Commentary (by Peter Mwaura) - Fair Play - Lessons to learn from Nigeria presidential election row

Ref:http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=25&newsid=117968


Story by PETER MWAURA
Publication Date: 3/1/2008

On Tuesday, a Nigerian court ruled that President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was “validly elected as president”.

The judgment, good or bad, was a watershed in the West African country’s modern history, showing that the rule of law and constitutionalism have taken root in Africa’s most populous democracy.

Even more remarkable is the contrast with Kenya.

While the accusations of rigging and fraud in Nigeria’s poll in April 2007 and Kenya’s of December 2007 are strikingly similar, the routes taken by the aggrieved parties are markedly different.

The Nigerian poll, like Kenya’s, was condemned by international observers as flawed. Indeed, it was said that President Olusegun Obasanjo, who had served his maximum term and was not eligible for re-election, had manipulated the poll to favour Mr Yar’Adua, his preferred successor.

The contrast with Kenya, however, is somewhat dimmed by the differences in the winning margin.

In the Kenyan poll, the margin was thin, with President Kibaki credited with just over 230,000 votes over his nearest competitor, Mr Raila Odinga.

In the Nigerian poll, the margin was big, with President Yar’Adua winning with more than 70 per cent of the vote, compared to 18 per cent of Mr Muhammadu Buhari, a former military ruler, and seven per cent of former vice-president Atiku Abubakar.

The two filed a petition with the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, arguing that Mr Yar’Adua and Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission had rigged the election which, they argued, should be nullified and a re-run ordered.

They did not claim, as Mr Odinga did in Kenya, that they had actually won the election.

All the same, Mr Buhari and Mr Abubakar asked their supporters to remain calm as they sought court justice. But they made it clear that they respected the rule of law and the Judiciary.

Consequently, there were no riots, no demonstrations, no burning and no killing. In contrast, the story in Kenya is all too familiar the world over: the aggrieved politicians and their supporters took to the streets, declaring they had no confidence in Kenya’s judicial system, and anarchy followed.

This scenario sounds almost like a reversal of the stereotypes we entertain about ourselves and West Africans, Nigerians in particular.

Constitutional rule was only re-established in Nigeria in 1999 – more than 30 years after Kenya became independent - following decades of military rule.

Nigeria also gave us Biafra (1967-1970), the first civil war in independent Africa, fought over the demand for secession by a tribe inhabiting the south-east of the country — the Ibos — who were also singled out for ethnic cleansing.

It is also the country where rebels, in the Niger Delta, abduct foreign oil workers with impunity.

We also like to think of Nigerians in general as unruly, loud and cocky and Kenyans as more subdued and law-abiding.

At the same time, Kenya and Nigeria share a system of justice – the common law — and electoral laws.

In Nigeria, as in Kenya, electoral petitions take an unduly long time to determine. Both Mr Buhari and Mr Abubakar had to wait for almost a year for the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal to determine their petition.

It is perhaps because of such frustrating delays that Mr Odinga must have decided that Kenyan courts were not the route to take to seek a remedy for his electoral grievances.

In Nigeria, the case of Mr Peter Obi, a contestant for the governorship of Anambra State in the 2003 elections, is illustrative.

He filed a petition against Mr Chris Ngige who had been declared the winner. However, the final decision was handed down by the Court of Appeal only on January 16, 2006 – nearly three years later.

This in reality denied Mr Obi the right to effectively challenge the election result. Mr Ngige was in office for nearly three years before Mr Obi uprooted him following the successful challenge.

Despite the weaknesses, the Nigerian contestants have shown faith in their country’s institutions. This is good for political stability.

The Tuesday ruling on the validity of President Yar’Adua’s election has further confirmed the independence of the Nigerian Judiciary.

It has overturned other controversial results from the disputed 2007 elections.

So far, seven state governors and one senator have had their elections nullified by the courts.

Mr Buhari and Mr Abubakar may be unhappy with the Tuesday ruling – they are appealing — but what is happening in Nigeria, with all the imperfections, is respect for law and constitutionality.

What the judges did was apply the law to the facts presented to the court to come up with the momentous judgment, which has built public confidence and strengthened the demand for improved electoral processes and democratic rule.

The judgment should be welcomed in the world. It is a victory for the rule of law and for democracy.