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dismissed, and petitions have been withdrawn in at least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