NIGERIA'S ELECTION TRIBUNALS - LAST HOPE OR CATCH

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 000922

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DOE FOR CAROLYN GAY

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/10/2017
TAGS: PGOV KREL NI ELECTIONS
SUBJECT: NIGERIA'S ELECTION TRIBUNALS - LAST HOPE OR CATCH
22?

ABUJA 00000922 001.2 OF 002


Classified By: Political Counselor Russell J. Hanks for reasons 1.4. (b
& d).


1. (C) SUMMARY. As international and domestic observers hang
their hopes for redemption of Nigeria's electoral process on
the electoral tribunals and their hearing of appeals, new
concerns emerge regarding the timeliness of convening the
tribunals and the ability of petitioners to meet the
stringent requirements for electoral petitions. According to
recently issued instructions for submitting a petition, the
full case (including all evidence and written witness
testimony in the form of affidavits) must be submitted with
the initial petition. Justice Abdullahi of the Court of
Appeal has composed a list of tribunal judges, but as of May
11 the judges have not yet been assigned to state tribunals.
The stringent rules and uncertainty as to the composition of
the tribunals have resulted in a Catch 22 that may well
undermine the ability of the tribunals to rule on the
disputes. In some states petitions have been refused because
no tribunal exists to accept them and petitions by the ANPP
and AC to the Presidential Election Tribunal to require INEC
to provide information necessary to meet the stringent
evidentiary requirement was turned down because no petition
has yet been filed. END SUMMARY.

NUTS AND BOLTS OF FILING A PETITION
--------------


2. (SBU) As provided in the Constitution, President of the
Court of Appeal Justice Umaru Abdullahi issued the
requirements for submitting a petition. Though the
requirements were published in the Federal Republic of
Nigeria Official Gazette on April 4, the Gazette is narrowly
distributed and the requirements were not generally available
to the public until a UNDP-funded printing was made available
in early May. According to the new rules, the tribunals
hearings will consist solely of written testimony and
evidence -- no oral testimony will be permitted, though
written testimony can be read into the record. Upon filing,
a petition must be accompanied by a list of all witnesses the
petitioner intends to call, written statements on oath from
each of these witnesses, and all documentary evidence to be
relied upon in the hearings. Petitions which fail to meet
comply with the documentary requirement will not be accepted.


3. (SBU) Supporters of the new rules say they will speed the
process, putting an end to long diatribes by witnesses and
lawyers by putting the entire case into written documents.
Supporters also point to provisions in the rules that prevent
petitioners or respondents from delaying the process by
simply not showing up for hearings, not preparing or
requesting continuances. Opponents say the requirements are
overly burdensome and designed to prevent petitioners from
making the 30-day deadline for submitting petitions. As
well, opponents point out that the requirement to submit a
list of witnesses and written testimony opens the witnesses
to threats and intimidation. In the Nigerian context,
opponents of the rules say witnesses will be afraid to put
their name and statement in writing.


4. (C) Per the Electoral Act, Justice Abdullahi has developed
a list of judges to be assigned to divisional tribunals to
hear federal level cases (National Assembly); however, as of
May 11 the judges had not yet been assigned to one of the ten
divisional tribunals (Abuja, Kaduna, Jos, Ekiti, Lagos,
Ibadan, Ilorin, Port Harcourt, Calabar, and Benin). The list
was allegedly leaked. According to IFES program manager
Rosemarie McBean (strictly protect),Justice Abdullahi has
delayed assigning the judges to specific tribunals in an
attempt to curb the tremendous political pressure from all
sides that is already being placed on the tribunal judges.
In addition, Justice Abdullahi is reportedly still working on
obtaining necessary resources and logistical support for the
tribunals, including such necessities as generators.
(COMMENT: State level tribunals are appointed by the State
High Court and the status of these appointments just days
before the 30-day period for filing will run out varies from
state to state, with not all tribunals yet appointed. END
COMMENT.)


ABUJA 00000922 002.2 OF 002


CASES OF CATCH 22 - ARE TRIBUNALS PROGRAMMED TO FAIL?
-------------- --------------


5. (SBU) On May 3, press reported that the Niger State ANPP
gubernatorial candidate's petition to the state level
tribunal was not accepted based on the fact that neither the
chairman nor the adhoc staff of the tribunal had ever shown
up to receive petitions. The ANPP called on the Niger State
Court of Appeal to direct the tribunal to immediately report
to work. (NOTE: Petitions have been successfully filed (and
accepted) in some states for some races.) Judge Abdullahi
has made public statements that no appointments to federal
level tribunals will be made in areas where there are no
petitions. COMMENT. This could create a Catch 22 if, as is
the case in Niger State, petitions are not accepted if no
tribunal is present but, at the same time, no tribunal will
be appointed if no petition has been filed. END COMMENT.


6. (SBU) On May 10, the Court of Appeal rejected applications
from the ANPP and AC seeking an order of the Election
Tribunal directing the INEC and all 36 Resident Electoral
Commissioners to produce documents needed as evidence for a
petition. The Deputy Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeals
told journalists the applications were rejected because no
petition has been filed to which the applications are linked.



7. (C) International and domestic observers have placed their
hopes for some redemption of the electoral process with the
actions of the tribunals over the next weeks and months.
However, at this point, it appears the tribunals may not be
the free and fair arbiters, above the political fray, that so
many had hoped.
CAMPBELL