Do people ever try to understand how elections and electioneering work? Have they taken a bit of their time to do some little research on electioneering?
Electioneering encompasses the final announcement of election results but rather a combination of several step by step timelines and series of benchmarks that must happen including but not limited to registration and certification of political parties, election and campaign laws, the election commission authorities, voter registration, parties primaries and conventions, submission of candidates to Election Commission, certification of candidates, campaigning, protestation, election, announcement of result, contestation of result, adjudicating and the final certification of the result by officially certifyingn of the winner.
Looking at the Ivorian election and the subsequent crisis, the election went as much in line with the precepts of electioneering until the election day itself, until the benchmark of announcing the result and winner. It varies from country to country how and the institutions through which they are achieved. In many countries, the Election Commission conducts the entire electoral process including announcing the election result and officially certifying of candidates.
In any democratic system of election however, the announcement of the result and proclamation of the winner is not the final process of the electoral process. When election results are announced in any democratic election, the electoral process enters what is term in electioneering as “constestation”. That means the result of the election is opened to protest and complaints. Candidates, political parties, citizen groups, and individuals can file their disagreement of the result to the Election Commission.
The Election Commission will then launch an investigation into the complaint filed against the election result; and if findings of their investigation corroborate with the aggrieved party(s), the necessary actions are taken by the commission to rectify and amend the previously announced result even if it amounts to nullification. If for instance the Election Commission’s investigation does not satisfy the aggrieved party, they proceed their complaint to the final arbiter, the Supreme Court or for in the case of the Ivory Coast under their laws, the Constitutional Court. And when the aggrieved party(s)takes its case to the final arbiter to adjudicate their complaint wrongfully handled according to their understanding, whatever decision the Supreme Court or in the case of the Ivory Coast, the Constitutional Court reaches, is final and binding.
It is a big mistake for the UN, EU, ECOWAS, USA, France, and the international community to consciously evade the core precepts of electioneering by giving the false impression that once the Ivorian Independent Election Commission had announced the election result, it was final and binding. For the Ivorian electoral system and jurisprudence, the Independent Election Commission has the authority to announce the election result but it did not have the authority to certify the result and the winner; that authority under the Ivorian laws rest in the Constitutional Council. The consitutional Council also has the authority to adjudicate complaints or contestation arising from the election result. Under the constitution of the Ivory Coast, specifically, article 64, when the result of the election is determined after adjudicating a contestation filed by an aggrieved party, and that problem has the potential to affect the overall result, the Constitutional Council must nullify the entire result and don’t certify any winner and call for a fresh election.
Under the Ivorian Peace Agreement, article 64 of the constitution was never suspended that would relegate the Constitutional Council’s authority to certify the election result and adjudicate and give final judgement on contestation or complaints filed to it questioning the result announced by the Independent Election commission. These structures were put in place for checks and balance to avoid one structure having the capacity to produce fraudulent election result.
Alassane Outtara’s win announced by the Election Commission was not carved in stone, final, and binding. That result was subject to the next step, that is the result was subject of being certified by the Constitutional Council and the winner officially certified by the Constitutional Council as well. That official certificate of the winner from the Election Commission, becomes the constitutional, legal, and lawful instrument to lay claim to the Presidency of the Republic of Ivory Coast and the President elect is then qualified to be inaugurated President of the Republic of Ivory Coast.
Alassane Outtara’s win was challenged, and the Constitutional Council found probable cause to nullify his win. He was not certified as winner of the election, the prerequisite, constitutional, and legal next step to the Presidency. Outtara does not have official certificate from the Constitutional Council to lay claim to the Ivorian Presidency. Without an official certificate from the Constitutional Council to lay claim to the Presidency which would qualify him for inauguration to be sworn in as President of Ivory Coast.
Alassane Outtara is not President of Ivory Coast as far as electioneering is concern under democratic elections, the Ivorian constitution, election laws of Ivory Coast, rule of law, and democracy. There is no where in electioneering that a candidate can declare and inaugurate himself President of a country without official certification issued to him by the relevant constitutional and legal institutions and structures required by law to do so.
The UN, EU, ECOWAS, France,USA,and the international community persistence that Outtara is the president they recognize as the President of Ivory Coast is yet another immoral platitude that might and power have laid siege to morality, human decency, dignity, disinterestedness of the crisis, purging of the rule of law, flagrant disrespect and disregard for the existence of Ivorian constitutional and legal institutions and authorities. Worst of all, this modern world is witnessing a coordinated scheme unleash a coup d’etat in the Ivory Coast to forcibly enthrone a so called President whom they are aiding and arbiting to short circuit a constitution, laws of Ivory Coast and the rule of law to unlawfully occupy Ivory Coast most expensive political real estate, the Ivorian Presidential Palace as its tenet. It is wrong, a coördinated and calculated broad day political highway arm robbery going bad.
It makes no sense that the world will promote and lead an enterprise to circumvent the rule of law, the very precepts they ironically professed to stand for but unfortunately, as it is proven by the international community’s reaction that the mantra of the rule of law only matters when they or their interest is at the other end and would be shameless in broad day light, won’t hesitate to bend the rule of law as in the case of the prevailing Ivory Coast crisis.
Ivory is still a sovereign state, as such, by law, international law and institutions do not supercede over municipal(national laws, laws of a country) laws and institution. The basis upon which this doctrine is coded in law, is all because, international laws do not have enforcement power, no executive branch of government exist but must relly on the good will of national governments to enforce international laws and treaties , all because there is no one world government which control the entire world under a single government and a president elected and government formed that will have the authority to enforce international laws.
On this basis, there is no provision in jurisprudence where the judiciary branch of government fiduciary authority or decision can be nullified by any international law, authority, institutions, and foreign countries.The Supreme Court or in the case of the Ivory Coast, the Constitutional Council, is the final arbiter of adjudication, and decision reached cannot and can never be challenged by any authority or international body and foreign government no matter how powerful and influential they are. The United Nations, EU,and France’s role in Ivory Coast as others perceive it to be is subject to the municipal laws (constitution and laws) of the Ivory Coast and therefore the United Nations, EU, ECOWAS, AU, France, and the United States have no legal standing to request a President who did not declare himself President but was legitimately announced and certified by the Constitutional Council and legal authority of the Ivory Coast.
Legally, Alassane Outtara has no legal claim to the Ivorian Presidency because by the constitution and laws of the Ivory Coast, he was never declared winner and certified as President elect by the Ivorian Constitutional Council, the only legal and constitutional institution that must conduct such rituals for a winner of the election to be inaugurated as President of the Republic of Ivory Coast.
Mr. Outtara declaring and inaugurating himself President of Ivory Coast is a treason and defiance of the fiduciary authority of the judiciary branch of government of the Ivory Coast and Constitutional Council’s power of final adjudication.
On the contrary, the call by the United Nations, EU, AU, ECOWAS, France, and the United States for Laurent Gbagbo, a constitutional and legitimate President of the Ivory Coast to cede power to Alassane Outtara, a candidate who has no legitimate claim to the Ivorian Presidency because he was not declared the winner of the election by the constitutional and legal authority to do so, is a coup d’etat to topple a constitutional and legitimate President.
With the latest claim by ECOWAS to use legitimate force to oust a constitutional and legitimate authority of Laurent Gbagbo to install, Alassane Outtara, an illegitimate and self inaugurated President of the Ivory Coast, is an unthinkable and criminally prone calculated onslaught on the rule of law and democracy not to mention the moral indecency of such action in this day and age. Plain and simple, “military overthrow”.
ECOWAS, EU, AU, UN, France, USA, and the international community have no legal justification to evade the sovereignty of another nation to dictate who is the President of Ivory Coast over ruling the fiduciary authority of the Ivorian judiciary and Constitutional CouNCIL power of final arbiter of judicial review.
Calling for Laurent Gbagbo, a legal, constitutional, and legitimate President of Ivory Coast to cede power to a person who is an illegal, unconstitutional and illegal winner of the Ivorian election to be President of the Ivory Coast is a very bad and dangerous precedent we see unfolding championed, unfortunately by the International community. There is nothing anywhere called legitimate force ECOWAS can use as excuse to evade the sovereignty of the Ivory Coast and overthrow a legitimate President and replace him with an illegitimate winner of the Ivorian election as President of Ivory Coast.
There is no law in international jurisprudence that can support the illegal act United Nations, AU, ECOWAS,EU, France, and United States are about to commit in the sovereign Republic of Ivory Coast. Any military invasion of the Ivory Coast by ECOWAS will be illegal. If Outtara is forcibly installed as head of Ivory Coast, that act will be illegal and he will not have legitimacy neither will he be the lawful President of the Ivory Coast but an illegal occupant of the Ivorian Presidency hustled there through the illegal and flexing of muscle and force by the international community where they apply the laws of the jungle, “might makes right”.
The situation in the Ivory Coast is not unique to that country, precedents have already been set in the United States with similar election and circumstance in 2000 election. The United States election of 2000 preliminarily saw Al Gore as the winner of the election but after Americans woke up the next morning, the election was called for George Bush as the winner. the case was taken to court and it went as far as the highest court in the land, the final arbiter of judicial review, and the case was ruled that Al Gore previous win was in fact inconsistent with the facts. The Supreme Court decision was final and the case went to rest. George Bush was inaugurated President of the United States while Al Gore went home to Tennesse. Why now similar precedent recurred in the Ivory Coast, and the United Nations, EU, AU,ECOWAS, France, and the United States are going nuts?