PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. UMANA OKON UMANA & ORS
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Monday, the 15th day of February, 2016
SC.6/2016 (REASONS)
RATIO
POSITION OF THE LAW ON THE DUTY OF THE PETITIONER WHO ASSERTS THAT THERE WAS NO VOTING OR DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN SOME LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS OF A STATE
The law is indeed trite that the Petitioners/Respondents who asserted that there was no voting in the affected 18 Local Government Areas of Akwa Ibom State, must prove so by calling at least a registered voter from each of the Polling units in each of the Wards in the respective Local Government Areas to show that he could not vote during the election conducted on 11th April, 2015. Not only that such registered voter must also establish by credible evidence how the lack of voting in the affected Local Government Areas affected the final results of the election to the disadvantage of the Petitioners/Respondents. See KAKIH VS PEOPLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt.1430) 374 and UCHE VS ELECHI (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1317) 330 at 359. PER MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C.
JUSTICES
MAHMUD MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SULEIMAN GALADIMA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY Appellant(s)
AND
- UMANA OKON UMANA
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS
3. UDOM GABRIEL EMMANUEL
4. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
5. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, AKWA IBOM STATE
6. NIGERIA POLICE FORCE Respondent(s)
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): My Lords, the appellant in the instant appeal formulated three issues. However, I take the humble view that issue three is determinative of this appeal.The appellant couched it thus:
Whether the Court of Appeal was not wrong in law in affirming that part of the decision of the trial Tribunal nullifying the results declared by INEC in eighteen [LGAs] of Akwa Ibom State in the Governorship Election conducted on April 11, 2015
As I had, already, dealt with this issue in SC.1/2016, I adopt the reasons for my judgment in that case in answer to the question posed here in favour of the appellant as my reasons for allowing this appeal.
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C.: On 11th April, 2015, the 4th Respondent in this appeal (INEC) conducted an election into the office of the Governor of Akwa Ibom State. The Appellant as one of the political parties taking part in the election sponsored the 3rd respondent in this appeal at the election. At the end of the election, the 4th Respondent returned the 3rd Respondent as duly elected having scored a majority of lawful votes cast at the election. Being dissatisfied with the
election and return of the 3rd Respondent, the 1st and 2nd Respondents instituted a petition at the Akwa Ibom State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal which after hearing the parties delivered its Judgment on 21st October 2015, in which after resolving ground 1 of the petition against the 1st and 2nd Respondents, went ahead to allow the petition by the nullification of the election in 18 out of the 31 Local Government Areas of Akwa Ibom State and ordered a re-run election in the affected Local Government Areas.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which after hearing the appeal, dismissed the same and affirmed the nullification of the election in 18 of the 31 Local Government Areas of Akwa Ibom State in its Judgment delivered on 18th December, 2015. The present appeal by the Appellant is against that Judgment of the Court of Appeal in a Notice of Appeal containing 5 grounds of appeal from which 3 issues for the determination of the appeal were formulated in the appellant’s brief of argument.
The issues are-
“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in law when it held that Ground one of the petition of the
Petitioners/Respondents was competent.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was not wrong in law when it failed to consider and render a decision on all the issues raised by the Appellant before it.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was not wrong in law in affirming that part of the decision of the trial Tribunal nullifying the results declared by INEC in 18 Local Government Areas of Akwa Ibom State in the Governorship Election conducted on April 11th 2015.”
In the consideration of the issues 1 and 2 in the Appellant’s brief of argument by my learned brother Nweze, JSC, in his own Reasons for Judgment in the appeal, he effectively resolved the said issues justifying his lead judgment allowing this appeal and I hereby adopt the reasoning as mine. As for the 3rd issue for determination in this appeal, it is noted that the results declared by INEC, the 4th Respondent in this appeal, were nullified by the trial Tribunal in 18 out of the 31 Local Government Areas of Akwa Ibom State principally on the ground of the allegation of disenfranchisement or non-voting. The law is indeed trite that the Petitioners/Respondents who asserted that there was no voting in the affected 18
Local Government Areas of Akwa Ibom State, must prove so by calling at least a registered voter from each of the Polling units in each of the Wards in the respective Local Government Areas to show that he could not vote during the election conducted on 11th April, 2015. Not only that such registered voter must also establish by credible evidence how the lack of voting in the affected Local Government Areas affected the final results of the election to the disadvantage of the Petitioners/Respondents. See KAKIH VS PEOPLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt.1430) 374 and UCHE VS ELECHI (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1317) 330 at 359. In the present appeal therefore, having regard to the quality of the evidence adduced, the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Petitioners had failed to prove their case on the allegation of disenfranchisement or non-voting to have warranted the judgment in their favour nullifying the election in 18 of the 31 Local Government Areas of Akwa Ibom State.
It is therefore, for the above reasons and fuller reasons given by my learned brother Nweze, JSC, in his own Reasons for the Judgment that I also allowed this appeal in my own Judgment delivered on Wednesday
3rd February 2016, promising to give my own reasons today Monday 15th February, 2016.
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.: On Wednesday, 3rd of February, 2016, I agreed with my learned brother, Nweze, JSC, who delivered the lead Judgment, allowing the appeal and reasons for doing so adjourned to today.
My learned brother, Nweze, JSC, afforded me the opportunity to read beforetoday, the reasons he marshalled for allowing the appeal. I am in agreement with him in his reasoning which I adopt as mine. I have nothing more. I have nothing more to add. I allow the appeal and abide by consequential orders made in the lead reasoning including order on costs.
SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C.: On Wednesday the 3rd day of February, 2016, I agreed with my learned brother NWEZE JSC, who in his lead judgment allowed this appeal but adjourned to today 15th February, 2016 to proffer reasons for allowing the appeal. I hereby now deduce my reasonings.
I have had the privilege of reading in advance the reasons and conclusion fully given in the lead judgment allowing this appeal. I adopt them as mine.I too, allow this appeal as it is meritorious. I abide by consequential order made in the
lead judgment including order as to Costs.
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.: I adopt my reasons in SC.1/2016 and the more detailed reasoning of my learned brother Nweze, JSC in the same appeal which I read in draft. I also allow this appeal.
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C.: I allowed this appeal on 3rd February, 2010. This had to be so since the earlier appeals in SC.1/2016 and SC.3/2016 which were brought by Udom Gabriel Emmanuel (now 3rd respondent) were allowed. The fortunes of the appellant are tied to those of the 3rd respondent since it was the party that sponsored the 3rd respondent for the election.
In this regard it was superfluous for the appellant to file a separate appeal from that of the 3rd respondent. After all the appellant and 3rd respondent defended the petition together. No order on costs.
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.: When we heard this appeal on Wednesday 3rd February 2016, I agreed with the lead judgment of my learned brother, Nweze, JSC that the appeal has merit and I accordingly allowed it. I promised to give my reasons for so doing today, 15th February 2016.
This appeal arose out of the Governorship election held in Akwa
Ibom state on 11th April, 2015 wherein the 3rd respondent was returned as the duly elected Governor of the State. It is against the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 18th December 2015 affirming the judgment of the Akwa Ibom State Governorship Election Tribunal delivered on 21st October, 2015, which nullified the election in eighteen Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the State and ordered a re-run in the affected LGAs. The decision of the trial Tribunal gave rise to several appeals, namely, SC.1/2016, SC.2/2016, SC.3/2016, SC.4/2016, SC.7/2016 and the instant appeal, SC.6/2016 between the same parties and on substantially similar grounds.
I have had the benefit of reading before now the reasons just proffered by my learned brother, Nweze, JSC for allowing the appeal, I agree entirely and adopt the reasons and conclusions as mine. I abide by all the consequential orders made, inclusive of costs.
Appearances
Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) with him, Adekunle Oyesanya (SAN), Dominic Okon, Edet Bassey, Emmanuel Akpan, Nsikak Udoh, Paul Mgbeoma, M. Mene-Josiah, Faruk Khamagam, Onyinye G. Nwagbarra and Jennifer Adole For Appellant
AND
Chief Wole Olanipekun, OFR (SAN) with him, Solomon Umoh, (SAN), Dayo Akinlaja (SAN), Chief Victor Iyanam, Femi Morohundia, Bola Aidi, Austin Otah, Soji Olowolafe, Edet Ating, Benjamin Alabi, Effiong Abia, Ubong Offiong, Olabode Olanipekun, Effiong Ekong, Olubukola Araromi [Mrs], Aisha Aliyu [Mrs] Bolarinwa Awujoola, C.M. Dioji, F.S. Abiodun, Temitope Olanipekun [Miss], Adebayo Majekolagbe, Tolu Adetomiwa, S.O. Enejah, Ademola Oyelayo, Madu Gadzama and Chukwudifu Mbamali for 1st and 2nd Respondents
D.D. Dodo (SAN) with him, Chris Uche (SAN), Paul Usoro (SAN), Chief O.E.B. Offiong S(AN), Gordy Uche (SAN), Dr. G.O.A. Ogunyomi, Nelson Uzuegbu, Reginald Nwobbi, Nasir A. Dangiri, Isaac Anumudu, Audu Anuga, Dan Abia, James Odiba, Ofombuk Akpabio [Mrs.] Terhemba Gbashima, Utibe Nwoko, Adetola Ibironke [Miss], Obafolahan Ojibara, Mfon Udeme, A.F. Jumbo, Stella Ebrimoni [Miss], Patrick Okoh, Ime Edem-Nse, Samson A. Eigege, Luter I. Atagher, Ginika Ezeoke, Ikechukwu Duru, Yunusa Umaru, Prince Nwafuru, Olatunji Muritala, Emem Umoh [Miss], Ifeanyi Ndumnego, Kanayo Okafor, Emmanuel Okorie, Uzoma Nwosu-Iheme, Isaac Nwachukwu, E. J. Imuekemeh [Miss], Olakunle Lawal, Blessing Akinsehinwa, Francis Genesis, Modetus Atozie, Ufedo Tom-Yakubu [Miss], James Ebbi, Francis Nsiegbunam, Ijeoma Nwosu [Miss], Jummai Pam, Chinwendu Nduka-Edede [Miss] and Na-Eema Goje [Miss] for 3rd Respondent
Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, OON (SAN) with him, Elder Paul Ananaba (SAN), Raymond Anyawata, E.A. Ibrahim, Ijeoma Utchay [Mrs.] Alex Ejesieme, Onyinye Anumonye, Emeka Nri-Ezedi, Emeka Eze, Ogechi Ogbonna, Nwachukwu Ibegbu, Obinna Onya, Chuka Ikpeazo, Julius Mba and Emmanuel Rukari for 4th and 5th Respondents
6th Respondent absent and unrepresented but served For Respondent
