Barrister Mamman Abubakar Danmusa was Speaker of the defunct Kaduna State House of Assembly and Deputy Senate President in the Second Republic. The elder statesman is now a stalwart of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), in Katsina State. He spoke with journalists on the sack of 10 lawmakers of Katsina State origin from the National Assembly. MUAZU ELAZEH was there for LEADERSHIP.
THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) RECENTLY ISSUED CERTIFICATES OF RETURN TO 10 NATIONAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS OF THE CPC, FOLLOWING A SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT WHICH AFFECTED THE FORMER OCCUPANTS OF THE SEATS.? AS AN ELDER OF THE PARTY AND A LEGAL EXPERT, HOW DO YOU VIEW THE DEVELOPMENT?
Well, this is really an unfortunate situation. I’m so disturbed because I had high respect for the INEC Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega. I felt saddened that a commission under his leadership can do such irresponsible act. The unfortunate thing to say is that most of the people who worked under Professor Maurice Iwu are still there and so, although the head may be good, all the rest are still maintaining the status quo. If not, how can the legal department of INEC say they are referring the judgment of Supreme Court to the consortium of legal experts to advise them. It is unnecessary. The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on the 16th December 2011 does not give order for anybody to be sworn-in. And there is a clear provision in section 75 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended which states that “the only situation where you can withdraw certificate of return is when either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court nullifies the certificate of return of the person in question.”
So it ought to have been explicitly stated in the judgment that the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court in the instant case, had nullified the certificate issued by the INEC for its action to be justified. In this instance, the Supreme Court in its judgment did not nullify the certificate of return issued to Senator ‘Yandoma and others. So, you can see that what the INEC had done is completely illegal. The powers of INEC are clearly spelt out in the fifth schedule paragraph 14 of the amended Constitution of 2011. The commission here is not given the power to cancel the certificate of return.
The power can only arise when the Court of Appeal in the case of National Assembly members or the Supreme Court in the case of governors or the president nullifies that certificate of return. In this? case, there is nothing to that effect, so you can see it is clearly an illegal act committed by the legal department. For me, I’m saddened because I know if you want peace more especially on electoral matters you need to do justice. This is about people you cannot just seat in your office and say I hereby nullify what the people had done. You don’t have such powers and with their action they have created another problem for Katsina State and Nigeria at large.
Because impunity would only breed chaos and violence and this is the last thing we want now in this situation. How can somebody who had not participated in the election be given a certificate of return? Section 141 of the Electoral Act is quite clear. Really I don’t know whether this people still want a peaceful Nigeria or they want a violent Nigeria. INEC cannot elect or decide who is to represent the people of Katsina in the National Assembly. It is the prerogative of the people of Katsina State to do so and they have done so. My concern is that if this thing is not handled with care, only God knows what would happen.
Certainly, Katsina people are not docile, they know their rights and at the appropriate time, they would show they know their rights. So it is very unfortunate for this situation to arise.
SO WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT SAY IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 16TH DECEMBER 2011 OVER THE MATTER IN DISPUTE?
What the Court said in its concluding judgment is that “in conclusion, I hold the view that the courts have no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter in dispute. Consequently, it is hereby struck out for lack of jurisdiction”. That was what the Supreme Court said; so in short, the court is saying the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja and the judgment of the Court of Appeal Abuja and also the ruling given by the Supreme Court in the same case are struck out for lack of jurisdiction.?
Here, the Supreme Court did not order anybody or institution to swear in anybody. Don’t forget that these members ‘Yandoma and others, have a valid judgment of the Court of Appeal which was not nullified by the Supreme Court. The appellate court returned them as the validly elected members of their people. That judgment is still there and there is a provision of section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended which says “nobody who did not participate in election can be returned as duly elected member”. So in whichever way you see it, the recent decision to cancel their certificates is an unconstitutional act by INEC. The CPC cannot replace the courts because the provision in section 75 (1) is quite clear. So the letter written by CPC to INEC to return their members cannot replace the clear provision in the Electoral Act. If it is the intention of the Electoral Act to give power to the party to so nullify, they could have said so. But here there is nothing like that. What you can see now is a clear impunity and one wonders who or what encourages INEC to do this. My only fear is that the explosion may not be quick but would occur. Even in the colonial times, this kind of impunity is never done. Even in the era of
NPC and NPN, we have not seen this recklessness and injustice.
THE AGGRIEVED MEMBERS HAVE GONE TO COURT. HOW DO YOU VIEW THE DEVELOPMENT?
Well that is the only option available because under section 6 of the Constitution, it is only the courts that are vested with judicial powers, so if one is aggrieved, one will not engage in self help. If you felt aggrieved, you go to court for interpretation. The honourable members purported to have their certificate of returns cancelled by INEC are challenging the action of INEC in a court of law which is right. I have no doubt that we have to be careful about this case because where an imposter averted the will of the people and such is allowed to stand, we are not promoting credible democracy and good governance.
?