Kogi governorship tribunal ruling in perspective

By Ike Okafor

THIS evaluation is with out prejudice to the rights of the events who’re on attraction. Somewhat, it seeks to make clear why the lead judgment is just not solely persuasive, however eminently sound in legislation.

The legislation makes the polling unit the hub of any election in Nigeria with the Supreme Court docket holding that: “In an election, the essential place to be x-rayed is the polling unit and a state of affairs because the case in hand the place the appellants did not name the polling brokers at these models who noticed, heard or took half within the transaction on which such a witness is testifying has no substitute if the appellant is critical about establishing substantial non-compliance or irregularity or malpractices. Such direct testimonies are important and failure might be interpreted that the appellant’s case would have been jeopardized if such witnesses testified or that the allegations which the appellants are hanging on didn’t happen.

I depend on Hashidu V. Goje (2003) 15 NWLR (pt. 843) 352…” In A.C.N v. Nyako (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 686) P. 424 @ 477 paras. A-D.

Part 138(1) of the Electoral Act stipulates the a number of heads of claims a petitioner can undertake, however having so adopted, the proof of those that noticed, heard or took half within the transactions that culminated into the criticism, on this case, the polling brokers of the petitioners, may be very important to the success of the petition.

Each the lead and minority judgments acknowledge that after a lot ado, Musa Atayi Wada and the PDP basically narrowed their case to solely seven of the 21 native authorities areas – Adavi, Ajaokuta, Kabba/Bunu, Lokoja, Okehi, Okene and Olamaboro – thus decreasing their complaints to about 75 out of the two,548 polling models in Kogi State. In essence, they accepted INEC’s declared ends in 14 native governments, particularly, 2,473 polling models.

Recall that the petitioners wished the tribunal to seek out that Yahaya Bello was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes solid on the election; that the election was invalid by motive of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act; and that the election was invalid by motive of corrupt practices.

In try and show their case, they referred to as 32 witnesses out of which solely about 11 have been polling unit brokers, opposite to the authorized backdrop that in election petitions, the legislation requires petitioners to name their polling brokers in all affected polling models.

Consequently, the lead judgment noticed (and rightly so) that by part 53(2) of the Electoral Act, over-voting arises solely the place the full variety of votes solid is above the variety of registered voters and that card reader is just not the yardstick for figuring out this.

The dissenting judgment most popular to dwell on perceived ‘weaknesses’ within the respondents’ case, particularly that they did not name their very own professional to contradict the proof of the petitioners’ professional. This, with due respect, is opposite to the established precept of legislation that petitioners should succeed on the power of their case and never on the weak spot of the respondents’ case.

Petitioners, in addition to the dissenting judgment, relied completely on the proof of specialists in opposition to proof of polling brokers who noticed all that transpired first hand. Whereas professional proof is nice proof on a superb day, it’s my humble view, supported by legislation, that proof of specialists is to be thought of at the side of all different related proof in legislation out there to the petitioners. See Ngige v. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 999) 1. On this case, the proof of the professional would have been good proof provided that polling brokers have been referred to as to offer proof that was supported finally, by that of the professional witness.

Curiously too, the dissenting choose discovered that the crux of the petitioners’ case is that 282,612 poll papers have been used for the election however that 324,745 votes have been solid within the election. With due respect, despite the fact that the dissenting judgment is just not the judgment of the tribunal, could I state categorically that from the information, that was not the case offered by the petitioners and a Court docket/Tribunal can not go exterior the case pleaded by events in arriving at its determination.

The minority judgment additionally applauded the professional witness (PW19) for going fully exterior the scope of the order of the tribunal made on the January 16, for inspection of election supplies. The order for inspection didn’t embrace that poll papers be counted and/or recounted. In actual fact, the petitioners by no means prayed for an order to rely or recount poll papers. Clearly, the respondents’ attorneys recognised the gaping holes the place the respondents refused to name proof, or exceeded their latitude and knew that the court docket ought to rightly refuse to plaster these for them.

This evaluation is abridged to say the least attributable to constraints, together with area nevertheless it should be mentioned that because the legislation requires polling brokers to testify in show of allegations of what transpired at polling models and the petitioners did not name their very own brokers to so testify, the testimony of people that didn’t see what transpired on the level the place elections have been performed and outcomes generated in legislation are at finest unreliable. Additionally, because the legislation stipulates that for non-compliance with the Electoral Act to result in the nullification of an election, it should be substantial non-compliance; how substantial is the alleged irregularity in 75 polling models in comparison with the over 2,000 polling models? It should not even be forgotten that no witness was referred to as to testify in respect of Adavi, Okehi and Okene Native Authorities Areas, whereas just one was referred to as in respect of Ajaokuta Native Authorities even when the criticism was not in respect of just one polling unit there.

Instances usually are not decided primarily based on feelings; the legislation requires that he who alleges ought to show his allegations. Election petitions are even a category of their very own in legislation therefore, having set how allegation of infractions in an election are to be proved. To go opposite to the laid down guidelines is to the peril of the petitioners. For these and lots of extra causes, the lead judgment, which is in legislation the choice of the tribunal, and which thought of the related legal guidelines on election petitions shows a soundness that’s arduous to question.