No, Kalu Has A Case For The Tribunal

It is only a distorted mind like that of Mao Ohuabunwa and a selection of INEC officials in Abia state who got their hands soiled in the March 5 election in Abia North which was marred by violence and ballot snatching and was declared inconclusive but later declared in favour of Mao of the PDP can subscribe to the assumption that the declaration in the said election is not contestable at the tribunal. It is!

Mao’s unsoliticited advice to Kalu, dissuading him from seeking redress at the tribunal is misplaced and misleading. Every righting thinking Nigerian who followed the trend in the Abia North election rerun would legally encourage Kalu to head for the tribunal for a redress. 

Though Mao may be having a scanty memory with regards to court rulings on similar cases, it wouldn’t be misguiding to educate him on a few.

Referring to the case of Salik v. Idris (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1429) 36, extent of powers reposed on the Returning Officer (RO) in an election was revealed. While delivering judgement on that case, Justice Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs of the apex court held thus: “It is only a returning officer who has the responsibility to make the return of an election. The state Resident Electoral Commissioner cannot usurp the power and proceed to make an alteration of the result. He has no power to alter the result.” 

Relating this to the case of Abia North, the returning office had rightly declared the result inconclusive due to irregularities witnessed in some polling units just as was witnessed and canceled in the just conducted Rivers state senatorial rerun elections. But in the case of Abia North, there was a twist when the Head of Education and Publicity of INEC Abia state erroneously declared that in “a rerun, a winner must emerge by a simple majority.” By his basing, I would ask him, does the electoral law permit the use of arms, thuggery and ballot snatching all to ensure that a winner emerge? Is a rerun a permission for a free for all or it is a repeat of an election which is to be guided by the law? Is he denying irregularities in the said election or he is suggesting that it should be overlooked? What is Edwin Enabor actually educating the public on as the Head of Education and Publicity of INEC? His sanity state has to be contested!

On the other hand, the RO himself has no right in law to reverse even his first declaration. Any act similar to that is an aberration. That the RO declared the result inconclusive and later contradicts himself by reversing in favour of another candidate is off the law.

Justice Kumai went further to rule that: “A returning officer cannot revise the return of an election. Where in the counting of votes cast in an election, an arithmetical error is discovered after the return has be made, the returning officer cannot make a second return. Any return made subsequently to the original return is invalid.”

This clearly substantiates that Kalu has a case to seek redress on. The Returning officer rightly declared the election inconclusive by canceling elections in areas where there were irregularities and has no legal powers to reverse himself through orders from any person or official except a law court with a competent jurisdiction.

Mao can save his misleading words and await recall from the senate. He was issued a certificate and was welcomed in the senate by the same senate president but the fact remains that going by the law, which every true democrat like Kalu abides in, Mao will still be called back by the courts. There are no two ways about it. It is just a matter of time.

Nigerian Citizen, Izuoma Ibe writes from Abuja