Professor Chukwuma Soludo
advertisement

Uba's argument is that he won the 2007 election (a fact that remains in dispute in light of the widespread malpractices) and was already serving in that capacity before the courts ruled that Governor Peter Obi had not completed his term. He is of the opinion, therefore, that his (s)election was not in dispute but that he just had to make way for Obi to complete his term. As Obi's tenure winds down, Uba is fixing to step in without an election.

Ordinarily, Uba's case would have had some merit in light of the precedent set in the re-installation of Obi to complete his mandate in 2007. However, there are clear differences. Obi was returned to office because the courts determined that he won the 2003 election but was not allowed to complete his four year term. The courts averred, therefore, that he needed to complete his term and that the gubernatorial election held in 2007 should not have taken place because there was no vacancy in the state house. By implication, the 2007 election was null and void and the product of that nullity, Andy Uba, is ultra vires. To state it more succinctly, nullity produces nullity or as the Latin phrase goes, Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit - You cannot make something out of nothing.

Inspite of the clear and uncomplicated logic above, Uba still went to court to ask that he be installed as the governor in 2010 without an election. The Supreme Court turned down his request and even chastised him but the Appeal court took the case. A few days ago, the case came up for hearing but after taking statements from the parties, instead of throwing out the case as frivolous, in line with the thinking of the Supreme Court, the Appeal court adjourned the case sine die without adducing any reasons. By doing so, the court added unnecessary suspense and melodrama to the case and further heightened the nervousness of political watchers who believe that political instability in the state has come to stay.

Before the judge announced the indefinite adjournment, INEC representative stated that the agency did not have any objections to Uba's case. As if that was not bad enough, INEC added that the electoral body was expecting guidance from the court and would abide by whatever the ruling the court comes up with. This is the same INEC that was defiant against the courts during the 2007 elections, refusing to abide by several rulings. This action continues to bolster the argument, of many Nigerians, that INEC is really not an unbiased election umpire. It is an agency whose helmsman feels indebted to PDP for appointing him to the position. To show appreciation, many attempts were made to put PDP candidates into positions they did not win, resulting in the reversal of many declared elections.

If the Appeal Court was proceeding with trepidation in looking for a way to re-install Uba before now, INEC's statement must have emboldened the judges. The indefinite adjournment is clearly not for them to come back and say that Uba's case has no merit, something they could easily have said a few days ago. From this writer's perspective, although speculative, the indefinite adjournment may just be a tactics to buy time and determine how to give more credence to Uba's case with attendant granting of his prayer. The simple answer, from the court, to Uba's request should have been that nullity begets nullity as implied by the Supreme Court ruling.

If the Appeal court rules in favor of Uba, the case may head back to the Supreme Court and if consistency will prevail, then we know what the answer will be because the apex court cannot probate and reprobate. The problem, though, is that the Appeal court may wait to render their ruling after the February 2010. At that time, elections would have been conducted, billions of naira would have been wasted in conducting the elections, countless political rallies would have been held and the hopes of citizens raised that they have the chance to select their leader. The Appeal Court should render their decision immediately so that all legal wranglings will have been settled before February, to make way for a free and fair election. Putting the state in a political state of suspended animation is the greatest disservice anyone can do to her.

By the way, if Andy Uba won the state by the margin he and his PDP cohorts, with the connivance of INEC, say they did in 2007, why is he afraid to stand another election? If he is confident about having won in 2007, then he should be assured that the citizens of Anambra state, who are supposedly clamoring after him and yearning for his services, will again troop out into the streets to vote for him. Infact, if he is the favorite son of the PDP and Anambra state, how come he did not even throw his hat into the ring during the botched PDP primaries and be the 48th aspirant? As all the election jousting were taking place in PDP, he was busy hatching anti-democratic plot to enter the state house through the back door. He was waiting for the throne to be prepared for him as INEC and the Appeal court seem to be doing.

As this political cum legal intrigue continues to play out, the unsuspecting Nigerian may think that the big wigs in PDP will be weeping and gnashing their teeth. Far from it. Uba is still in the PDP and even though he lost some favor and clout amongst some of the party operatives, the party has its eyes set on the big price - win Anambra state by any means necessary. To them, it does not matter which candidate wins it for them. Infact, now that Soludo's nomination is hitting all kinds of snags, they may see Uba as a viable alternative. One is sure, therefore, that they will have no issues with Uba being declared governor in waiting.

Anambra state citizens and all well-meaning Nigerians must be vigilant because INEC and the courts may just be up to something untoward again.

HERE I STAND