IN February this year, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mahmoud Mohammed, swore in 242 members and chairmen of the Election Petition Tribunals for the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory. This was ahead of the general elections, which were earlier scheduled to begin on February 14, but were postponed to March 28. At the swearing-in of the Tribunal members and chairmen, Chief Justice Mohammed said: “You must shun acts such as the acceptance of gifts or favours from counsel and politicians, and the exchange of illicit communications with parties, which acts will erode the integrity of the Tribunal irretrievably.”

In framing his admonition, the Chief Justice was guided by past ugly experiences at Election Petition Tribunals, which occasioned disciplinary measures against some judges. Desperate politicians and their counsel were sometimes guilty of the acts against which the Chief Justice had warned. Perhaps, not in his wildest imagination would the CJN have contemplated that security agencies could in fact become critical factors in the obstruction of justice at Election Tribunals. Thus, the presumption is that if there was the slightest suspicion of the likely interference of security agencies with the administration of justice at the Election Tribunals, the Chief Justice would have adverted his mind to the likely invidious role and then cautioned security agencies appropriately. The Chief Justice and other litigants were innocent.

What was always known was that security agencies were sometimes deployed before and during elections, to intimidate voters, and to secure dubious victory for their paymasters. Thereafter, results are announced, and when trouble breaks, the security agencies are called in to quell the riots. If the parties then went to the Election Tribunals, it was strictly a matter between the politicians and their lawyers, who were in the ring. Security agencies provided security around the perimeter, and in no way descended into the arena. But the 2015 general elections and the proceedings at some of the Election Petition Tribunals have thrown up a new but dangerously abnormal experience of security agencies descending into the arena of electoral dispute resolution.

This has been so especially with the Election Tribunals hearing the petitions concerning the governorship elections in Akwa Ibom, Rivers, and Abia states, which were won by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the former ruling party at the national level, but which was electorally ousted in the presidential poll of March 28. When stakeholders first raised an alarm over the relocation of the Tribunals from Uyo (capital of Akwa Ibom) and Port Harcourt (capital of Rivers) to Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory, nobody, including the CJN, paid sufficient heed. The specious ground for the relocation was “security”, even at a time when neither Akwa Ibom nor Rivers was under siege. Suspicions that the relocation was intended to facilitate interference were dismissed as wild imaginings.

On July 24, 2015, a civil society group, Public Interest Lawyers League, issued a statement entitled, Emerging Scenarios In Election Petitions Tribunals: Intimidation, Coercion, And Compromise Of Vital Witnesses In Rivers State Governorship Election Petition. Stories from the statement appeared in a number of Sunday newspapers of July 26. The League drew attention to what it called a “rash of gestapo measures” being adopted by the Department of State Services (DSS) that amounted to interference and “witness tampering”.

Witnesses, including the Resident Electoral Commissioner of Rivers State and other officials, in the election petition were invited from Port Harcourt to Abuja, even when the Tribunal had not issued any warrant of arrest. Indeed, according to the statement by the League, “We are also aware that security operatives who covered the governorship elections ab initio are being coerced to alter their original security reports.

This is all the more curious, as one of the parties to the petition has made it known that it would rely on security reports in aid of its cause.” Recent events, such as the contradictory testimonies, at the Election Tribunals have confirmed the accuracy of the assertion by the Public Interest Lawyers League.

But the League was not the only one to raise the red flag. In early August, the PDP National Assembly caucus issued a statement decrying DSS interference in Election Tribunals, condemning in particular the arrest, detention, and interrogation of INEC officials in Akwa Ibom, Rivers, and Abia states. A few weeks later, all 16 Senators and Members of the House of Representatives from Rivers petitioned President Muhammadu Buhari, complaining about the worrisome role of the security agencies in the Election Tribunals. The petitioners recalled an earlier intervention by the Senate, which drew the attention of the DSS to its ultra vires conduct in relation to election petition matters.

Not unsurprisingly, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has been dismissive of the allegations, even acting at some point as spokespersons for the DSS. The party claimed that the DSS stepped in when certain persons were frustrating access to election materials that were part of the evidence to be tendered at the Tribunal, although it failed to state on whose express authority the DSS were acting, except to glibly refer to the role of the DSS in internal security matters. But the APC has maintained a loud silence since the news broke that armed state security officials stormed the venue of a Tribunal in Abuja, in search of a witness or more who had testified in support of the respondent in a governorship election petition. Nigerians can only imagine what the APC reaction would have been if this had happened while they were in the opposition.

It is possible that President Muhammadu Buhari is unaware of the full extent of the strong-arm tactics being deployed by the security agencies, which have invaded the judicial space, creating a new spectre of fear and intimidation intended to overawe the Election Tribunals, and thereby obstruct and defeat the ends of justice. It is possible that the planners and executors of this new strategy of manipulating the outcome of elections are overzealous agents and hirelings who clearly misunderstand the import and responsibility of being in government and in power.

If their shenanigans prevail, President Buhari should be ready to carry the can. This is because, chroniclers of our electoral history will not fail to record that it was during Buhari’s time that the security agencies began invading Election Tribunals, in order to wangle justice for the powers and party that be. That is the hallmark of dictatorial regimes.

While the presidential elections have since been contested, won and lost, President Buhari and his team should not forget in a hurry that one of the campaign issues ahead of the 2015 elections was his dictatorial background as military head of state in the 1980s. In 1985, when Major-Gen. Buhari was overthrown, the new military regime threw open the dungeons and other horrific detention centres run by the then notorious Nigerian Security Organisation (NSO) under Alhaji Rafindadi. The atrocities of that era were placed squarely at Gen. Buhari’s doorstep. Thirty years later, what are we seeing? Armed operatives of the DSS (which is one of the successor organisations of the defunct NSO) are invading Election Tribunals in search of witnesses who have testified in favour of the respondent in a governorship election petition.

It is possible that President Muhammadu Buhari is unaware of the full extent of the strong-arm tactics being deployed by the security agencies, which have invaded the judicial space, creating a new spectre of fear and intimidation intended to overawe the Election Tribunals, and thereby obstruct and defeat the ends of justice. It is possible that the planners and executors of this new strategy of manipulating the outcome of elections are overzealous agents and hirelings who clearly misunderstand the import and responsibility of being in government and in power. If their shenanigans prevail, President Buhari should be ready to carry the can

Yes, it can be argued that the witnesses have already testified, and that the record of their testimony is before the Tribunal. What cannot be missed, however, is that the intimidation of witnesses is also a subtle, if not direct, intimidation of the Tribunals themselves. In other words, the DSS armed operatives have sent a signal to Tribunal members and Chairmen that they (operatives) would/could go after them as well. So intimidated, the Tribunals can be arm-twisted, the ends of justice defeated, and we’re back to dictatorship in a democracy.

Again, as noted above, President Buhari may be unaware of what exactly is going on. It is unthinkable, for instance, that the late Gen. Sani Abacha, who sat atop Nigeria’s most brutal military dictatorship, was in the know of all the atrocities carried out by his henchmen and foot soldiers, who believed that they were engaged in a murderous task of regime protection.

President Buhari must think about this, and act fast: his government cannot be prosecuting an anti-corruption war, supported by most Nigerians and influential foreign leaders, and yet, agents of the government are subverting the rule of law through the violent obstruction of justice. What is democracy without the rule of law? And what is the rule of law without an unfettered judiciary that truly dispenses justices in all circumstances?

However, if those subversive agents were to succeed, it would be Pyrrhic victory only. You cannot capture electoral seats—-whether governorship or legislature—-by force of state arms at the Tribunal, and yet expect peace in the constituencies, which have been denied their true choices. Boko Haram, kidnapping, and armed robbery are enough crimes already; adding social unrest via election heist at the intimidated Tribunals will only make more volatile an already combustible situation.
Amadi, a public affairs analyst, writes from Sun City, Abuja.