The sum total of the assignment of any election petition tribunal is to ensure that substantial justice has been served to both the petitioner and respondent at the end of its sittings.

To be able to lay claims to any form of credibility, same tribunal must also be seen as favouring justice above all other considerations.

The Imo state tribunals for the 2011 elections petitions are being handled by Justice E. N. Kpojime, for the Governorship petitions while Justice I. Bello and Justice Umoekoyo Essang handle the National Assembly and House of Assembly petitions interchangeably.

Of the three Justices; Bello’s discharge of his duties as tribunal chairman has agitated the Imo electorate the most and have continued to task the sensibilities of the fast despairing Imo public.

Since May 17 when the tribunals commenced sitting in the state, Bello has thrown out no fewer than four National and State Assembly petitions without hearing the substantive case, largely on the ground of contestable technicality.

Justice Bello clearly seems to have a serious issue with the mode of application for the pre-hearing notice. Much as the processes of law must be respected, a mode of application that is legally contestable as inferior and a process deemed as mere administrative should not justify the denial of fair hearing and justice, for petitioners who approach the tribunal with genuine cases of electoral injustice.

As it presently stands, several thousands of supporters and allies of the petitioners from the Senate, House of Representatives and State Assembly elections whose cases were denied on the ground of their mode of application for the pre-hearing notice would now want the court of public opinion to determine their fate in the face of Bello’s perceived disregard for superior legal argument on the issue.

The provision for pre-hearing notice is regulated by the content of paragraph 18 of the 1^st Schedule of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended.

Within 7 days after filing and service of the petitioner’s reply on the respondent or 7 days after the filing and service of the respondent’s reply, as the case may be, the petitioner shall apply for the issuance of pre-hearing notice as in Form TF 007.

The issue at this point is the fact that Justice Bello favours only applications made through motions and tends to promptly strike out all those cases in which applications were made through a letter.

Apparently ignoring paragraph 47 (1) of the 1^st Schedule of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended which states that:

(1) No motion shall be moved and all motions shall come up at the pre-hearing session except in extreme circumstance with leave of Tribunal or Court (There is evidently no extreme circumstance or emergency in this case),

Justice Bello yet opts to favour paragraph 47 (2) which states thus:

(2) Whereby in these Rules any application is authorized to be made to the tribunal or court, such application shall be made by motion which must be supported by affidavit and shall state under what rule or law the application is brought and shall be served on the respondent.

It may be necessary to note that under these circumstances, some officers of the law may attempt to seek refuge in their right to the exercise of judicial discretion but it must be stressed that judicial discretion can only be applicable to the provisions in paragraph 18 (3) of the 1^st Schedule which states that ‘the respondent may bring the application in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) where the petitioner fails to do so, or by motion which shall be served on the petitioner and returnable 3 clear days after application for an order to dismiss the petition’.

From the fore-going, it is clear that ‘application’ in the context is neither denotative nor synonymous to ‘motion’.

It however worries discerning members of the public that in support of his stance, Justice Bello has continued to cling onto the Appeal Court decision of 2008 in the case of Riruwai vs Shekarau which had since been rendered inferior by the more recent Supreme Court decision of 2010 in the case of Nwankwo vs Yar’Adua where the court held that, ‘Any motion, or preliminary objection not taken and determined at the pre-hearing session is done or taken without jurisdiction and consequently null and void, as it is a condition precedent to the exercise of Tribunal Jurisdiction.’ By this ruling therefore, it follows that the Electoral Act (2010) may not have foreseen the issue of application by motion since motions can only be heard during pre-hearing sessions proper. This is the superior position of the Supreme Court of the land.

It is however ironic to note that in the same tribunals sitting in the Imo state High Court premises, Justice E.N. Kpojime handling the governorship petitions and Justice Umoekoyo Essang handling National Assembly and State Assembly matters have had to dispense with undue technicalities to serve justice.

Beside sustaining the case of Achike Udenwa vs Hope Uzodinma, in which application was filed by a letter, Justice Essang also held in the case of Cosmos Iwu vs Ambassador Matthew Nwagwu that, “going by the provisions of paragraph 18 (1), (3) and 47 (1) of the 1^st Schedule of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended and the Supreme Court decisions, we are of the humble view that the application for pre-trial session filed by the petitioner is in the circumstances in compliance with the 1^st Schedule of the Electoral Act, and we so hold.”

Also, efforts by the incumbent governor of Imo state to dismiss the petition of the opposition in the case of PDP vs Gov. Rochas Okorocha on the grounds of timing and technicalities was rebuffed by Justice E. N. Kpojime who insisted that the petition of the PDP must be heard for justice to be served.

Consequently, this question begs for answers: ‘Is Justice Bello and the duo of Justice Essang and Justice Kpojime, not all officers in the same temple of justice and operating with the same book of law?’ Granted that there may be differences in personal approaches to law but the fundamentals of the law practice remain the same for all practitioners.

Beside these facts and legal arguments, the tribunals and every other court of law are designed to aim for the highest good of society which in this case is untainted justice for public good.

Not a few however, are of the conviction that it would in the long run amount to grave injustice to uphold undue technicalities at the expense of substantive justice.

In the case of Uduma vs Arunsi, Justice Abdullahi held thus: “The courts are no longer swayed by mere technicality rather, the tendency now is towards striving for ideals of doing substantial justice, even in election matters, election petitions should be conducted with the same feasibility and crass technicality should be avoided.”

Also noteworthy is the case of Ikoro vs Izunaso in 2009 where the court also held that: “The trend practise for sometime now particularly in election matters which are of different and special nature is to do justice, even if only substantial, in matters that can come before the courts regardless of the harmless deficiencies in form that may exist in the process used to have access to the seat of justice where every citizen have the constitutional right to…”

It is instructive for the Tribunal in Imo to note that in the course of Tribunal sittings for the 2011 election petitions, the Appeal tribunal in Yola recently upturned the dismissal of two cases by the lower tribunal predicated on the mode of application (Letter/motion). The cases are that of Arch. Aliyu Dankaru vs PDP and others, and Simon Issah vs Alhaji Saad Tahir and INEC.

Looking back at the casualty figures emanating from the choices and legal assumptions of Justice I. Bello which occasioned the dismissal of the cases of Kema Chikwe vs Chris Anyanwu (Senate); Nkemdi Opara vs Bethel Amadi (House of Representatives) and Chima Akuzie vs Simeon Iwunze (State House of Assembly) and the most recent, Chikwem Onuoha vs Matthew Omegara; it is only fair to urge Justice Bello to stop and think again.

Slaughtering fair hearing on the excuse of undue technicality is a massive denial of justice against thousands of Imo people spread across the 27 council areas of the state.

The judiciary in Nigeria is presently at a cross-road occasioned by perceived unethical compromises on the part of the officers of the law, the choices of Justice Bello, wittingly or unwittingly must not deepen these woes, as we continue to pray that our judiciary would find their way out of the morass.

It has now become a popular opinion that the tribunal cannot be excluded from culpability in electoral injustices if they are seen to be deliberately hinging the bulk of their judicial pronouncements and decisions on undue technicalities and harmless oversights in crass antagonism of the course of justice.

Imo state presently, is tense from the strings of hardly justifiable decisions of Justice Bello in the course of handling high profile electoral petitions brought to his tribunal.

While we may not be able to predict the reactions of other segments of the state, we, as professionals would be left with no other option than to petition the National Judicial Commission if Justice I. Bello persists in his seeming flagrant disregard for the ideals of justice and fair hearing.

A man who has honestly and fairly won an election, should be able to prove his victory beyond reasonable doubt, so also is a man who lost an election; he should be given the opportunity to prove his case without the legal hamstrings of technicalities which are now known avenues of denying petitioners substantive justice.

The public is therefore urged to dispassionately monitor Justice Bello’s tribunal in the hope that some how, we may collectively saveguard the judiciary from further decay.

Imo people are watching. Nigerians are watching. And for their sake, ‘let justice be served even if the heavens fall.’

…Reports condemn present DG-NIMASA as incompetent

* Applauds ex-DG to have established safety and security in Nigerian waters

* Reveals ‘politics of bitterness’ among the board members

* Armed sea robbers and pirates use these derelict ships as their base of operations

* Stakeholders angry with present DG-NIMASA

* Says “Temisanren Omatseye is a dynamic leader…will to improve Nigeria’s maritime environment with respect to security, safety, pollution and economic opportunities.”

A damning report by WikiLeaks, an online news portal, has released a classified cable titled ‘C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LAGOS 000044’, on the events happening at the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) recently and placed ‘a damning verdict,’ on the government of President Good luck Jonathan, for allegedly truncating the progressive moves made by a former Director General, (DG) of the maritime agency, Temisanren Omatseye, by appointing a ‘mediocre’, an erstwhile varsity lecturer as the new helmsman. This, non-progressive and ill-advised move will set NIMASA backward.

United States (US) Embassy position

In this classified documents, it reveals that Donna Blair, the Consul General paid a courtesy visit to NIMASA on December 22, and they were taken on a tour of the maritime agency’s training and operations center in Kirikiri, Lagos to highlight current capacity, shortfalls and strategic plans.

 Summary of the Reports (Unedited) on US Ambassador’s visit

Ex-DG of NIMASA, Temisanren Omatseye used a tour of NIMASA’s training and operations center in Kirikiri, Lagos on December 22 to highlight current capacity, shortfalls, budget, proposals, and strategic plans to the Ambassador and Pol/Econ Officer (Political Economic Officer).  NIMASA has taken the first steps toward establishing safety and security in Nigerian waters, but it requires considerable assistance in further capacity building.  NIMASA is also engaging the GON with respect to training ex-militants in the context of the post-amnesty program. 

Reports on Shortfalls in Capacity

Omatseye, NIMASA former DG gave the Ambassador and Pol/EconOff, a tour of NIMASA’s training and operations center at Kirikiri, Lagos on December 22 including a brief meeting with the NIMASA board of directors. Omatseye highlighted both the improvements made in NIMASA’s capacities and the existing shortfalls. NIMASA is currently capable of receiving and recording any distress signals from vessels operating along the West African coast, but has no capacity to respond.  NIMASA also has a Regional Maritime Awareness Capability (RMAC) repeater station which provides the capacity to see and identify ships up to 30 nautical miles off-shore, but wants to be able to monitor ship movements 200 nautical miles off shore.  NIMASA possesses one search and rescue helicopter but has no capacity to do aerial surveillance.  NIMASA maintains has a small twenty-four-hour health unit that can provide first aid and do triage, but not respond to major emergencies or do surgery.  There is a helipad on the facilities, but the jetty and maintenance workshops are still under construction.

Reports on Classroom facilities

NIMASA has classroom facilities to train classes up to 40 people at a time which are currently under-utilized. Omatseye wishes to see experts from around the world provide training on a weekly basis, adding that it was much cheaper and more effective to bring instructors in than send students abroad.  There are serious training gaps particularly with respect to law enforcement capabilities.  NIMASA board members asked to be allowed to submit to the U.S. Africa Partnership Station specific requests that would enable training programs to be customized to meet NIMASA’s most pressing needs.  Altogether, NIMASA is short roughly 60 staff, and an ongoing human resources audit will provide more precise data on needs.

Thumbs up for Ex-DG Proposed budget for 2010

Omatseye’s proposed budget for 2010 totaling 46 billion naira (USD 306 million) includes funding for the purchase of 28 patrol boats, one additional helicopter and the purchase of a long range tracking system with capacity up to 220 nautical miles.  (NOTE: Nigerian media reported November 27 that NIMASA had signed a services agreement with International Mobile Satellite Organization (ISMO) of the United Kingdom (UK) for a Long Range Identification Tracking System. Other plans includes: locating a workshop for the patrol boats on the premises for oversight and control purposes but out-sourcing the actual maintenance work.  In addition, Omatseye is looking into ways to cooperate with the Nigerian Air Force, which recently acquired assets suitable for conducting aerial surveillance.  Omatseye wishes to contract services from Protea hotel’s chain to manage the 42 room guest house at the training center with the objective of providing international standard accommodation for visiting

lecturers.

Large number of ships identified by radar

NIMASA personnel explained the fully operational RMAC station to the Ambassador, pointing out the large numbers of ships which were identified by radar but not transmitting automatic identification signals (AIS) as required by international maritime law.  Ships with no AIS, or AIS that is turned off, are presumed to be in violation of the International Maritime Organization code and therefore suspected of engaging in illegal activities. Omatseye suggested that these ships could be engaged in smuggling, illegal oil bunkering, or illegally dumping waste into the harbor. Some of the ships without AIS may also be decommissioned and abandoned tankers which are anchored off Lagos harbor.

Armed sea robbers and pirates use these derelict ships as their base of operations

The report says: 150 of these ships are off-shore according to the Indigenous Shipowners’ Association and their lights create a false shoreline at night.  Contacts in the shipping community suspect that armed sea robbers and pirates use these derelict ships as their base of operations for launching attacks on vessels awaiting entrance to Lagos or already alongside at Lagos port. These ships are hazards to navigation and their anchors have cut telecommunications cables in the past. Omatseye wishes these vessels to anchor outside the shipping lanes into Lagos harbor.

Training militants to man Coast Guards

NIMASA has agreed to take up to 250 former militants into their ongoing training program designed to train 1,000 Nigerians at maritime academies abroad. This officer training program was launched in 2008 before the amnesty. It requires candidates with higher education, capable of completing university equivalent studies and therefore not ideal for the bulk of former militants, many of whom are illiterate or have only rudimentary levels of education. Omatseye suggested that he is more interested in training former militants to man the fleet of patrol boats that he plans to acquire and deploy. Omatseye claimed to have spoken personally about such employment to former militant leader “Tom Polo,” who was very receptive to the idea.  Omatseye believes that former militants are familiar with the Nigeria’s coastal waterways and creeks and have demonstrated skills in operating small, powered craft.  If rehabilitated and properly trained these ex-militants could form the core of an effective maritime law-enforcement unit.

Why US Govt. is angry with Jonathan

Our correspondent gathered exclusively that the administration of President Barrack Obama got worried and angry, especially the Department of Commerce, Energy & Treasury, having studied the reports earlier submitted by the American Ambassador to Nigeria on NIMASA under Omatseye’s tenure. The final verdict of the US Consul General reads that “Omatseye is a dynamic leader with a palpable will to improve Nigeria’s maritime environment with respect to security, safety, pollution and economic opportunities.  He launched a number of initiatives that are already bearing fruits such as the installation of RMAC, the acquisition of scavenger boats to address the pollution in Lagos harbor, the budget proposals for patrol boats, helicopters and Long Range Tracking Systems.  However, he appears to be operating in a legal grey-zone.  There are no clear sanctions for many of the practices (e.g. failure to use AIS, anchoring in sea lanes) he wishes to prohibit.  Likewise, NIMASA’s mandate to develop into an independent law enforcement arm similar to the USCG is, at best, ambivalent.  Further legislation is probably needed.  Nevertheless, supporting NIMASA’s vigorous efforts to increase its capacity are in U.S.’ interests in the short and medium term.”

Stakeholders angry with present DG-NIMASA

Sources in the maritime sector who would not want their names argue that 90 % of the stakeholders are angry with the current DG, who knows nothing in maritime, has no prior educational knowledge in navigation or maritime laws, contrary to Act 7 of NIMASA 2007, except that he is only “claiming glory for the evergreen achievements of Omatseye in the maritime agency.”

We can tell you that the US position on this issue may not change, except the Presidency right the wrong created in NIMASA by “having round pegs in round holes in the maritime agency.”

Though the Federal Government is spearheading the establishment of the new power stations, it is understood from reliable sources that it will not own them outright, in line with the ongoing power sector reform.

The Federal Government is to build three coal-fired power stations in Enugu, Kogi and Gombe states with the capacity to generate 3000Megawatts, so as to diversify electricity sources in the country.Minister of Power, Professor Bart Nnaji, disclosed the Federal Government’s new energy mix this afternoon at a press conference organized by the Federal Ministry of Information to mark the first 100 days of the president Goodluck Jonathan administration.

“Not only does Nigeria have huge coal deposits in Enugu, Kogi, Gombe and Benue states”, said the minister, “but we have the world’s cleanest type of coal”.

The Federal Government will have about 25 per cent with state governments and private sector companies owning the rest of the coal-fired companies which may take about four years to complete.

On whether the Ministry of Power will revive the Oji River coal-powered generating station in Enugu State which was destroyed during the Nigerian Civil War of 1967 to 1970, Professor Nnaji said that the dilapidated station was obsolete and produced a mere 35MW “which might have been appropriate for an era when many communities did not have electricity and when neither the population nor the economic activity in the country was as high as it is today”.

Professor Nnaji rejected the suggestion that Nigeria could face criticism from the international community over coal-powered stations because of the environmental implications.

Countries like the United States and South Africa, he noted, produce more electricity from coal than from any other source.

He stated:“We do not expect the international community, including environmental groups, to display double standards so glaringly against us.

“In any case, ours is clean coal, far better than what obtains in many parts of the world, especially Europe”.

Coal from Enugu and Benue in particular has low ash and is of high calorific value while that of Kogi is friable, or easy to use to form smokeless coal bricket.