, these crucial elements were inexplicably overlooked and dismissed.
In the tribunal's verdict, a panel of three members, headed by Justice Adie Onyebueke, declared the election null and void. The tribunal also directed a rerun to be conducted in certain polling units located in Ugbawka and Owo wards, where the election results were found to have been manipulated in favor of the 2nd and 3rd responders.
According to the group, the court determined that the election and subsequent declaration made by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on March 18th for the Nkanu East constituency did not meet the necessary criteria for a credible, fair, and transparent election. This conclusion was reached due to significant and substantial violations of the provisions outlined in the Electoral Act during the aforementioned election.
The National and State Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal's recent ruling is consistent with the claims made by the Labour Party in their petition concerning the gubernatorial election. These claims notably pertain to instances of over-voting and electoral irregularities in the aforementioned regions.
The presence of certain charges and evidentiary elements being upheld in one case and dismissed in another gives rise to inquiries regarding the consistency and impartiality within the judicial proceedings.
The judiciary in Nasarawa state declared David Ombugadu as the legitimate governor due to charges of unwarranted vote reduction and irregularities. The Enugu gubernatorial case, though, seems to diverge from this established pattern, giving rise to doubts regarding the tribunal's consistency and commitment to legal norms. The presence of upheld allegations in one case and dismissed allegations in another case gives rise to inquiries regarding the consistency and impartiality of the judicial process.
The mishandling of Petition No: EPT/EN/GOV/01/2023 and the lack of uniformity in treating comparable charges across several cases have significant ramifications for the principles of justice and the rule of law in Nigeria. Instances of miscarriages of justice, such as the one described, have a detrimental impact on public trust in the judicial system and give rise to concerns over the integrity of the electoral process. The establishment of trust in legal institutions is a vital prerequisite for the effective operation of a democratic system.
HURIWA brought attention to another area of disagreement centered on the tribunal's interpretation of the eligibility criteria for gubernatorial candidates.
The group posited that the position taken by the tribunal seems to be in conflict with the legislation, which categorically disqualifies candidates who present counterfeit certificates, irrespective of any special prerequisites.
The idea of compromised impartiality in the proceedings of the Enugu Governorship Election Petition Tribunal is a particularly concerning feature. The tribunal's dedication to impartiality and the integrity of the election process has been called into question due to allegations of undue influence and compromised processes.
The Enugu House of Assembly election and Nasarawa governorship cases exemplified the tribunals' commitment to ensuring justice and fairness. However, there has been a degree of doubt around the Enugu governorship tribunal's ruling.
There is growing apprehension regarding the potential impact of external influences on the decision-making process, which may result in a perceived inclination towards unfairness rather than fairness.
Therefore, the Human Rights Writers Association (HURIWA) underscored the imperative need for a thorough reassessment of the tribunal's ruling in order to effectively tackle these apprehensions, considering the significant discrepancies seen between this particular case and others that share analogous concerns.
The organization expressed its ongoing commitment to promoting openness, equity, and adherence to legal principles in order to protect the rights and aspirations of the Nigerian population.
