The Resource Centre for Human Rights & Civic Education,(CHRICED) has conducted a thorough examination of the latest rulings from the Supreme Court regarding disputes in governorship elections.
This was made known in a statement on Tuesday signed by Ibrahim Zikirullahi, the Executive Director of CHRICED.
The statement identified an urgent need for judicial reform to address apparent misconduct within the judiciary.
The centre expressed concern that pressure from citizens, civil society, and the media played a crucial role in steering the Supreme Court away from potential manipulation by desperate politicians attempting to hijack electoral mandates through lower courts.
According to CHRICED, the Supreme Court’s decisions in governorship disputes in Kano, Plateau, and Zamfara States thwarted the attempts of political losers to illegitimately seize power.
However, Zikirullahi called for an investigation into the conduct of the Election Petition Tribunals and the Court of Appeal, particularly where their decisions contradicted logic, the Nigerian Constitution, and the Electoral Act of 2022.
CHRICED questioned the legal reasoning behind illogical and convoluted judgments and emphasized the need to understand the motivations behind these decisions.
The centre urged the judiciary to take immediate action to address the observed misconduct during election cases, emphasizing that failure to do so could lead to more instances of malpractice in future disputes.
“When lower courts disregard established judicial precedents, it indicates motivations beyond upholding the law and ensuring justice.
“CHRICED firmly believes that urgent action must be taken by the judiciary to address the alarming level of misconduct witnessed during the election cases.
“Failing to take action will only pave the way for more instances of such misconduct in future election disputes. When judges sitting in tribunals and justices of the Appeal Court disregard the established judicial precedents set by the highest court in the country, it becomes evident that their motivations go beyond upholding the law and ensuring justice.
“Let’s consider the Election Petition Tribunal in Kano State as an example. Where did the judges find the legal reasoning in the law books to justify deducting 165,663 votes from the 1,019,602 votes belonging to the NNPP? It is evident that their decision lacked a solid legal foundation and cannot be justified,” CHRICED said.
The organization called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to conduct a thorough review of decisions made by the Court of Appeal in various election cases, focusing on Plateau State.
The centre acknowledged the Supreme Court’s correct application of legal principles in dismissing petitions against Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf of Kano State and highlighted instances where lower courts overlooked well-known precedents.
While recognizing that the Supreme Court itself faced criticism in the past, CHRICED said it found hope in the court’s recent emphasis on upholding the rule of law.
