NIGERIA: SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS LOCAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L ABUJA 001029 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 3/26/2012 TAGS: PGOV PHUM NI SUBJECT: NIGERIA: SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXTENSIONS CLASSIFIED BY AMBASSADOR HOWARD F. JETER; REASON 1.5 (D). ¶1. (U) On March 28, the Nigerian Supreme Court ruled that the National Assembly had overstepped its constitutional authority in enacting the electoral law that, in effect, extended the tenure of local government officials by rescheduling local government elections from April 2002 to 2003. In a lengthy twenty-eight page decision, the court concluded the National Assembly was not entitled to amend the tenure of the local government officials or change the date for local government elections. The authority to amend local government tenures resides in State Assemblies, according to the Court. ¶2. (U) Pursuant to the judgment, local government terms remain at three years as mandated by the constitution instead of the four years contemplated by the electoral law. This means that incumbents must vacate their offices by May 29, 2002. However, the ruling did not address what happens after May 29. To prevent a nationwide vacancy at the local government level, either elections have to take place in the next few weeks or the governors will exercise their executive authority to appoint interim officials until electoral preparations can been finalized. The latter prospect pleases many state Chief Executives who would like nothing better than to place cronies in the local government positions in order to make the path smoother for their own reelection bids in 2003. ¶3. (C) Due to a variety of legal requirements and logistical constraints, it is highly unlikely that elections can be held before May 29. It is more likely that the Governors will appoint interim local officials until these legal and logistical requirements can be met. (A more complete analysis of these hurdles will follow Septel.) ¶4. (C) COMMENT: Today was a good day for Nigerian constitutional jurisprudence. For many reasons, it would have been more expedient for the Court to affirm the electoral law. However, the Justices appeared to be guided more by legal reasoning than extraneous, albeit pragmatic, political and logistical concerns. The decision was legally sound and one we had forecast in previous reporting. However, the judgment raises new concerns -- particularly regarding voter and party registration for the local elections -- to replace the concerns it resolved. How INEC and the GON handle these issues will determine whether today's ruling not only helped clarify the separation of state and federal legislative powers but also whether it helped to lend some needed credibility to the electoral process. JETER