Delaying Justice in Ekiti State - The Case of 30/31 Days, And After/Within

mobolaji-aluko.jpg

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A bizarre set of rulings is unfolding in Ekiti State Election Tribunals, five rulings in fact in the past two weeks or so.

According to Section 141 of the Electoral  Act 2006 says:

QUOTE

Time for presenting Election Petition

141.       An election petition under this Act shall be presented within thirty  (30) days from the date the result of the election is declared;

UNQUOTE
Please note:  “….within….from the date the result of the election is declared….”   - not the date the election was held.

Now according to a spate of five Ekiti State petition rulings, including this latest one:

QUOTE
In a ruling delivered by the chairman of the Election Petitions Tribunal 2, Hon. Justice Oniyangi, the tribunal agreed with the objection and submissions of the counsel to Odebunmi of the PDP, that the petition was not presented within 30 days period as stipulated by the section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006. The tribunal held that the AC’s petition was filed on the 21st, May 2007, 31 days after election results had been declared, adding that the party (AC) contravened the Electoral Act. The ruling is the fifth in favour of the PDP in a spate of two weeks. The tribunal had earlier struck out the petitions of three AC candidates and one of the All Nigerian Peoples Party (ANPP), challenging the victory of the PDP into the State House of Assembly.

UNQUOTE
The FEDERAL election in question was held on Saturday, April 21, 2007.

Now kindly click on your computer calendar and come with me on this very elementary Sherlock Holmes investigation…..

Let us presume that the results were announced on that same day - at it appears to be.  Then under normal usage of the language,  one day AFTER April 21 is April 22;  30 days after April 21 is Monday May 21 and 31 days after if Tuesday, May 22. {I hope that you are checking your computer calendar - and counting.]  So unless the report above (and below) is wrong, one does not understand how May 21, 2007 can even be considered 31 days AFTER the election results were declared, unless those results were declared BEFORE the elections themselves!

Now more importantly,  the Election Act does not even say “after” but “within 30 days.”  If you count 30 days - and include April 21 in the counting -  then 30 days end on Sunday, May 20, 2007 a non-working day.  That could be an excuse, but caution should dictate that it should not be used as an excuse. However, if you count it starting from the next day (April 22), then you indeed get Monday May 21, 2007, which falls on a working day.

So is interpretation of “within” coupled with “from date result was declared” then the reason for throwing out an ELECTION PETITION one year later, based on a possible ambiguity?  That is most bizarre.

But even there is little ambiguity here:   the “within” framing is CLEARLY a wrong interpretation of the court. Suppose I lend you money on Saturday, April 21, and tell you, “I want you to give me my money back WITHIN two days.”  Do you start counting from April 21 - or is it not the EXPECTATION that April 22 and April 23 are the two days - and that I expect my money back on or before April 23?  Who in his right mind would believe that “give me my money back within two days” means that you must return my money THE VERY NEXT DAY because you are including the day on which I loaned you money?

So if the Electoral Act should be read as follows:if it had replaced “thirty days” by

(i) one day - then April 22 was the last day to file
(ii) two days - then April 23 was the last day to file
(iii) thirty days - then May 21 was the last day to file - which was when filing was done!

Period.  Any other interpretation is mathematically and chronologically bizarre!

Even the “highly elated” PDP Honorable Odebunmi had this to say:

QUOTE
“Even though I would have preferred the matter to be determined on its merit because I am confident that I won the election fair and square, but I still give glory to God for this victory.”

UNQUOTE
It shows that is a man with some pinch of integrity, albeit typical of Nigerians who call on God to bless their probable “fraud”.

Moving on….

These “late” cases must DEFINITELY be appealed, and I believe that they will be won if it is purely on this 30/31 day, after/within dichotomy.   These technicalities are PRECISELY what the Practice Directions were against.  The only problem is that the SUBSTANTITVE case, when it is begun to be heard,  might now go on again for one year, meaning that the legislative occupants, some or all of who have stolen their mandates, would have had an illegal free ride as legislators for two years.

That is most bizarre..

Mobolaji E. Aluko, PhD
alukome@gmail.com
Burtonsville, MD, USA

______________________________________

EKITI TRIBUNAL: PDP FLOORS AC AGAIN

The gale of victories by the Peoples Democratic Party in Ekiti State swelled yesterday as the Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Ado-Ekiti struck out the Petition of Mr. Oladapo Karounwi of the Action Congress (AC) against the election of Hon. Kehinde Odebunmi into the House of Representatives, Ekiti Central Federal Constituency II.

The PDP had filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear the AC’s petition and also seeking for an order striking it out, having been presented outside the period of 30days stipulated under section 141 of the Electoral Act 2006.

In a ruling delivered by the chairman of the Election Petitions Tribunal 2, Hon. Justice Oniyangi, the tribunal agreed with the objection and submissions of the counsel to Odebunmi of the PDP, that the petition was not presented within 30 days period as stipulated by the section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006.

The tribunal held that the AC’s petition was filed on the 21st, May 2007, 31 days after election results had been declared, adding that the party (AC) contravened the Electoral Act.

The ruling is the fifth in favour of the PDP in a spate of two weeks. The tribunal had earlier struck out the petitions of three AC candidates and one of the All Nigerian Peoples Party (ANPP), challenging the victory of the PDP into the State House of Assembly.

The four petitions were struck out for lack of jurisdiction having been presented outside the period of 30 days stipulated under section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006.

The tribunal while striking out Karounwi’s petition averred that: “In view of our findings. We hold that this petition EKS/EPT/REP/23/07 was filed out of time and is therefore statute barred.”

Speaking with journalists at the governor’s office after the ruling, a highly elated Hon. Odebunmi who led thousands of his supporters to break the news to the State Governor, Engr Segun Oni described the ruling as; “fantastic”.

Odebunmi said even though he would have preferred that the case be determined on merit, he gives God the glory for the victory.

“Even though I would have preferred the matter to be determined on its merit because I am confident that I won the election fair and square, but I still give glory to God for this victory.”

On the spate of victories recorded by the PDP at the tribunal in the last fifteen days, Odebunmi said; “that’s the sign of many good things to come.”