Nigeria has become a laughing stock among nations that aspire to democratic ideals the world over because of our perennial inability to hold free and fair elections. Despite the best intentions of our legislators in enacting laws to enhance elections devoid of violence, rigging, vote buying, ballot snatching and all the ills bedeviling our electoral process in Nigeria, unscrupulous elements in cahoots with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have once and again derailed the process, stolen mandates freely given by the electorate, sabotaged the will of the people and held down this country for its worst enemies to pillage it again and again at will. INEC has indeed become the bane and the cause of great distress to the electoral experiment in Nigeria. In this article, you will hear the superior appellate Courts of Nigeria on INEC and not me.

 

In the case of NGIGE V. OBI (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 999) 1, the despicable role of INEC received the following tongue-lashing from Court of Appeal Justices even though they decided in favour of the Petitioner in that case. In that case, Peter Obi the Petitioner was declared the winner of the 2003 elections by the Tribunal, contrary to INEC’s position that Ngige won. Ngige then appealed to the Court of Appeal. Surprisingly, INEC cross-appealed against Ngige, seeking the nullification of his election. This is what the Court of Appeal Justices said per Aderemi, JCA:-

 

“I shall be failing in my duty if I do not comment on the appeal brought by the Independent National Electoral Commission alongside with some of its officers.

 

After the final conclusion of election i.e. voting, compilation and collation, the Commission through its electoral officers announces the result of the election. By its enormous and onerous duties, the Commission, in the eye of the law must be an impartial body. The result so announced must be a product of a careful and honest discharge of its functions. And once those results are announced, INEC being an impartial body must stand by those results no matter the circumstances.

 

It is for all of the above that the appeal lodged by INEC which has been consolidated with other appeals, is baffling and very much capable of impugning its integrity and impartiality. Everything pertaining to the election was under the absolute control of INEC by force of law.

 

The results of the elections published by it are its own making. It is self-discrediting for the same INEC to now invite this court, in its notice of appeal, to hold that the April 19^th, 2003 gubernatorial election held in Anambra State was invalid and to order a fresh election on the ground, according to it, that same was marred by widespread irregularities and malpractice and therefore was conducted in substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2002.

 

This somersaulting must necessarily erode the confidence, which the generality of the populace must have in a body like INEC. It was the Commission that voluntarily announced the results, which became the subject of contest at the tribunal below. The results are now being discredited by the same Commission. It is a shame! A man, which in this context, includes INEC, shall not be permitted to blow hot and cold with reference to the same transaction; or insist, at different times, on the truth of each of two allegations or contentions, according to the promptings of his private interest. Indeed, he who alleges contrary things in the manner done by INEC, shall not in the interest of the society, be heard. The well-known maxim is “allegans contraria non est audiendus.”

 

Let it be said loud, and I do hope that INEC will ponder sincerely and seriously on it that, no sane person who claims to be a part of or charged with performing serious function of conducting an election in a decent society shall be allowed to go whimsically, against his own deed, as was done here. I do appreciate that what I have just said is a doctrine of estoppel as applied to matter contained in a valid sealed instrument. I shall also liken the publication of election officials as a “valid sealed instruments.” The moment INEC publishes the result of an election; it is estopped, forever, from denying the authenticity, the genuineness and the truth of all therein contained in the document voluntarily released by it (INEC) relating to the information or figures pertaining to the results. The estoppel subsumed in the release of the sheet or sheets containing the results is a conclusive admission, or if I may put it in another way, something which the law treats, in absolute terms, as equivalent to an admission.

 

By this appeal, INEC has shot its own leg. For the sake of the well-being of this great country of ours, I pray and do hope that INEC will from now on allow truth, integrity and above all fear of God to have absolute impact in the discharge of its all-important functions. I will not want to say anything more”  

 

Per AUGIE, J.C.A at pages 203-204, paras. C-A:

 

“This brings me to the appeal filed by INEC itself against the judgment of the lower tribunal –Appeal 5B, and here I must express my deep displeasure with the stance taken by the Commission. INEC has not only a pivotal, but also a delicate role to play in ensuring a free and fair election in this country, and like Caesar’s wife, it must be seen to live above board. It does not speak well of INEC, in fact it is deplorable, that it can defend an election it conducted at the lower tribunal, and without shame turn up at this court to say ‘well since the lower tribunal held that the election we conducted was marred by corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provisions of the Election Act, we want you to nullity it and allow us conduct another one.

 

How can we give them another chance to do what they could not do before? There is a common saying – a house divided against itself cannot stand. How can we in clear conscience entrust INEC with another opportunity to conduct an election in the same Anambra State, where they could not keep their own officials in check, not to mention ordinary voters who will be expected to participate in the election. It is just not possible. To whom much is given, much is expected and on INEC lies the responsibility to ensure free and fair elections. If it wants to be taken as seriously as it should be or is expected to be taken, it must learn to do things properly and in accordance with the rule of law. It is unfortunate that because of the failure of INEC to conduct a free and fair election on the 19^th of April, 2003, Dr. Chris Ngige who has been running Anambra State as Governor for the past three years will have to be removed at this 99^th hour, but out of nothing, nothing can arise – see Macfoy v. U.A.C. (1961) 3 WLR PC 1405 where Lord Denning said:-

 

“You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there, it will collapse”

 

Per ALAGOA J.C.A. at pages 207-208, paras. D-E:

 

“It is pertinent at this stage to examine the position of INEC at the tribunal below vis-à-vis its subsequent position before us on appeal. In this regard, recourse should be had to paragraphs 4 and 22 of INEC’s further amended reply to the further amended petition. It is incumbent on me to reproduce them for their true meaning and purport. 

 

Paragraph 4 - ‘The respondents deny paragraph 6(i) – (iii) of the further amended petition and put the petitioner to strict proof. The respondents specifically deny knowledge of any alleged corrupt practices and/or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2002, as alleged. The respondents aver further that the 1^st respondent scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election and was duly returned or declared by the 2^nd – 4^th respondents as the winner of the election.’ Paragraph 22 – ‘The respondents deny paragraphs 23(a)-(c) at page 40 of the further amended petition dated 12^th September, 2003 and shall urge the Honourable Tribunal to dismiss the further amended petition dated 12^th September, 2003. The election was conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2002 devoid of any irregularities and or corrupt practices on the part of the respondents. 

 

It can thus be seen that at the tribunal below, INEC had contended that the election was free and fair and devoid of irregularities and/or corrupt practices. The same INEC on appeal is urging us to hold that the 19^th April, 2003 Governorship election in Anambra State was marred by widespread irregularities and malpractices and that the entire elections be invalidated and a fresh election ordered. What a volte face! Having taken a stand before at the lower tribunal, INEC cannot now abandon its cases – Ekpenyong v. Nyong (1975) 2 SC 71; Kalio v. Kalio (1975) 2 SC 15; Abdulkareem v. Incar (Nig) Ltd (1984) 10 SC 1.

 

Parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot raise on appeal a fresh issue that was not canvassed in the court below and upon which the court or tribunal below hadn’t the opportunity to make a pronouncement upon without leave of court. 

 

It is also well settled on the authorities that courts of law or tribunals do not award reliefs not specifically asked for. See Fabunmi v. Agbe (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 231) 658. INEC’s new position on appeal is not only highly disgraceful and dishonest but its credibility as an institution as it does not enhance the cause of justice. 

 

Per OMOKRI, JCA at pages 223-224, paras. F-F: 

 

“It will be recalled that INEC and its officials were the 2^nd – 450^th respondents before the tribunal and they vehemently and vigorously defended the election which they conducted and returned Dr. Chris Ngige, the 2^nd respondent in this appeal as the duly elected Governor of Anambra State.

 

In paragraph 22 of the further amended reply date 16/9/03 and filed on 17/9/03 at page 735 of the record, the INEC pleaded as follows:-

 

’22        The respondents deny paragraphs 23(a –c) at page 40 of the further amended petition and shall urge the Honourable Tribunal to dismiss the further amended petition dated 12^th September, 2003.  The election was conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act; 2002 devoid of any irregularities and or corrupt practices on the part of the respondent’

 

INEC cannot violate its pleadings and derogate from performing its duty. By its statutory existence, INEC is an independent body with constitutional powers to conduct elections in Nigeria. The function of the Commission by statutory provisions is one of an umpire in the conduct of an election. 

 

It should never place itself in a position where imputation may be made that it supports one party or the other in an election. No matter the allegations made against it, the Commission should remain fair and focused. More importantly INEC is not expected to appeal from election but should leave candidates to fight their own battle. It is in the interest of the electoral process that INEC and its officials should remain as neutral as possible in election cases as its primary responsibility is to conduct free and fair elections regardless of who wins. INEC should remain as an unbiased and impartial umpire. That is its constitutional role. See Haruna v. Modibbo (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) 487 at 569 and 573.

 

Bearing the above in mind, it is embarrassing, mischievous and scandalous for INEC to present this appeal and call for the nullification of the same election that it conducted. It is a shame.

 

INEC is the body authorized by law to conduct elections in this county. Can the same body who by law is supposed to conduct the election and defend it now make a summersault and claim that the same election which it conducted was voided by malpractices, irregularities and non-compliance with the law. that is clear and unequivocal admission that it deliberately failed to conduct the election properly. This is a real case of loss of credibility, integrity and confidence.”

INEC is indeed odious as a public parastatal. INEC baffles us. INEC has no integrity or impartiality. INEC is self-discrediting. INEC somersaults.  INEC lacks the confidence of the people. INEC shoots itself in the leg. INEC’s acts are deplorable. INEC is shameless. INEC commits volte faces. INEC does disgraceful and dishonest things. INEC lacks credibility. INEC is unjust. These are not my adjectives. Despite the excoriating judgment of 2003, in the year 2020, INEC did the same thing again by filing another useless appeal to defend the indefensible.

 

In another case of INEC V. YUSUF (2020) 4 NWLR (PT. 1714) 374 at 415 paras. B-D, this is what Abba Aji, JSC said about INEC:-

 

“This appeal by the appellant is making a mountain out of a molehill! It is more surprising that it is the appellant that is and ought to be a neutral party in this contest that has forwarded itself in this inconsequential appeal. It appears to me that it is acting well as a paid piper that is desperate to dictate the tone by all means possible!

 

The 1^st and 2^nd respondent only merely sought for leave to add to the list of witnesses that accompanied the petition filed on 11/4/2019, the names of 8 persons whose witness depositions were front-loaded in the already filed petition. There seems to be evidently and apparently nothing serious, contestable and worth dragging in this application.”

 

INEC is a paid piper. Needless to say, the useless appeal by INEC was dismissed. Unfortunately, INEC learnt nothing from the excoriating remarks of the Justices in these and numerous other cases.

 

The most egregious damage INEC did to Nigeria, the African race and to itself in the last two elections in February and March 2023 is the deliberate, conscious and willful violation of its own laws and regulations. The European Union observers said, “The elections were not free, fair and transparent. There was widespread suspicion of vote purchasing and the incumbent political officeholders abused their influences to stifle competition. The media extensively covered the three main campaigns, but on election day, voters were unable to make informed choices because of false information. The results were not uploaded on the Independent National Electoral Commission’s IReV portal as anticipated and promised by the electoral body. INEC lacked efficient planning and transparency during critical stages of the electoral process.”

 

Since Nigeria started conducting its own elections in 1964 there has never been any election in which the hopes and aspirations of the citizenry have not been dashed and needlessly truncated by the national electoral body or the government in power. There is no need to recount the details of our history here. The illegalities perpetrated in the national elections of 1964 were the immediate and remote cause of the bloody January 15^th 1966 military coup, the reprisal coup of July 29^th of the same year and the 1967-1970 civil war that claimed over 3 million Nigerian lives. 

 

It is obvious that Nigerian politicians have learnt nothing from our history. They have toyed and now toying again with the destiny of this nation and the hope for a change of heart on their part is not on the horizon. 

 

When those who have abused democracy and gang-raped the nation tell you after their brigandage “Go to Court, go to Court if you are dissatisfied”, it is another arrogant way of stating the obvious. It means, “we have taken care of the Courts also”. The whole thing was a travesty and a distress on the psyche of the nation. 

 

On the 1^st of March, 2023, Khadijat Kareem wrote, “Yiaga Africa expressed concerns about the unexplained delay in uploading the unit results for the presidential election on the INEC Election Results Viewing Portal (IReV). As of 10:00 pm on election day, results for the presidential election were not uploaded on the INEC portal after voting and counting ended in several polling units. At 9:00 am, on February 26, INEC uploaded only 25,503 results (out of 176,846 units) for the presidential election on the INEC portal. The delay in uploading the results for the presidential election on the INEC portal, undermines public confidence in the results transmission process as it deviates from the election guidelines and fails to meet citizen’s expectations” the group added. Did INEC act true to its character as seen in the NGIGE V. OBI’s case or not?

 

For the avoidance of any doubt, S. 68 of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides:- 

 

“A collation officer or returning officer at an election shall collate and announce the result of an election, subject to his or her verification and confirmation that the—

a.                number of accredited voters stated on the collated result are correct and consistent with the number of accredited voters recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 47 (2) of this Act; and

b.     the votes stated on the collated result are correct and consistent with the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 60 (4) of this Act.”

 

“S. 60(5) provides: “The Commission shall cause to be posted on its notice board and website, a notice showing the candidates at the election and their scores and the person declared as elected or returned at the election.” INEC officials massively trampled upon this provision and those of S. 60 particularly S. 60(5) that requires immediate transmission of poll unit results via BVAS. S. 64(4)(b):

 

(4) A collation officer or returning officer at an election shall collate and announce the result of an election, subject to his or her verification and confirmation that the—

 

(b)   the votes stated on the collated result are correct and consistent with the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling units under section 60 (4) of this Act. 

 

Now, what INEC did was deliberate. The question is why? No doubt the will of the people expressed at the ballot was clearly going to upturn the apple cart and Nigeria’s power brokers were not comfortable with it. In their inexorable march to this travesty, no crime in the book was left uncommitted. Bribery (the brazen electoral brigandage in Adamawa is a case in point), corrupt practices, vote buying, falsification of results, violence and murder, digging up of access roads, under-age voting, undue influence, burning of markets, ballot snatching, were rampant. No major sponsor of violence and electoral malpractices are being prosecuted now but mere minions, mere pawns in the game and heedless youths of no consequence.

 

I shouldn’t say this but the Supreme Court’s technical judgments that allowed Ahmed Lawan and Godswill Akpabio to contest for the presidency and the senate seats at the same time in violation of S. 115(d) of the Electoral Act have shaken my confidence in the judiciary to the core. Akpabio is now coming in as Senate President! He ran for the office of President and also for the office of Senator. It is an offence that carries 2 years jail term without an option of fine but here we are with those who should be in jail strutting about while the innocent are languishing. 

 

My take in the whole saga is this; INEC will never change. The political paymasters will never budge. The judiciary. I am sorry, my hope is slight. What will change Nigeria is an earthquake of some kind. Nigerians are docile and are used to corruption and long-suffering. It means we are helpless and hopeless to save ourselves from the looming political demise or imminent collapse as a nation. In 1998, a political juggernaut died in February. Another one died in June, yet again, another died in July. This is how Obasanjo became president in 1999. If any of these three were alive, Obasanjo would never have been President. That was an earthquake. The Person who orchestrated all that to deliver Nigeria in 1998 is still on His throne. Expect a move of God.

By:Isaac Okpanachi