NIGERIA: TRIBUNALS UPDATE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 001248 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/21/2013 TAGS: PGOV PREL KDEM PINR NI SUBJECT: NIGERIA: TRIBUNALS UPDATE REF: A. A) ABUJA 1049 ¶B. B) ABUJA 934 CLASSIFIED BY AMBASSADOR HOWARD F. JETER; REASON: 1.5 (B) and (D). ¶1. (C) Begin Summary: State election tribunals have been rendering decisions for one month. Three elections have been overturned, but the majority of the petitions have been thrown out on procedural grounds. The proclivity of the tribunals to avoid the substantive merits of many of these cases has hurt the image of the judiciary. Opposition politicians are also pointing to this phenomenon as evidence that the tribunals are being unduly affected by the government and ruling party. End Summary -------------- The Tribunals make some decisions -------------- ¶2. (U) Election tribunals, mandated in the 36 states to hear grievances arising from the National Assembly and gubernatorial elections in April, began proceedings the week prior to the Presidential Inauguration on May 29. Decisions have been coming in since early June. To date, decisions have been publicized in more than 40 cases in 24 states and the Federal Capital Territory. (NOTE: After the state tribunal issues a verdict, the aggrieved parties can appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals and later to the Supreme Court. END NOTE) ¶3. (U) As reported in reftel B, petitions were filed in over 20 gubernatorial and 60 National Assembly elections. Three election results have been overturned, 41 cases have been dismissed, and petitions have been withdrawn in at least seven cases. -------------- Exercising their authority -------------- ¶4. (U) Despite the widespread reports of electoral irregularities, particularly in the South-South and Southeast, only three elections have been overturned by the tribunals. The Edo State tribunal overturned a House of Representatives election in favor of the ANPP candidate (reftel A). In Borno State, the tribunal overturned the Northern Senatorial district election in favor of another ANPP candidate. The Borno tribunal accepted evidence that elections were not held at four polling units, and that the PDP candidate, Mohammed Sanusi Daggash, disrupted the election process by removing ballot boxes and instigating the arrest of several INEC officials. In Abuja, a House of Representatives election was overturned in favor of the ANPP after an INEC official admitted to a miscount that provided the PDP candidate a slim victory. The PDP candidate, Alhaji Baba Takwa, died last month of cirrhosis of the liver. ¶5. (U) In the other Abuja House election, the tribunal ordered INEC to conduct a new election in two polling units where elections had not taken place in April. INEC was given two weeks from June 25 to provide results for these areas. This new election has not yet taken place. -------------- Thrown out on procedural grounds -------------- ¶6. (U) For the majority of tribunal decisions, substantive evidence was not heard because the cases were dismissed due to alleged procedural flaws in the petitions. A number of reasons have been given for dismissing petitions. In Abia State, petitions contesting the gubernatorial election were discarded for not mentioning the various candidates for deputy governor. In Adamawa and Imo States, petitions were dismissed for not listing INEC as a defendant. Conversely, the Delta State tribunal dismissed a gubernatorial petition for listing INEC as a defendant. Nine cases in seven states were thrown out because the petitioner either failed to sign the petition or failed to list all the candidates for that particular election and their respective results in the election. In Akwa Ibom, a petition was rejected because the Tribunal Secretary did not sign a receipt of the petition. ¶7. (U) Other reasons for rejecting petitions have been failing to appear before the tribunal and failure to respond to a counter-affidavit on time. Even though the established rules of the tribunal state that either a candidate or his party may petition the court, a petition regarding the gubernatorial election in Ekiti State was thrown out because the party apparently did not have the candidate,s consent to contest the election. ¶8. (U) In Imo State, four different opposition parties filed petitions regarding the gubernatorial election. All were rejected: one for not being timely filed, one for not listing INEC as a defendant, one for not listing the other candidates and their results, and one for being incompetent and defective (NOTE: This latter reason is the formal reason listed for most rejections, whether based on substantive or procedural grounds. END NOTE). ¶9. (U) In cases where the tribunals have heard evidence, greater weight seems to have been given the testimony of IENC and government officials. The testimony of opposition figures has been afforded the same evidentiary stature. The Plateau State tribunal is a prime example. The incumbent PDP governor was declared the winner of the election and the governor,s personal assistant gave his assurance in court that INEC had been fair during the election, a statement sufficient to counter the opposition,s witnesses. In multiple states the State Electoral Chairman,s testimony and assurance that INEC acted properly have been enough to sway the court. In cases where INEC or the government has refused to respond to a summons, the unresponsiveness has been rewarded by the assumption that, if no documentation was produced, there was nothing to hide. The cases have been thrown out for lack of evidence, regardless of documentation provided by the petitioner. -------------- Possible subversion -------------- ¶10. (U) Critics have pointed to the manner in which the tribunals are financed and supported as a means to exert influence over the judges. Each state tribunal is supposed to be constituted by judges from out of state, thus the receiving state must provide lodging and other support for these jurists. Opposition figures complain that governors who pay to accommodate the judges thus are able to exert influence over the judges, decisions. (NOTE: In almost every instance, judges have been housed in State Government lodges. It is fitting and inevitable that government would pay tribunal expenses. There is no other entity that would foot the bills. However, because of the strong personal control governors have over state funds and official premises, many people believe that in extending assistance to the tribunals, the governors also gained access and perhaps a degree of control over the judges. END NOTE) -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶12. (C) Many Nigerians have questioned the independence and integrity of the tribunals. Immediately after the elections, the general consensus was that aggrieved parties should follow the constitutionally mandated electoral complaint procedure. Appropriately, domestic observers and the international community called on the tribunals to be impartial and follow the rule of law so that the judicial process could resolve as many electoral irregularities as possible. Justice and fairness required no less. However, a high percentage of cases have been dismissed because of procedural flaws. These incidences of dismissal have served to confirm the suspicions of opposition politicians that the tribunals were not interested in doing justice or hearing the merits of their complaints. Now many of these cases will go into the federal court system to determine if dismissals were proper. It would be a positive development for electoral jurisprudence, and politics in general, if the federal court system determined that at least some cases should be heard on their merits. However, by the time the federal courts hear these cases, it will be August, most likely September, when a full four months would have elapsed since the controversial elections. JETER JETER