The Supreme Court yesterday ordered the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Com-mission (INEC), Professor Maurice Iwu to provide answers to questions posed by former vice president, Atiku Abubakar, in his bid to prove that the April 2007 presidential election was flawed.
The decision set aside the judgment of the lower court, which forbade Atiku from interrogating the NEC boss on the 2007 presidential election.
In a swift reaction last night, Iwu promised to comply with the Supreme Court judgement, stating that he has no problems with the ruling.
In a unanimous decision read by Justice Niki Tobi, the court said interrogatories were legal questions which to whom they are directed, must answer on oath – meaning that it could even be answered in writing or by evidence.
With the judgment yesterday the coast is now clear for the legal team of the Action Congress presidential candidate to set the questions and for the INEC boss to either head to the court of appeal, venue of the tribunal or prepare a comprehensive affidavit giving answers to the questions on oath.
The court, however, said that there was no need for the appellant to furnish the tribunal with further and better particulars since all the parties have joined issues and that what they have supplied to the tribunal were sufficient.
Justice Tobi said once the interrogatories address relevant issues, they should be allowed in the interest of justice, even as he disagreed that interrogatories are only applicable in commercial disputes, saying they are useful in all situations.
He said that by his office, Iwu is knowledgeable about how the election was conducted and if a person who contested the election is aggrieved about the outcome, and has some questions to prove his case, the law would grant his request.
He subsequently ordered the interrogatories to be administered on Iwu for him to provide answers, stressing that full opportunity should be given to all parties to present their case without undue technicalities.
The presidential candidate of AC had filed a petition against the results of the April presidential poll wherein he joined INEC, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Inspector General of Police and the Chief of Army Staff as respondents.
He also filed an application to have Iwu interrogated on the conduct of the election. In the application, the AC candidate formulated 27 questions for the INEC Chairman.
The parties in the petition are expected to argue their written addresses at the Court of Appeal on January 28th.
Before the apex court�s judgment yesterday, counsel to Yar’Adua, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) told the court that proceedings at the court of appeal where the petition was being heard are different from the one�s that had taken place in the past because there is a practiced direction put in place.
Olanipekun suggested that the Supreme Court should wait for the outcome of the petition at the court of appeal since it would be decided by March this year.
He said, “Sufficient powers have been vested in the Court of Appeal to refuse any amendment. This was put in place so that there would be an expeditious hearing. The refusal of an application for interrogatories cannot be enough grounds to reverse proceedings at the court of appeal.
�By virtue of the practiced direction, the interrogatories have become unnecessary. Interrogatories are not for fishing expedition. They are for issues that are relevant to a case. The entirety of the interrogatories are irrelevant.”
Iwu in his statement last night signed by his press secretary, Andy Ezeani said he would answer the questions on the 2007 general elections as raised by Atiku.
He said: �The commission views the ruling of the apex court as one more expression of the robustness of the judiciary in Nigeria. The INEC Chairman will, as is characteristic, comply with the ruling of the court and answer the questions to the best of his knowledge.
�The commission knows that in the fullness of time, all Nigerians, especially politicians will appreciate all its decisions and actions in deepening electoral democracy in Nigeria.
�Every question raised about the elections has cogent answers. All that the commission and its leadership want is the best for the country and its electoral process based on the rule of law. Adjudication of election disputes by the election tribunals needs to be seen as a part of the electoral process.
�The commission as a key institution involved with the electoral process cannot therefore, but do whatever is required to ensure that its guiding principles of ensuring fairness to all candidates, is maintained.�
Jan262008