Ex-Abia Lawmaker Seeks Review Of Section 285 Of Constitution

A former member of the Abia House of Assembly, Chief Solomon Akpulonu, has called for a review of section 285 (6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The section provides that “an election petition tribunal must mandatorily deliver its judgment within 180 days from the date of filing of the petition”.

Akpulonu told newsmen in Aba that the law was “tailored to suit the interests of a candidate who was declared as a winner” in an election.

Akpulonu, who represented Obingwa East Constituency, said the law was against the interest and rights of persons seeking justice.

“The 180 days period for the determination of an election petition is a great injustice. It is against the rights

to fair hearing of petitioners.

“This law is against natural justice. I believe it was made in error. It is wrong to determine for the judiciary a stipulated time to settle an electoral dispute.

“This is why we say in law that election petition cases are sui generis, they are different from other cases.

“How do you set a time limit for the Judges? Do you know the high number of petitions the tribunals are faced with?

“This 180 days law is bound to put pressure on them and a miscarriage of justice may not be ruled out,’’ he said.

Akpulonu said the bid by the members of the tribunals to work within the 180 days limit, has led to the dismissal and striking out of petitions on technicalities, rather than merit.

The ex-lawmaker further said that the section gave undue advantages to the respondents in an election petition.

“A respondent, who is aware of the 180 days’ time limit, will delay the hearing of the petition.

“The respondent will begin by evading service of the petition on him.

“When he is eventually served, his counsel may decide to file unnecessary motions and objections to buy time.

“If the objections are dismissed, the respondent will

proceed to the Court of Appeal.

“If the Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal and remits it to the election petition tribunal for retrial, the remaining period of the 180 days cannot be extended.

“The petition will be at the mercy of the respondent who is now enjoying the perks of office.

“The respondents will then ask endless cross examination and field a host of witnesses in a bid to have the petition become time barred,” he lamented.

Akpulonu also said that the section encouraged “rigging”.

“A candidate can rig election, get sworn in and engage a crafty lawyer, and with the situation of our legal system pertaining to electoral matters, the real winner of the election would continue to lament till the end of the tenure.

“The section should be reviewed in the interest of justice,” he said.