The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Prof. Attahiru Jega, on Wednesday rejected a request by members of the House of Representatives for a closed-door meeting on the commission’s role in party primaries.
The House had in one of its resolutions last week accused INEC of partiality in its choice of which court orders on party candidates to accept or not and consequently summoned Jega to appear before its Committee on Electoral Matters and Justice to defend the role of his commission in the primaries.
“We were accused in the public; I think it is also fair for us to give our response in the public. This is an opportunity for us to clear some of the misconceptions (especially) that INEC has been partial,’ the INEC boss told the Committee members.
The Committee joint chairmen, Messrs Henry Dickson and Musa Adar, had requested that Jega went into a closed-door meeting with the Representatives at a point in his meeting with them, but the INEC chairman rejected the request and insisted that the session must held before representatives of the media.
He also challenged the lawmakers to mention specific cases where he had been selective in obeying court orders.
“If there are any specific cases that you have, mention them so that we can explain how we handled them on the advice of our Legal Services Committee,” he told the lawmakers.
Many aggrieved aspirants during the party primaries had filed several suits in courts and obtained orders against the electoral body to either substitute or retain their names as candidates of the political parties.
The lawmakers however did not mention any specific case but asked Jega to shed light on the 300 cases and 70 exparte orders against the commission arising from the disputes set off by the primaries.
Jega consequently asked the Chairman of INEC’s legal services committee, Mr. Philip Umeadi (SAN), to respond to the question.
Umeadi told the committee that there was no order served on INEC that the commission had deliberately ignored.
He explained that what was being interpreted as partiality by litigants was a situation where multiple orders were given on the same matter by courts of parallel jurisdiction.
Umeadi said, “One key challenge is when a candidate obtained an order saying that he is the right person recognised by the party.
“His opponents will not set aside the order or appeal it; they simply go to another court of the same jurisdiction to get a fresh order to serve on INEC. In some cases, we have up to three orders given by courts of similar jurisdiction on the same matter.”
He argued that faced with such situations, the law pre-supposed that the first order would be obeyed until it was discharged or appealed.
“There is no order served on INEC which we have not obeyed. We need to be told of specific cases, if there are, so that we can respond on how we treated them”, Umeadi said.
However, one lawmaker, Mr. Lanre Agoro, observed that INEC should be partly blamed for the multiplicity of orders against the commission.
Agoro claimed that some INEC employees had compromised their integrity.
He said, “If there is no receiver of bribe, there will be no giver.There are people in INEC who will advise litigants to go to courts of the same jurisdiction and obtain orders when they know that this is wrong.
“Whenever this happens, INEC now constitutes itself into another court, deciding which order to obey. This is why the allegation of discretionary substitution comes in.”
Agoro also said that Nigerian politicians were “bad losers,” who would still rush to court to challenge a “decent and transparent defeat.”
A recent investigation by THE PUNCH indicated that INEC was investigating some of its officials suspected to be behind the alleged altering of list of names of candidates submitted to the Commission by political parties for contest in the April poll.
“They forge signatures and documents to perfect their evil deeds,” a source within the INEC had told one of our correspondents.
The House had in one of its resolutions last week accused INEC of partiality in its choice of which court orders on party candidates to accept or not and consequently summoned Jega to appear before its Committee on Electoral Matters and Justice to defend the role of his commission in the primaries.
“We were accused in the public; I think it is also fair for us to give our response in the public. This is an opportunity for us to clear some of the misconceptions (especially) that INEC has been partial,’ the INEC boss told the Committee members.
The Committee joint chairmen, Messrs Henry Dickson and Musa Adar, had requested that Jega went into a closed-door meeting with the Representatives at a point in his meeting with them, but the INEC chairman rejected the request and insisted that the session must held before representatives of the media.
He also challenged the lawmakers to mention specific cases where he had been selective in obeying court orders.
“If there are any specific cases that you have, mention them so that we can explain how we handled them on the advice of our Legal Services Committee,” he told the lawmakers.
Many aggrieved aspirants during the party primaries had filed several suits in courts and obtained orders against the electoral body to either substitute or retain their names as candidates of the political parties.
The lawmakers however did not mention any specific case but asked Jega to shed light on the 300 cases and 70 exparte orders against the commission arising from the disputes set off by the primaries.
Jega consequently asked the Chairman of INEC’s legal services committee, Mr. Philip Umeadi (SAN), to respond to the question.
Umeadi told the committee that there was no order served on INEC that the commission had deliberately ignored.
He explained that what was being interpreted as partiality by litigants was a situation where multiple orders were given on the same matter by courts of parallel jurisdiction.
Umeadi said, “One key challenge is when a candidate obtained an order saying that he is the right person recognised by the party.
“His opponents will not set aside the order or appeal it; they simply go to another court of the same jurisdiction to get a fresh order to serve on INEC. In some cases, we have up to three orders given by courts of similar jurisdiction on the same matter.”
He argued that faced with such situations, the law pre-supposed that the first order would be obeyed until it was discharged or appealed.
“There is no order served on INEC which we have not obeyed. We need to be told of specific cases, if there are, so that we can respond on how we treated them”, Umeadi said.
However, one lawmaker, Mr. Lanre Agoro, observed that INEC should be partly blamed for the multiplicity of orders against the commission.
Agoro claimed that some INEC employees had compromised their integrity.
He said, “If there is no receiver of bribe, there will be no giver.There are people in INEC who will advise litigants to go to courts of the same jurisdiction and obtain orders when they know that this is wrong.
“Whenever this happens, INEC now constitutes itself into another court, deciding which order to obey. This is why the allegation of discretionary substitution comes in.”
Agoro also said that Nigerian politicians were “bad losers,” who would still rush to court to challenge a “decent and transparent defeat.”
A recent investigation by THE PUNCH indicated that INEC was investigating some of its officials suspected to be behind the alleged altering of list of names of candidates submitted to the Commission by political parties for contest in the April poll.
“They forge signatures and documents to perfect their evil deeds,” a source within the INEC had told one of our correspondents.
0 comments:
Post a Comment