There are indications that many of the politicians seeking public offices in the April polls may have their ambition scuttled as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has dared candidates of any political party to stay away from its verification exercise and risk being disqualified on account of unresolved petitions.
This comes on a day the Court of Appeal, sitting in Abuja, referred Vice President Atiku Abubakar�s case in which he is seeking interpretation of certain provisions of the 1999 constitution relating to his office, alleged to have been declared vacant by President Olusegun Obasanjo, to the Supreme Court.
The Action Congress (AC) had Monday issued a directive to its candidates not to appear before the Commission’s verification committees, saying INEC lacked constitutional powers to embark on such exercise.
But in Abuja yesterday, INEC National Commissioner in charge of Transport and Logistics, Chief Emmanuel Uchola, said candidates who stay away from the verification exercise would not be allowed to stand for elections if discrepancies noticed in the documents and claims submitted to the Commission cannot be defended in person.
He explained that the Commission has put in place a team of competent experts to undertake the verification and that those with petitions and issues surrounding their papers would be required to defend such in person but that those without petitions and/or discrepancies in their particulars would be cleared for the polls.
�What the commission has done is to ask the contestants to submit their documents after which INEC raised a team of experts to verify their claims. If we notice any discrepancy in the documents of any candidate, we will contact him through his party to appear. If he fails to appear because his party asks him not to, we will have no choice than to invoke the law,� he said.
Pressed to clarify what the position of the law is on the matter, he said: �The Constitution has spelt out the qualifications of candidates and when a candidate falls short of the requirements, INEC will have to enforce the law. If a candidate fails to submit himself and he has problems with his document, he will not be allowed to contest.�
Uchola who led the screening panel to Plateau State said a total of 190 candidates submitted documents and claims for verification but that five of them had discrepancies which were communicated to their parties for possible remedy and clearance for the polls, adding that those affected are expected to appear before INEC to clarify the issues.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has referred Vice President Atiku Abubakar�s case in which he is seeking interpretation of certain provisions of the 1999 constitution relating to his office alleged to have been declared vacant by President Olusegun Obasanjo to the Supreme Court.
President of the court, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, told the parties that since the issue for determination was constitutional, there was no point dissipating energy unnecessarily on it as it was better for the matter to be referred to the apex court for determination at once.
Thereafter, counsel to both original and nominal parties to the suit thanked the court for showing direction that would facilitate dispensation of justice in the matter.
The plaintiff�s counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who led a team of lawyers, agreed with the court that the issues for determination in their originating summons were fundamental as well as constitutional, saying that Section 295 empowers the court to make such a reference.
Olanipekun noted that it was the first time in the history of the country that a matter seeking such interpretation would be filed before the court as there was no precedent, adding that it was also unprecedented for the office of the vice-president to be declared vacant while its occupier has not resigned.
He said that since the issue was a substantial question of law, the plaintiff has no objection to its being referred to the Supreme Court for determination.
He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Adesanya and the Federal Government of Nigeria, which favours referral.
The senior advocate said that since the court was aware of the relief sought in the Summon, it was better for a consequential order to be made to direct parties to maintain status quo, that is, recognising Atiku Abubakar as the vice president of the country.
Replying, counsel to the 1st defendant, Adebayo Adenipe-kun (SAN), intimated the court that he was just served with the summon less than 48 hours and said that the defendant intended to file its own pleadings and asked the court to allow him the eight days in line with the rule of practice.
“My Lords, what should be referred to the Supreme Court should include our own counter affidavit and other processes to their Originating Summon. We have filed and served on the plaintiff our counter affidavit and we thanked the court for the direction it has shown.”
He made an undertaking that the vice president would not be arrested as he is still recognised by law as the occupier of the exalted position.
On the application for order to parties to maintain status quo, Adenipekun said that the court should not make an order that could pre-empt the outcome of the case that was being referred to the highest court, saying the defendant does not intend to do anything to overreach the outcome of the suit.
Other counsel representing the National Assembly, the police and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) aligned themselves with the submission of Adenipekun.
Particularly, Chris Uche (SAN) argued that the court would be functus officio if it grants an order that is no longer interim in view of the fact that same relief to keep the subject matter of the suit was in the summon.
Both Joe Gadzama (SAN) and P.I Ikwueto (SAN) holding briefs for INEC and police said that if the order was granted, it would conclude the matter being referred to the Supreme Court and that the vice president has resigned, the statement that attracted boos from the audience in court.
In his reply, Olanipekun said that since there was not much point of disagreement between the original parties, the nominal ones were only being mischievous in their submission, more so when they failed to state their various atrocities committed against the plaintiff.
Ruling in the application for an order to direct parties to maintain status quo has been reserved for tomorrow.
Jan112007