Plateau Lawmakers’ Sacking: Lawyers Urge Judicial Reforms To Safeguard Electoral Integrity

Lawyers have raised concerns about the alleged interference of the judiciary in Nigerian elections, particularly in light of the recent Court of Appeal decision to sack four lawmakers of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Plateau State.

The lawyers suggest measures to prevent such interventions in the country’s electoral process.

The Court of Appeal’s decision to oust the PDP lawmakers was based on their emergence from an allegedly invalid party congress, contrary to a subsisting order of a high court.

The move sparked unease among legal practitioners who believe that the judiciary should refrain from meddling in the internal affairs of political parties.

Notably, a similar fate befell Plateau State Governor Caleb Mutfwang in November, but the Supreme Court overturned the ruling.

Justice Agim Emmanuel, delivering the lead judgment, emphasised that parties external to the primary election, like the All Progressives Congress (APC), lack the standing to challenge the PDP’s internal affairs.

Speaking to THE WHISTLER, Marshall Abubakar of the Falana Falana Chambers expressed disappointment in the Tribunal and Court of Appeal’s decisions, labeling them as “quite unfortunate.”

Abubakar highlighted the elementary principle in the new electoral dispensation that deems political party primaries as internal party matters.

He stressed that only party members who participated in the primaries have the right to challenge such issues.

“Strictly speaking, all such matters are also pre-election matters, they can only be challenged when it relates to issues of qualifications to contest under Section 177 of the Constitution.

“Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal is the final court for such electoral disputes.,” Abubakar added.

Abubakar pointed out the statutory and constitutional limits governing electoral disputes, revealing that the lawmakers’ window for appeal had closed due to the 180-day lifespan of such disputes.

He urged a review of electoral laws, advocating for the resolution of election-related disputes before swearing in winners to minimise judicial interference.

“It is things like this that erode confidence in the judiciary; there is an urgent need for us to go back to the drawing board so that in subsequent elections, these errors can be corrected.

“The interference of the judiciary in the electoral process must be minimised, the court should not be the one choosing the people’s representatives for them. The will of the people must be respected so that in the long run, people will not lose hope and see the judiciary as a tool to circumvent the will of the people in an election.

“Look what happened in Kano state, if not for the doggedness of the Supreme Court, we would have had another crisis in the country. The PDP lawmakers in PDP have to look forward to the next election.”

Barrister C.N. Smart echoed Abubakar’s sentiments, noting that the sacked lawmakers cannot pursue judicial review at this point.

He noted that the National Judicial Council (NJC) has limited authority in the matter, as the Court of Appeal represents the final stage for lawmakers’ election petitions.

“The National Judicial Council (NJC) can do nothing about it, that is the judgement as far as the verdict of the Court of Appeal is concerned, whether gotten by error. The Court of Appeal is the last stage for lawmakers election petition,” said Smart.