Key Points
- Disputes over election declarations must follow legal petition processes.
- Allegations of duress require proper legal remedies, not judicial review.
- Procedural lapses undermine fairness and raise jurisdictional concerns.
In legal matters, challenges to the declaration of an election winner must follow established practices, which dictate that such disputes be addressed through a petition. Recent debates about election declarations must align with these established procedures.
Disputes over election declarations must follow settled legal practices
Reports indicate that an electoral commission officer alleged duress as the basis for declaring a candidate the winner of an election. The beneficiary of the declaration has denied the allegation, creating a clear dispute over contested evidence.
Under basic legal principles, contested matters are not subject to judicial review remedies unless they involve jurisdictional issues that require evidence on a collateral fact. Allegations of duress, which hint at potential criminality, require a court decision based on a standard slightly above the balance of probabilities in civil proceedings.
Judicial review in cases involving disputed facts, such as allegations of duress, is fundamentally flawed. For example, when a judge overlooks evidence, the proper remedy is an appeal, not judicial review.
Similarly, declarations made without full consideration of electoral evidence, such as “pink sheets,” should be challenged through the appropriate legal avenues.
As stated by Myjoyonline, the electoral commission, as the party alleging duress, bears the responsibility of raising the matter in court. The court proceedings held on Dec. 20, 2024, were flawed due to the exclusion of interested parties, which violated the principle of natural justice.
The law provides mechanisms for aggrieved parties to seek remedies related to election processes. However, declarations made by the electoral commission are ineffective unless gazetted. Thus, applicants in these disputes often lack a valid cause of action until the declaration is formalized.
A fundamental issue with mandamus applications targeting declarations is that they preempt the proper legal process. Once a declaration is made, it merges into common law, and an aggrieved party must wait for their cause of action to accrue. Premature judgments undermine the legal process.
Procedural lapses raise questions about court jurisdiction and fairness
Additionally, procedural issues in the Dec. 20 proceedings raise questions about jurisdiction. According to Order 55 Rule 5(3) of CI 47, respondents to a judicial review application must have at least seven days to respond. The application, filed on Dec. 17 and heard on Dec. 20, bypassed this requirement without an application to abridge the time. This procedural misstep raises concerns about the court’s jurisdiction in the matter.
Courts and legal practitioners must adhere to established procedures in contentious election disputes to ensure fairness and uphold the rule of law.
