Kogi guber election: ECOWAS court to rule on jurisdiction March 20

The  Economic Community of West African States’ Court (ECOWAS Court of Justice) has fixed March 20, 2017 for ruling on whether or not it has the jurisdiction to entertain the human rights suit bordering on the 2015 governorship election in Kogi State.

This followed a motion by the defendant in the suit – Federal Government of Nigeria, questioning the power of the court to adjudicate on the matter.

A group of registered voters in Kogi State has dragged the Federal Government before the Court for denial of their rights of suffrage in the 2015 governorship election in Kogi State.

In the suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/02/16, the Plaintiffs – Honourable Sule Audu, Ikeleji Agada, Labaran I. Dadido, Isaka Isa, Abdul Audu, Ademu Abdullahi and Sulaiman Abdul, are praying the court to either install James Faleke, the running mate to the late Abubakar Audu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) or hold fresh polls in the state.

The plaintiffs sought the order of court, declaring that the election to the governorship of Kogi State held on December 5, 2015, in which Alhaji Yahaya Bello emerged winner was not in conformity, and or consistent with Nigeria international obligations;

That the election fell short of the internationally recognised standards and core democratic values and principles of genuine, free and fair franchise as established by existing international human rights instruments, and the defendants obligation under international law.

They are also seeking a declaration that it is the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights and that of other voters to assess, scrutinize,  verify, clarify, confirm and do all other things pursuant to the personal particulars of a candidate for the governorship of Kogi State, as a veritable measures to ascertaining the candidates integrity, general disposition, capacity, competence, candour eligibility and character traits.

They also prayed the court to declare that the plaintiffs and indeed, the entire people of Kogi State can only hold their governor to account probity and performance, only if the process by which the governor assumed powers was by the will of the people expressed through genuine,  free and fair elections, where equal weights are accorded all votes as the basis of the authority and legitimacy of government through democratically acceptable franchise.

The controversies in the Kogi Governorship election began with the death of the candidate of the APC, Abubakar Audu, before a winner was announced, and the subsequent adoption of Alhaji Yahaya Bello as a replacement.

Meanwhile,  Audu’s running mate, Faleke was chosen as the deputy, a position he rejected and headed for the tribunal.

The matter came to conclusion when the Supreme Court last year, ruled in favour of Bello as the authentic governor of the state.

However, the plaintiffs in the extant matter had simultaneously  approached the ECOWAS Court in February 2016, seeking cancellation of the polls and asking for fresh polls that would reflect the people’s choice in an atmosphere that is free and fair.

The matter was mentioned in December 2016 but was adjourned soon after as the defendant was absent in court.

The Panel had requested that the representative of the federal government,  Attorney General of the Federation should appear in court over the matter as the defendant.

But at the resumed hearing yesterday, after counsel to the plaintiffs, Festus Ogwuche, had made his appearance, the defense counsel informed the three-man panel of the court – Justice Friday Chijioke Nwoke, Justice Micah Wilkins Wright and Justice Yaya Boro, of a preliminary objection dated February 8, 2016, which has questioned the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case. There was also another objection on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked cause of action.

The defense therefore prayed the court to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action.

His argument hinged on the fact that the suit bordered on electoral process and as such, it is beyond the reach of the court’s jurisdiction.

But counsel to the plaintiffs held that the substantive application before the court was for the human right enforcement and as such, according to him, the court was imbued with the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on complaints of fundamental rights violations that occur in any member states.

He held that the court is imbued with the jurisdiction to hear cases concerning violation of fundamental rights by any member state of the community.

That matter has been adjourned till March 20, 2017 for ruling on the motions.