The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fifth Alteration) (No. 10) Act, 2023, being one of the Constitution Alteration bills that received Presidential assent in March 2023, provides for exception to stipulated timelines for the filing and hearing of pre and post-election matters. The alteration introduces a new sub-section (13A) to section 285 of the 1999 Constitution, to recognise the occurrence of what is called in law, a \u201cForce Majeure\u201d, that is, emergencies or uncontrollable circumstances such as natural disaster, war, declaration of a national or state emergency which can prevent the filing or hearing of a pre-election matter or election petition by a Court or Tribunal. It says that the period of the occurrence of such circumstances will not be counted in computing the stipulated timelines for the filing and resolution of such matters. Although not explicitly stated, it is presumed that the court or tribunal is the party responsible for making such determination. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Prior to this alteration, timelines for filing and hearing pre-election\nand election matters as outlined in the Constitution were sacrosanct and not\nsubject to extension. This is mostly attributable to the sui generis<\/em>\nnature of election petitions (i.e. unique or in a special class). As such,\ntimelines are inserted in the law to ensure that the courts and tribunals hear\npetitions expeditiously. As the saying goes, \u201cJustice delayed is justice\ndenied.\u201d It also ensures that litigation does not become an endless activity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Before the inclusion of strict timelines for hearing petitions in the\nConstitution in 2010, the experience was that election petitions took more than\ntwo years to complete, often leading declared winners to almost complete their\ntenures before judgment is given. Lawyers also took advantage to frivolously\ndelay proceedings and extend matters to benefit their clients who may have been\nwilfully declared winners. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While timelines are acknowledged to be necessary, lawyers have often\nargued for exceptions to be made, for example, where a retrial is ordered, in\nthe event of protracted illness or death or natural events such as earthquakes,\nfloods, hurricanes, etc. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In law, the occurrence of a Force Majeure usually suspends all legal obligations, including timelines for performing an action because it is an unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstance. This amendment makes room for these possibilities by explicitly stating that the period of such emergencies should not be counted in determining whether a litigant is out of time in filing court processes or whether a court or tribunal is out of time to hear petitions and render its verdict. This would promote the delivery of justice by ensuring that parties are not foreclosed from seeking judicial remedy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n