CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE (CPC) v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & ORS.
(2011)LCN/4865(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 1st day of November, 2011
CA/A/EPC/PRES/1/2011 (2)
RATIO
PLEADINGS: WHETHER A PARTY CAN RELY ON AN AVERMENT CONTAINED IN HIS OPPONENT’S PLEADING
A respondent cannot be restricted to only the evidence he adduced if he successfully cross-examined the witnesses called by the petitioner and destroyed their credibility or elicited evidence from the petitioner’s witnesses or other respondents’ witnesses favourable to his case. It is settled law that a party can rely on an averment contained in his opponent’s pleading. In Lawrence Onvekaonwu & Ors v. Ekwubiri (1966) 1 ALL NLR 32, 35, there was an issue pleaded by the defendants but not pleaded by the plaintiffs. When plaintiff’s 3rd witness wanted to lead evidence on it he was stopped by objection from adducing evidence on it. On appeal, the judgment was set aside and re-trial ordered. See Yusuf v. Oyetunde (19g4) 1 sc 205; Agagu v Mimiko (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140) 342 at 433. The petitioner cannot stop the respondents from exploiting the weakness of the case built around the testimonies of particularly the electoral officers who testified contrary to its case Omisaodu v Elewuju (2006) 13 NWLR (pt. 998) 517 at 532. When the evidence of a witness supports the case of his opponent against whom he purports to give evidence, the opponent can take advantage of the evidence to strengthen his case. If it is consistent with and corroborates his case, that will be admission against the interest of the party that called the witness, the admission being relevant and admissible evidence. see Yusuf v. Obasanjo (2005) 18 NWLR (pt. 956) 96. See also Ibrahim v. Shagari (1983) 2 SCNLR 170 at 196. PER KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 131 – 134 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011 AS REGARDS THE BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
Sections 131 – 134 of the Evidence Act , 2011 as amended deal with burden and standard of proof. The sections provide as follows:- “131(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. 132. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence of all were given on either side. 133 (1) In civil cases the burden of first proving existence or non existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings. (2) If the party referred to in subsection (1) of this Section adduces evidence which ought reasonably to satisfy the court that the fact sought to be proved is established, the burden lies on the party against whom judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced, and so on successively, until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with. (3) Where there are conflicting presumptions, the case is the same as if there were conflicting evidence. 134. The burden of proof shall be discharged on the balance of probabilities in all civil proceedings. PER KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.
BURDEN OF PROOF: DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF OR PETITIONER IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE OR THER RELIEFS TO RELY ON THE STRENGTH OF HIS OWN CASE TO SUCCEED AND NOT ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENCE
It is settled law that in a claim for declaration, be it of title or other declaratory relief, the plaintiff or petitioner must rely on the strength of his own case to succeed and not on the weakness of the defence. This principle holds true even where there is an admission by the defence or where the defence failed to call witnesses at all. See Okafor v. Idigo (1984) 1 SCNLR 481; Mogaji v Cadbury (1985) 2 NSCC Vol. 16 page 959. PER KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.
NOTICE TO PRODUCE: IMPLICATION OF GIVING NOTICE TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL OF A DOCUMENT
The implication of giving notice to produce the original of a document is that if the party on whom the notice to produce the original of the document fails to do so, the party presenting the oral evidence would then be entitled to rely on copies of the document which is at its disposal. PER KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.
SUBPOENA ;DUTY IMPOSED ON A PARTY APPLYING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA
Where a subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum has been issued at the instance of a party, it is incumbent on the party applying for the issuance of the subpoena to draw the attention of court on whether the subpoena has been obeyed or not. It is not the business of the court to ascertain if a witness who has been subpoenaed to appear in court has obeyed the subpoena unless the court or Judge issued the subpoena suo motu. PER KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.
ELECTION PETITIONS : WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN AN ELECTION PETITION RESTS ON THE PETITIONER TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT A DECLARED ELECTION RESULT IS CORRECT AND AUTHENTIC
In an election petition, it is the petitioner who will fail if no evidence at all were given on either side since there is a presumption of regularity in the execution of an official act as shown in section 168(1) Evidence Act which provides that – “168 (1) When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.” This provision was section 150 before the Evidence Act was amended and it was applied in Nwobodo v Onoh (1984) 1 ALL NLR 1 at page 2 where the Supreme Court held as follows:- I think at this stage I may say that I accept the submission of Chief Williams that there is in law a rebuttable presumption that the result of any election declared by FEDECO is correct and authentic and the onus is on the person who denies its correctness and authenticity to rebut the presumption. In my view where such denial is based on allegations of crimes against the FEDECO officials responsible for the declaration of the results the rebuttal must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” See also Buhari v Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1 at 295. There is no doubt that it is a statutory duty of the 1st respondent to defend the results of the election as an independent and impartial umpire if evidence is proffered by the petitioner in proof of the allegations for voiding the election. However the mere assertion by the petitioner that the elections were flawed or calling hearsay evidence will not shift the burden of disproving the assertions on the 1st respondent. PER KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OBANDE OGBUINYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE (CPC) – Appellant(s)
AND
1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
2. CHIEF NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER
3. DR. GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN
(PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA)
4. ARC. MOHAMMED NAMADI SAMBO
5. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
6. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, ABIA STATE
7. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, ADAMAWA STATE
8. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, AKWA IBOM STATE
9. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, ANAMBRA STATE
10. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, BAUCHI STATE
11. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, BAYELSA STATE
12. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, BENUE STATE
13. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, BORNO STATE
14. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, CROSS RIVER STATE
15. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, DELTA STATE
16. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, EBONYI STATE
17. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, EDO STATE
18. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, EKITI STATE
19. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, ENUGU STATE
20. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, FCT.
21. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMTSSIONER, GOMBE STATE
22. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, IMO STATE
23. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, JIGAWA STATE
24. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, KADUNA STATE
25. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, KANO STATE
26. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, KATSINA STATE
27. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, KEBBI STATE
28. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, KOGI STATE
29. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, KWARA STATE
30. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, LAGOS STATE
31. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, NASARAWA STATE
32. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, NIGER STATE
33. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, OGUN STATE
34. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, ONDO STATE
35. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, OSUN STATE
36. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, OYO STATE
37. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, PLATEAU STATE
38. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, RIVERS STATE
39. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, SOKOTO STATE
40. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, TARABA STATE
41. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, YOBE STATE
42. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, ZAMFARA STATE – Respondent(s)
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, 1st Respondent herein, conducted an election into the offices of the president and Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on 16th April, 2011. Twenty out of the sixty-three registered political parties contested the election namely:
i) Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN)
ii) African Democratic Congress (ADC)
iii) All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP)
iv) African Renaissance Party (ARP)
v) African Political System (APS)
vi) Better Nigeria Progressive Party (BNPP)
vii) Congress for Progressive Change (CPC)
viii) Fresh Democratic Party (FRESH)
ix) Hope Democratic Party (HDP)
x) Liberal Democratic Party of Nigeria (LDPN)
x) Mega Progressive Peoples Party (MPPP)
xi) National Conscience Party (NCP)
xii) National Majority Democratic Party (NMDP)
xiii) National Transformation Party (NIP)
xiv) Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)
xv) People for Democratic Change (PDC)
xvi) Peoples Mandate Party (PMP)
xvii) Peoples Progressive Party (PPP)
xviii) Social Democratic Mega Party(SDMP)
xix) United National Party for Development (UNPN)
The petitioner, Congress for Progressive Change (hereinafter to be called CPC) sponsored General Muhammadu Buhari and Pastor Tunde Bakare as its Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates respectively while the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) also sponsored Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan and Arc. Mohammed Namadi Sambo respectively for the posts of President and Vice-President. The candidates for the PDP scored 22,471,370 votes as against 12,211,670 votes which the petitioner’s candidates got at the election. Consequently the PDP and its candidates were declared the winners of the election. INEC proceeded to declare Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan and Arc. Mohammed Namadi Sambo as the duly elected President and Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria having secured the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and satisfied the constitutional requirement as to entitle them to be returned as such.
The petitioner was not satisfied with the conduct of the election and decided to challenge its validity by filing a petition on 8/05/2011. INEC which conducted the election was joined as the 1st respondent while the Chairman of INEC who is the Chief Electoral Commissioner has been joined as the 2nd respondent. The 3rd and 4th respondents are those who were returned as the duly elected President and Vice-president of Nigeria while the PDP which sponsored the winners of the election has been joined as 5th respondent. The 6th – 42nd respondents are the Resident Electoral Commissioners in the 36 States of the country. In this judgment, the 1st, 2nd, 6th-42nd respondents shall be referred to as the 1st set of respondents while the 3rd and 4th respondents will be 2nd set of respondents and the 5th respondent will carry the appellation 3rd set of respondents.
The petitioner challenged the election in paragraph 13 of the petition on the following grounds:-
“13. The grounds upon which this petition is brought are as follows:
q) The election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 which substantially affected the result of the election.
b) The 3rd and 4th respondents were not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.”
The petitioner then prayed for the following reliefs:-
“Wherefore your petitioner prays that it may be determined as follows:-
1. That it may be declared that the election and return of the 3rd and 4th respondents who were sponsored by the 5th respondent is voided by corrupt practices and substantial non compliance with the relevant provisions of the Election Act 2010 as amended.
2. That it may be declared that the 3rd and 4th respondents who were sponsored by the 5th respondent were not duly elected in respect of Kaduna, Sokoto, Nassarawa, Kwara, Adamawa, Abia, Akwa Ibom, Enugu, Cross River, River State, Ebonyi, Bayelsa, Delta, Imo, Anambra, Benue, Lagos, Plateau States and Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
3. That it may be determined that the 3rd respondent did not fulfill the requirements of Section 134(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with regards to:
(a) scoring the highest number of votes cast at the election; and
(b) mandatory one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two thirds of all states in the Federation and in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
4. That it may be determined that the result declared by the 2nd respondent on the 18th day of April, 2011 by which the 3rd respondent was returned as the elected President of Nigeria is wrongful, invalid and unlawful.
5. A declaration that the Presidential Election for the office of the president held on the 16th day of April, 2011 did not produce a winner as contemplated by the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
6. An order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to arrange another election between the petitioner and 3rd respondent in conformity with the provision of Section 134(4) or such other relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.”
On 14/7/2011 reliefs 4 and 6 were struck out leaving reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 5 on which the petition was fought.
The petitioner called a total of 47 witnesses who adopted their witness depositions and tendered several exhibits in proof of the petition. Two categories of witnesses testified for the petitioner those who analysed the results and those who functioned in the states and local government areas. The following witnesses fall within the first category namely PW1, PW4, PW6, PW16 and PW45. In this category the respondents called three witnesses namely RW5, RW6 and RW7. The second category of witnesses testified on what took place in the following states namely, Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Benue, Cross River, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu, Imo, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina, Nassarawa , Taraba, Rivers and Zamfara.
The following witnesses testified for the petitioner in respect of the election in Abia State:- Ahmed Oyewole (PW3), Nwagbata O. Chijioke (PW13), Godwin Okorie (PW34), Agwu Chukwu (PW36), Anthony Uka (PW37) and Albans Destiny (PW38). The respondents called Mao Arukwe Ohuabunwa who gave evidence as RW8.
In Akwa Ibom State two witnesses testified for the petitioner namely Edet Imeh Edet (PW42) and Ubong Effiong Asukwo (PW 43). Two witnesses also testified for the respondents and they are Samuel Charles Etuk (RW4) and Ernest Okon Iyanam (RW21).
Anambra State had three witnesses testifying for the petitioner while four were called by the respondents. The witnesses for the petitioner were Arukwe Charles (PW21), Chuks Okeke (PW 23) and Haruna Abuyayi (PW 47). The witnesses called by the respondents were Prof. B. C. E. Egboka (RW1), Solomon Ozuah (RW 18), Chris Chikwelu (RW 19) and Victor Udeozor (RW 35).
In Benue State the petitioner had two witnesses namely, Godwin A. Tyokighir (PW9) and Emmanuel Tinbee (PW10). The respondents summoned three witnesses as follows:- Bem Dzoho (RW 23), Bem Tseen (RW 24) and Charles Torbunde (RW 36).
The petitioner’s witnesses for Cross River State were five in number while four testified for the respondents. The witnesses of the petitioner were Mike Agbeh (PW7), Otoh Ofem Obono-Obla (PW 11), Maxwell Imiete (PW 19), James Egem Ogeh (PW 39) and Ekpenyong Akamba-Isoni (PW 46). Emmanuel Nsa (RW 9), Victor Abang (RW 10), Jude Ogbeche Ngaji (RW38) and Ekpo Asuquo Okon (RW 39) testified for the respondents.
In Ebonyi, Edo and Zamfara States, the petitioner called a witness each namely Nnachi Enyinnaya (PW12), Ikonomwan Francis (PW24) and Mohammad Lawal Suleiman (PW 12) respectively without any response by the respondents.
In Enugu State the petitioner and respondents called three witnesses a-piece. The petitioner’s witnesses were Emeka Okorie (PW 20), peter Eneje (PW 22) and Thaddeus Eke (PW 30). The witnesses called by the respondents were Amadi Chukwunulu Chinyere (RW 2), Livinus C. Ochomma (RW 26) and Chuka Ene (RW 32).
In Imo State five witnesses testified for the petitioner while four were called by the respondents. Those who testified for the petitioner were Salifu Mustapha (PW 2), Ogu Chika Odi (PW 26), Ebere Ihekoronye (PW 27), Elder Obinna Amadi (PW 28) and Ike Unakwe (PW 29). The respondents’ witnesses were Prof. Enoch Akobundu (RW 3), Victor Muruakpo (RW 16) Ibezim Simon Okechi (RW 29) and Greg Obinna Madu (RW 34).
In Jigawa State there were three witnesses for the petitioner while the respondents called four witnesses. The witnesses for the petitioner were Saidu Dutse (PW 31), Sule Dutse (PW 32) and Zakari Saidu (PW 34) while those who testified for the respondents were Salisu Idris (RW 25), Sani Iliya (RW 27), Jinjiri Ibrahim Madobi (RW 28) and Abdulrahman Mohammed (RW 33).
In Kaduna State, Abubakar Mohammed Korau testified as PW5 for the petitioner while the respondents called four witnesses namely: Abdurrahman Ibrahim (RW 13), Ben Bako (RW 14), Engr. Bawa Magaji (RW 15) and Alexander Guruza (RW 17).
In Katsina State, Abdulazeez Labo Mahuta (PW 25) and Yusuf Suleiman Yau (PW 47) testified for the petitioner while Salisu Maijigiri (RW 20) was called by the respondents.
In the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and Nassarawa States, both the petitioner and respondents called a witness each. They were Ibrahim Musa (PW 18) and Mohammed Abubakar (PW 41) for the petitioner while Amange Nimi Barigha (RW 11) and Isa Mohammed Danlafia (RW 22) testified for the respondents respectively.
In Rivers State Dolapo Tella Attoni (PW 8) gave evidence for the petitioner while Kingsley Ogundu (RW 12) and Vincent Igoche (RW 37) were the respondents’ witnesses.
In Taraba State the four witnesses called by the petitioner were Embarga Abbaji (PW 14), Stephen Tyoor (PW 15), Bito Martins (PW 17) and Ben Zhema (PW 35) while the witnesses for the respondents were Hosea Ibi (RW 30) and Soja Dantanimu (RW31).
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
On receipt of the final address filed by the 1st set of respondents, learned senior counsel to the petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the adoption of the said address on the ground that no issue can be raised on certain aspects of the reply to the petition which were abandoned. Learned senior counsel argued that a defendant who does not give evidence in support of his pleadings or challenges the evidence of the plaintiff is deemed to have accepted the facts adduced by the plaintiff notwithstanding his general traverse. Relying on the case of Dingyadi v. Wamako (2008) 2 LRCN 102 at 110, it was submitted that since the 1st set of respondents called only three witnesses in respect of three States in the South East of the country namely Anambra, Imo and Enugu States whereas the petitioner challenged the conduct of the election in 22 States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, it is not open to this set of respondents to formulate issues to cover the said portions of their reply which they have abandoned. He therefore urged this court to discountenance paragraph 4.01 at pages 7-8 of the 1st set of respondents’ final address and strike same out.
Learned senior counsel for the 1st set of respondents filed a reply to the preliminary objection urging this court to strike out the preliminary objection as incompetent and void since no leave of court was sought to bring same outside the pre-trial conference relying on paragraph 47 (1) and (2) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). Learned Senior Counsel argued that the final address he filed on behalf of the 1st set of respondents is not by law, rules and practice limited to the pleadings or evidence but it relates to the whole case in the petition and replies. He cited order 22 Rule 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 in support. He also referred to the frontloaded witness depositions of 151 witnesses out of which the petitioner called 47 witnesses who adopted their depositions and were cross-examined and submitted that a defendant can establish his case through its witness or other parties who called witnesses by asking relevant questions or through cross-examination.
I disagree that learned senior counsel for the petitioner requires leave to raise objection to the final address filed by any of the respondents.
The nature of the preliminary objection being raised by the petitioner does not accord with law or practice.
A respondent cannot be restricted to only the evidence he adduced if he successfully cross-examined the witnesses called by the petitioner and destroyed their credibility or elicited evidence from the petitioner’s witnesses or other respondents’ witnesses favourable to his case. It is settled law that a party can rely on an averment contained in his opponent’s pleading. In Lawrence Onvekaonwu & Ors v. Ekwubiri (1966) 1 ALL NLR 32, 35, there was an issue pleaded by the defendants but not pleaded by the plaintiffs. When plaintiff’s 3rd witness wanted to lead evidence on it he was stopped by objection from adducing evidence on it. On appeal, the judgment was set aside and re-trial ordered. See Yusuf v. Oyetunde (19g4) 1 sc 205; Agagu v Mimiko (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140) 342 at 433.
The petitioner cannot stop the respondents from exploiting the weakness of the case built around the testimonies of particularly the electoral officers who testified contrary to its case Omisaodu v Elewuju (2006) 13 NWLR (pt. 998) 517 at 532. When the evidence of a witness supports the case of his opponent against whom he purports to give evidence, the opponent can take advantage of the evidence to strengthen his case.
If it is consistent with and corroborates his case, that will be admission against the interest of the party that called the witness, the admission being relevant and admissible evidence. see Yusuf v. Obasanjo (2005) 18 NWLR (pt. 956) 96. See also Ibrahim v. Shagari (1983) 2 SCNLR 170 at 196. There is no merit on the objection raised and it is accordingly dismissed.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Before presenting his issues for determination, learned senior counsel for the petitioner conceded in paragraphs 7.0-7 .14 of his address that no evidence was adduced on the allegations of crime which he alleged in the petition. He implored this court to invoke the principle of severance of pleadings and decide the petition on the balance of probability. He then formulated the following four issues for determination:
i) Whether INEC can be said to have discharged the burden that shifted to it by establishing that it had substantially complied with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended in the conduct of the presidential election of 16th April, 2011.
ii) Whether the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents could be said to have won the majority lawful votes and had acquired one-quarter of the lawful votes cast in at least two-third of the States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory in the presidential election held on the 16th April, 2011 to be entitled to be returned elected.
iii) whether the evidence proferred by the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents respectively go to any issue regard being had to the 1st and 2nd respondents’ inability to discharge the burden of proof relating to the substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) in the conduct of the election that shifts unto them with the proof proferred by the petitioner?
iv) Whether in view of the evidence adduced at the trial vis-a-vis the evidence withheld by the 1st, 2nd, 6th – 42nd respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to judgment regard being had to:
a) the provisions of paragraph 18(11)(b) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended);
b) the provisions of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011; and
c) the Ruling of this Honourable Court dated 6th September, 2011.
All the learned senior counsel to the three sets of respondents urged this court to dismiss the petition since severance of the pleadings is not possible. The 1st and 2nd sets of respondents each formulated two issues for determination while the 3rd set of respondents submitted three issues for determination. These are the issues submitted by the three sets of respondents for determination:
1st Set of respondents.:
1. Whether the petitioner established that the presidential election of 16th April, 2011 was invalidated by reason of corrupt practices and substantial noncompliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010.
2. Whether the petitioner established that the 3rd respondent did not score majority of the lawful votes cast at the election
2nd set of respondents:
1. Upon a calm appraisal of the evidence adduced in this petition, vis-a-vis the surviving reliefs being claimed by the petitioner, whether or not his petition is still anchored or supported by any live issue which is capable of dislodging or setting aside the return or election of the 3rd and 4th respondents in the presidential election held on 16th April, 2011.
2. Assuming without conceding that there is any live issue worthy of consideration in this petition, whether or not the petitioner has presented any or sufficient evidence to warrant the nullification of the election and return of the 3rd and 4th respondents having regard to the provisions of Section 139 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010.
3rd set of respondents:
i. Whether the petitioner has proved the allegations of crime contained in the petition beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.
ii) Whether the Presidential Election of April 16th, 2011 was invalid by reason of corrupt practices which substantially affected the result of the election.
iii) Whether the Presidential Election of April 16, 2011 was conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
After a careful appraisal of the issues raised by the petitioner and respondents they can be narrowed to two as follows:
1. Whether non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) have been proved in this case and
2. Whether the 3rd and 4th respondents could be said to have scored the majority of the lawful votes cast and satisfied the Constitutional requirements to be returned’
CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution as amended and paragraph 15(a) of the Third Schedule which empowers INEC to organise, undertake and supervise all elections to the offices of President, Vice-President, etc, and argued that by the state of the pleadings, all the parties in this petition have acknowledged the above stated role of the 1st respondent as the sole body saddled with the responsibility to conduct election in Nigeria and the burden is on the 1st respondent to show or establish by credible documentary evidence that it has complied with all the conditions precedent leading to the election namely the production of the National voters register, accreditation of voters and evidence of voting before it can claim to have conducted an election and/or returned a winner. Learned counsel argued that the 1st respondent pleaded the voters registers used for the election but failed to tender same in court. Since the petitioner’s complaint is based on noncompliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010, the 1st respondent has a duty to show that the voters’ registers were duly marked against the names of the voters present in the register which is due accreditation and secondly that the results were duly collated at all the stages from the polling units to the final collation of results in Forms EC8D at the State collation centre. It was submitted that INEC admitted that it has no foundation for the results declared in the 36 States of the Federation including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja and so the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence adduced at the trial, the state of the pleadings, statutory and case law authorities is that no election known to the law was conducted in any state of the Federation including FCT, Abuja. It was also submitted that the 1st respondent had the burden to establish by credible evidence that despite the absence of the statutory Forms for the entry and declaration of results that it substantially complied with the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).
Apart from their final addresses, learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd sets of respondents filed replies on points of law to the petitioner’s written address. Learned counsel for the 2nd set of respondents argued that the evidence called by the petitioner was based on crimes arising from the election and the averments in the petition (criminal and civil) are so intertwined that it is near impossible to sever one from the other and even if severance is possible what would remain of the petition would be a skeletal petition, stripped of viable averments to sustain it. He contended that severance will affect paragraphs 14 to 39 and where this is done, the petition would be decapitated.
Learned senior counsel for the 1st set of respondents contended that the submission in paragraph 7.0 by learned senior counsel to the petitioner is an admission that no evidence was led to substantiate the ground of corrupt practices alleged in parts of paragraph 13(a) of the petition and it is an acceptance that the petitioner did not give evidence on allegations of crime in the petition. He therefore urged this court to hold that this is an abandonment of the pleadings of all the paragraphs where the commission of crime was alleged. After enumerating the paragraphs of the petition which contained criminal allegations, he concluded that severance is not possible and argued that for severance to apply and avail the petitioner, the facts in support of the ground must be severable.
If a surgical operation is to be carried out of the petitioner’s pleadings, the only averments that are devoid of any criminal allegations would be paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28(iii)(v)(vii), 29, 35, 37 and 39. These seemingly untainted paragraphs cannot sustain the petition. Even if it is generously conceded that there are portions in paragraph 14 of the petition for which proof can be discharged on a balance of probability, it remains to be seen whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proof or the pleadings shifted the burden of proof on the 1st set of respondents.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued in paragraph 10.8 of his written address that the petitioner has been able to establish by credible evidence that there were over voting and arbitrary allocation of votes in South South and South-Eastern States of Nigeria, non-accreditation of voters, and printing of fake ballot papers amongst others in the South-East, South South, North Central and North West Zones of the country and then proceeded to submit in paragraph 10.15 that it is settled that where a petitioner makes allegation of non-supply of electoral materials, non accreditation, allocation of votes which goes to the foundation of the conduct of the election; the burden shifts away from the petitioner to the conductor of the election (INEC) to justify the election and called in aid Agagu v Mimiko (2009) 7 NWLR (pt. 1140) 342 at 432. He also asserted by citing Igbeke v. Emordi (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt.1204) 1 at 48 that where a petitioner makes allegation of excess or under supply of electoral materials in its petition, it is incumbent upon the 14th respondent to tender Form EC25 which is the only authentic proof of the distribution and receipt of materials by the presiding officers.
Sections 131 – 134 of the Evidence Act , 2011 as amended deal with burden and standard of proof. The sections provide as follows:-
“131(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
132. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence of all were given on either side.
133 (1) In civil cases the burden of first proving existence or non existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings.
(2) If the party referred to in subsection (1) of this Section adduces evidence which ought reasonably to satisfy the court that the fact sought to be proved is established, the burden lies on the party against whom judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced, and so on successively, until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with.
(3) Where there are conflicting presumptions, the case is the same as if there were conflicting evidence.
134. The burden of proof shall be discharged on the balance of probabilities in all civil proceedings.”
In making a case for severance of the pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner stated in paragraphs 7.0 and 7.3 of his address:
“7.0. It can be seen that the petitioners cautiously treaded throughout the trial, without giving evidence of the allegations of crime they have made in the petition. It is submitted that the failure of the petitioners to lead evidence to establish that crime alleged in the petition means the commission of crime is not the focus of the Petition.
7.03. In the case under consideration, the petition stripped of allegations of crime especially in paragraphs 14(iv)(v), (ix), (x) (e), (ii) (j), k (a) & (b); paragraphs 28(a) & (b); 33(a) & (b); Benue, Gombe, Taraba, Adamawa, Sokoto and Kaduna States of the petition, still has sufficient averments remaining for the petition to be dealt with as a claim in a civil action in accordance with the provisions of section 129(1) of the Evidence Act and to apply the standard of proof within the balance of probability in its determination of the petition.”
With the concession that no evidence was led to prove the criminal allegations in the petition, prayers 1 and 2 must necessarily read thus:
“1. That it may be declared that the election and return of the 3rd and 4th respondents who were sponsored by the 5th respondent is voided by substantial non provisions or the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
2. That it may be declared that the 3rd and 4th respondents who were sponsored by the 5th respondent were not duly elected in respect of Nassarawa, Kwara, Abia, Akwa Ibom, Enugu, Cross River, Rivers State, Ebonyi, Bayelsa, Delta, Imo, Anambra, Lagos, Plateau States and Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”
Thus the petitioner is contesting the results of the election in 14 States and the Federal Capital Territory. The results of the election in the remaining 22 States are intact. These States are Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Edo, Ekiti, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Oyo, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfaru.
The first, second and fifth reliefs being sought are declaratory in nature while the third relief which seeks a determination whether the 3rd respondent scored the highest number of votes cast at the election and secured the mandatory one quarter of the votes in twenty four states and in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja can only be established on Proved results.
It is settled law that in a claim for declaration, be it of title or other declaratory relief, the plaintiff or petitioner must rely on the strength of his own case to succeed and not on the weakness of the defence. This principle holds true even where there is an admission by the defence or where the defence failed to call witnesses at all. See Okafor v. Idigo (1984) 1 SCNLR 481; Mogaji v Cadbury (1985) 2 NSCC Vol. 16 page 959. The petitioner was conscious that the onus to prove all the allegations contained in the petition rested on its shoulders. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in framing his issue (iv) alluded to the provisions of section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act 2011 and the Ruling of this Court dated 6th September, 2011.
Section 167(d) Evidence Act provides –
“167. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relationship to the facts of the particular case, and in particular the court may Presume that –
(d) Evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it”.
While this court is functus oficio as regards its ruling of 6th September, 2011 and so cannot revisit same, suffice it to say that by law, 1st respondent has no power to release the electronic data base which would have compromised the secrecy of the ballot. The petitioner was entitled to certified copies of all the voters registers used for the election upon payment of fees but refused to avail itself of the opportunity. Section 167 (d) Evidence Act cannot be invoked in favour of the petitioner for the non production of the register of voters to Prove its case.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in paragraphs 10.8 and 10.38 of his address stated that the petitioner was able to establish by credible evidence that there were over-voting and arbitrary allocation of votes in South-South and South-Eastern States of Nigeria, that there was non accreditation of voters and printing of fake ballot papers in the South East, South South, North Central and North West zones of the Federation. Notice to produce was given to the 1st respondent to produce the original voters register on the allegations of excessive voting. Learned counsel applied for a subpoena to issue on the 1st respondent to produce the voters’ registers for the 36 States and also on the NTA to produce the tape recording of the programme Nigeria Decides” anchored by Mohammed Kudu Abubakar which was aired on 26th April, 2011 in which it was alleged that a Director of INEC had stated that it was the practice of the 1st respondent to supply only 75% of materials relevant for any election. The implication of giving notice to produce the original of a document is that if the party on whom the notice to produce the original of the document fails to do so, the party presenting the oral evidence would then be entitled to rely on copies of the document which is at its disposal. Where a subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum has been issued at the instance of a party, it is incumbent on the party applying for the issuance of the subpoena to draw the attention of court on whether the subpoena has been obeyed or not. It is not the business of the court to ascertain if a witness who has been subpoenaed to appear in court has obeyed the subpoena unless the court or Judge issued the subpoena suo motu.
I had earlier reproduced section 132 of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended. In an election petition, it is the petitioner who will fail if no evidence at all were given on either side since there is a presumption of regularity in the execution of an official act as shown in section 168(1) Evidence Act which provides that –
“168 (1) When any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.”
This provision was section 150 before the Evidence Act was amended and it was applied in Nwobodo v Onoh (1984) 1 ALL NLR 1 at page 2 where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
I think at this stage I may say that I accept the submission of Chief Williams that there is in law a rebuttable presumption that the result of any election declared by FEDECO is correct and authentic and the onus is on the person who denies its correctness and authenticity to rebut the presumption. In my view where such denial is based on allegations of crimes against the FEDECO officials responsible for the declaration of the results the rebuttal must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
See also Buhari v Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1 at 295. There is no doubt that it is a statutory duty of the 1st respondent to defend the results of the election as an independent and impartial umpire if evidence is proffered by the petitioner in proof of the allegations for voiding the election. However the mere assertion by the petitioner that the elections were flawed or calling hearsay evidence will not shift the burden of disproving the assertions on the 1st respondent.
As earlier stated, the petitioner called a total of 47 witnesses. There was a mix-up of the evidence of PW1, Buba Galadima, the National Secretary of the CPC who adopted the witness deposition of NAT while prince Tony Momoh, the National Chairman of the CPC adopted the witness deposition on pages 17 – 55 (identified as NATSEC ) which was meant for the National Secretary of the Party. This exchange of witness depositions between the National Secretary and the National Chairman led to the striking out of the witness deposition on pages 17 – 55 and the withdrawal of the evidence of Prince Tony Momoh. The same fate should befall the witness deposition on pages 8 – 14. Consequently the witness depositions from pages 8-14 and 17-55 must be discountenanced and expunged from the whole evidence tendered by the petitioner. The witness statements on oath of NAT and NATSEC which have been expunged appear to cover the whole spectrum of the petition.
The only mention which was made of Lagos and Plateau States was in paragraph 35 of NAT deposition where he stated –
“35. That the return of the 3rd respondent as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was made against the background of corrupt practices perpetuated in all the 36 states of the Federation but which is more pronounced in the nineteen states in Nigeria and the FCT which include Kaduna, Sokoto, Nassarawa, Kwara, Adamawa, Abia, Akwa Ibom, Enugu, Cross River, Rivers, Ebonyi, Bayelsa, Delta, Imo, Anambra, Benue, Lagos, Jigawa, Plateau States.”
Bayelsa got another mention in paragraph 11 of NATSEC when he said-
That the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents were allocated a phantom score of 1,165,625 which represents 94.58% by the 1st respondent. An election expert and distinguished academic, Dr. Jubrin Ibrahim of the Centre for Democracy and Development was quoted by the Associated France Press (AFP) which was broadcasted (sic) in the BC World News of 17th April, 2011 thus:
“In Akwa Ibom State, he was credited with winning 95 percent and in Anambra it was 99%. In this home state, Bayelsa, he took 99.63%. Figures of 95% and above for one party suggest that there are fabricated figures and personally they worry me because they pose serious questions on the credibility of the election.”
Gombe, Kebbi, Borno, Zamfara and Kwara States, got a mention in paragraphs 13 and 14 of NATSEC deposition as follows:-
“13. That in the desperation to give the 3rd respondent geographical spread of 25% of the votes in 2/3 of the 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory the votes scored by the 3rd respondent were inflated in Jigawa, Kaduna and Gombe State.
14. That there was unsupplied of electoral materials in places/states believed to be stronghold of the condidate of the petitioner such as Sokoto, Kano, Kaduna, Taraba, Jigawa, Kebbi, Borno, Zamfara, Kwara, Nassarawa, etc in order to reduce the total votes accruable to the petitioner and its candidate, General Muhammodu Buhari.”
These paragraphs, apart from being expression of opinion not based on any empirical analysis of facts, are clearly hearsay and were also expunged from the records. There is nothing on which to consider the challenge of the votes secured by 3rd respondent in Bayelsa, Lagos and Plateau States. Delta and Kwara States were also listed but there is no evidence in support of the allegation that corrupt practices were perpetrated in those States during the election.
Out of the 14 states where the results of the election are being challenged, the only State where Form EC8A was produced is Anambra State. Since the claim of the petitioner is not predicated on non holding of election, the results of the remaining 8 States of Nassarawa, Abia, Akwa Ibom, Enugu, cross River, Rivers, Ebonyi, Imo and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja cannot be said to have been impugned so as to shift the burden on the 1st respondent. In any event, the allegations in respect of those states are criminal in nature which have not been Proved.
In paragraph 7.1 of his address, learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner has proved the allegations of crime contained in paragraphs 11, 29, 30(1) & (xxiv) of the petition while at the same time making an application for severance of certain paragraphs in the petition where criminal allegations have been made but there was no evidence to establish them. It seems that learned counsel has not made up his mind whether he actually adduced evidence to prove the corrupt practices he alleged in the petition. In view of this confusion, it is better to examine the evidence adduced in respect of paragraphs 30(e) & (f), 31, 32, 36, 37 and 38 of the petition to ascertain the claim by learned counsel that the petitioner proved the allegations of crime that were alleged in the petition. The said paragraphs are reproduced as follows:
“30. The 2nd respondent also maintained that the commission has put security features on the ballot papers and result sheets to frustrate manipulation to the effect that if a ballot box, ballot paper or result sheet is snatched and swapped, the commission would know but notwithstanding the claimed readiness of the 1st Respondent the following corrupt practices and irregularities that substantially affected the result of the election manifested across the nation and were widely reported in the news media during the presidential election held on the 16th day of April, 2011 as follows:
[e] Your petitioner will contend at the trial, however, that when the presidential election was eventually held on the 16th day of April, 2011 your petitioner found that the election materials the 1st and 2nd Respondents claimed were being printed abroad were indeed being produced locally by local companies that were mostly owned by the stalwarts of the 5th respondent that eventually took unilateral responsibility of distributing the election materials with exclusive collusion of the 1st and 2nd respondents while the petitioner was excluded from the exercise. The contract documents establishing award to local contractors are hereby pleaded and shall be relied upon at the trial.
[f] The petitioner will at the trial contend that the return of the 3rd Respondent as the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was made against the background of the above antecedent that was bedeviled by corrupt practices perpetuated in all the 36 States of the federation but more pronounced in the Nineteen States in Nigeria and FCT that comprise the following:
PARTICULARS/FACTS
31. Your petitioner contends that the votes recorded in favour of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents were only a result of multiple thumb printing by a few individuals who secured unlawful access to many ballot papers and thumb printed hundreds of thousands of ballot papers in favour of the 5th respondent’s logo on the ballot papers to give an undue advantage to the 3rd respondent against the legitimate scores of the petitioner.
32. Your petitioner further avers that after this multiple illegal thumb printing of the ballot papers, they were stuffed into the ballot boxes by ad-hoc staff of the 1st respondent with the agents of the 5th respondent to unduly enrich the total scores of votes of the 3rd respondent.
36. Your petitioner avers that corrupt practices perpetuated in the 19 (Nineteen) States herein were high in magnitude and have substantially affected the result of the election in the listed States and consequently the election and return of the 3rd Respondent is invalid.
37. Your petitioner will contend at the trial that when the invalid votes/ballot papers by reason of multiple thumb printing are annulled and voided, the 3rd respondent will not have the 1/4 votes of the 213 of the States in Nigeria which the Constitution demands of him to enable him be declared elected- Neither will the 3rd respondent have the majority of the lawful votes cast in the said election.
38. Your petitioner avers that the result recorded in favour of the 3rd, 4th, 5th Respondents were only a product of corrupt practices brought about by the imposition of lawful restrictions of movement and deployment of armed and civilian security outfits on the orders and instructions of the 3rd Respondent who equally ordered the use of the police and army transport equipments for the deployment of the sensitive election materials without the participation of the petitioner or its representative the effect of which action resulted into the following incidents relating to the presidential election held on the 16th day of April, 2011 across Nigeria.
ABUJA:
a. In the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, the Petitioner shall lead evidence to show that the 5th respondent and its agents gave out huge amounts of money and other items such as bags of rice, soap, salt, sugar, etc to prospective voters in the FCT as inducement to vote for the 3rd and 4th Respondents in the presidential election held on the 16th day of April, 2011.
b. Furthermore financial inducements and sundry materials were distributed by 5th Respondent’s agents to different groups of people that include their party executives from Gwagwalada, Kuje, Bwari, and Abubja Municipal councils as well as district heads as early as 7.00am on Friday, the 15th day of April, 2011.
RIVERS:
Another area of serious concern is that of massive thumb-printing which was observed in all the Local Government Areas of Rivers State particularly in Soku and Akuku-Toro LGA.
BENUE:
a. The petitioner shall produce evidence with regards to multiple thumb printing of ballot papers, ballot box snatching in Benue State, particularly at Achia Ikyurav-Ya in Kwanda LGA, in Shough Council ward, and Gweru East LGA.
b. The presidential election in Benue State was greeted by vote apathy with most polling units recording less than 50% of registered voters. The poling units in Guma, Gwer West and Gwer Local Government Areas were marked by low voter turnout and yet higher result was recorded for the 5th Respondent.
c. In Laav Ward in Guma Local Government Area, the ballot boxes in all 23 poling unit were snatched at gun point and even in that instance, a Congress for Progressive Change ward Chairman was beaten and his motor bike destroyed.
d. In Gwer West, four Congress for Progressive Change supporters were killed while attempting to prevent ballot box snatching. Similarly, in Polling Unit 008, of Ward 3 Otuhpo, Benue State, a ballot box was stolen and petitioner’s supporters were injured in the process.
GOMBE:
Intimidation of voters, compromising of the 1st Respondent officials by state sponsored thugs, governors and the police took place on a large scale in Gombe South i.e. Billiri, Balanga and Kaltunga Local Government Areas.
TARABA:
a. There was direct interference of voting process in the presidential election in scaring voters, snatching and swapping of ballot boxes with ballot boxes filled with thumb printed ballot papers that was organized in Suntai (Jalingo Local Government Area) and distributed to five LGAs accompanied by state sponsored thugs and police.
b. The events stated above were also prevalent in Bali, Karim Lamido, Takum, Wukuri and Donga Local Government Areas.
ADAMAWA:
In Adamawa State, there was no voting in many polling units in several LGAs in the hinterland. In addition there were large scale cases of abuse of electoral process such as snatching and swapping of ballot boxes in Fufore, Jada, Demsa, Guyuk, Numon, Lamurde, Toungo, Gire, Gombi, Hong and Michika Local Government Areas. Furthermore, thugs were openly used to intimidate voters and force prearranged ballot boxes and result sheets on the presiding officers of polling units and collation centres.
SOKOTO:
There were cases of violence and intimidation in some parts of Sokoto State where Traditional rulers and security operatives were used to impose directives on voters to vote for the 5th Respondent i.e. (PDP).
KADUNA:
a. In Kaduna State, there was massive rigging through multiple thumb printing and ballot stuffing especially in Southern Kaduna comprising of about seven Local Government Areas that include Kauro, Kauru, Jema’a, Kachia, Kagarko, Sanga, Zangon Kataf and Kajuru L.G.A. In addition, intimidation of voters by agents of the 5th respondent acting in concert with security agencies was widespread. Further, violence was wide spread in the course of which the residence of the petitioner’s deputy governorship candidate (Walin Zango Alh. Bala Yusuf Umar) in Zangon Kataf was vandalized and he was nearly lynched.
b. In some other areas of the State, Fulani herdsmen who came for voting particularly in Kogomo, Aso and Bade of Jema’a Local Government Areas were chased away by thugs hired by the 5th respondent.
c. In Sabon Tasha and Narayi, both in Chikun Local Government Areas, agents of petitioner were chased away by thugs hired by 5th Respondent following their protest at seeing swapping of ballot boxes.
NASSARAWA:
The petitioner shall lead evidence in respect of Nassarawa State to show that voters loyal to the Petitioner were intimidated and harassed by thugs and security operatives at the instance of the 5th respondent.
ENUGU:
a. In Enugu State, wide spread violence and intimidation of voters disrupted the electoral process. Evidence shall be led to establish that there was no accreditation of voters and in several parts of the State while in some other parts of the State voting was closed before the time assigned by the 1st Respondent.
b. Notwithstanding the low turnout of voters the result announced in fovour of the 3rd and 4th Respondents by 1st Respondent was as a result of manipulation, multiple thumb printing and wrong entries at collation centres, i.e. ward, Local Government and State levels.
AKWA IBOM, RIVERS AND BAVELSA:
a. The Petitioner shall at the hearing demonstrate that malpractices such as violence and intimidation of voters were wide spread in Akwa Ibom State. Notwithstanding the low turnout of voters the result announced in favour of 3rd and 4th Respondents by 1st Respondent was a result of manipulation, multiple thumb printing and wrong entries at collation centres i. e. Ward, Local Government and State levels.
b. In respect of Rivers and Bayelsa States the Petitioner similarly pleads that notwithstanding the low turnout of voters the result announced in favour of the 3rd and 4th respondents by 1st Respondent was as a result of manipulation, multiple thumb printing and wrong entries at collation centres i. e. Ward, Local Government and State levels.
JIGAWA:
a. There was a deliberate and systematic non-accreditation of voters at polling stations known to be populated by supporters of the petitioner through intimidation, harassment and claim of shortage of voting materials aimed at disenfranchising the supporters of the petitioner.
b. The instances of the breaches stated above were all over Jigawa State including Dutse, Hadejia, Babura, Kiyawa, Jahun, Kazaure, Yan Kwashi, Buji, Kaugama, Guri, Gumel and Gwaram Local Government Area.
c. Traditional Rulers and village heads were directly involved in identifying voters sympathetic to the petitioner and causing them to be arrested and detained on the polling date to deliberately disenfranchise them and purposely short-change the petitioner and confer advantage on the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents took advantage of non-accreditation of voters to prevail on the agents of the 1st respondent to inflate figures to the advantage and short-change the petitioner.”
ABIA:
The Petitioner called five witnesses for Abia State namely PW3, PW 13, PW 34, PW 36, who alleged low turn- out of voters, massive thumb printing of ballot papers in favour of 3rd & 4th respondents and filling of Form EC8A with fictitious figures which are criminal allegations. PW 34 adopted witness deposition marked AK instead of AH. His evidence like that of PW 1 is worthless and must be expunged since he did not depose to the statement marked AH. Of the remaining witnesses PW 13 is the only polling agent for CPC and voted in his polling unit. Since he stayed at his polling unit from 9a.m – 4.00p.m he couldn’t have known the turn- out of voters in Abia State. He does not know the number of registered voters in Abia State nor the number of people that voted. Despite the tendering of Exh. PEP 7 , the allegations made on the conduct of the election in Abia State were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
ENUGU:
Three witnesses testified for the petitioner, Emeka Okorie was the CPC polling agent for Abo Primary School Polling Unit in Unualilu, Udi Local Government Area. He alleged that accreditation and voting were carried out simultaneously despite his protests and the turn-out of voters in all the polling units he visited was low. PW 22 said there were 632 registered voters but by 12 noon when accreditation was supposed to end 240 had been accredited but accreditation continued and the final figures accredited was 324. In spite of this the respondents were credited with 500 votes which shows that many people voted more than twice for the 3rd & 4th respondents. It was also alleged that thugs intimidated, harassed and drove away voters who were sympathetic to the petitioner. When cross-examined he said Sunday Onoh was the CPC agent at the Polling Unit. This gives a lie to his claim that he was the CPC agent at the Abo primary School Polling unit where the multiple voting allegedly took place. He could not say how many people were ticked as having voted and he did not know the number of votes cast. No voters register was produced. Despite the claim by PW 30 that a female NYSC ad hoc staff was caught with 55 thumb printed ballot papers which led to the arrest of the culprit, RW 2, Amadi Chukwunulu Chinyere was called by the respondents and she denied that she was arrested. The petitioner neither produced the recovered 55 thumb printed ballot papers nor called the Divisional Police Officer in-charge of Ogui Police Station in Enugu State to confirm the arrest. The alleged malpractices in Enugu State were not established and the summary of results for the Local Government Councils in Enugu State which was tendered as Exh. PEP 13 therefore stand.
IMO STATE:
The petitioner called 5 witnesses in respect of the Presidential Election in Imo State. They were PW 2, Sarifu Mustapha who headed the team that analysed Forms EC8A of all the Polling Units in Imo State but issued a report in respect of Enugu State. He said that all the CPC agents signed the result. He was in Ilorin throughout the day of the election where he voted. He agreed that he was not a forensic analyst by profession. The next witness was PW 26, Ogu Chika Odi who alleged that the Presidential election was marred by corrupt practices, violence and violations of regulations made by the 1st respondent for conduct of the election. He said there was no accreditation of voters in 213 of the Polling Units in Imo State. He deposed that the Resident Electoral Commissioner for Imo State was withdrawn after he had bungled the Governorship election. When cross-examined, he stated that over 2000 polling agents reported that accreditation did not take place. He also admitted that he was not a polling agent in any polling unit and that the agents who made a report to him were alive when he made his witness deposition. He did not vote at the election. He was aware of the press conferences of 24/4/2011 and 14/5/2011 which the Chairmen of the CPC in the South/Eastern Zone addressed in which they conceded the defeat of the CPC where they described the election as free and fair. PW27, Ebere Ihekoronye, also testified for the petitioner where he alleged that the 1st respondent in collusion with agents of 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents hoarded ballot papers which were later turned over to the agents of 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents who engaged in multiple thumb printing. Under cross-examination he said he did not know the number of registered voters in St. Paul’s Primary School Polling unit and that INEC did not display any voters register since accreditation did not take place. He also did not go to his polling unit to vote. This witness also alleged that the election materials were carted away after multiple thumb printing had taken place. Elder Obina Amadi testified as PW28. Although he stated in his witness statement that there was hundred of votes cast for the petitioner which was not recorded but destroyed by the presiding officer in collusion with agents of the 3rd and 5th respondents, he denied stating that fact under cross-examination. The last witness the petitioner called for Imo State was PW29, Iyke Unakwe who claimed that there was no accreditation of voters in 213 of the polling units in Imo State. He alleged so many corrupt practices against the 3rd – 5th respondents which occurred with the connivance of the 1st respondent. He alleged that there were multiple thumb printing, ballot box snatching and stuffing, doctored Forms EC8A which did not correspond with the figures in Form EC8B. He even alleged that fake Forms ECSA were taken to the polling stations while the original result sheets were left in the homes of stalwarts of 5th respondent who used same to manipulate and facilitate victory of the 3rd respondent and that the Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University of Technology, Owerri whose wife was running mate to the PDP Governorship candidate of Imo State was the Returning Officer of that State in the Presidential Election. Under cross examination he stated that he was not present in the hall where the Returning Officer announced the result of the Presidential Election in Imo State and that he did not witness all the electoral offences he enumerated.
The respondents called four witnesses, one of whom was Prof. Enoch Akobundu who was the Returning Officer for Imo State in the presidential Election. He said he was asked to proceed to Imo State from his base in the University of Agriculture Umudike just before the presidential election because the Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University of Technology, Owerri who had been appointed as the Returning Officer could not carry out the assignment because his wife was the running mate to the PDP Gubernatorial candidate for the State. He denied that there was shortage of election materials. He said he transcribed the figures contained in Exh. PEP 14Â Â & 14A into 1A and 1B and he invited the agents present including that of the CPC to sign. He also denied receiving any complaint from any of the agents of the party. He explained that the alterations contained in exhibits PEP 14 and 14A were mathematical errors which were corrected before the agents signed. There is nothing like signing a document in protest. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt since they were criminal in nature.
EBONYI:
The petitioner called PW 40 who stated in his witness deposition that he headed the team of experts who collected all the Forms EC8 series used in entering the election results for the election in Ebonyi State and after analysing them he submitted a report in respect of Enugu State. The cross-examination showed he was not a polling agent in the South East. No evidence was led on the corrupt practices which were alleged to have been perpetrated in the 36 States in which Ebonyi was included in paragraph 30(f) (11) of the petition.
AKWA IBOM:
In Akwa Ibom the photographs which PW 42 took showing agents of 3rd and 5th respondents openly canvassing and soliciting for votes and those distributing money to voters were not produced in court. Also PW 43 took photographs of snatched ballot papers which were abandoned in the street but failed to produce them in court. This witness contradicted himself when he claimed in one breadth that the traditional rulers warned the people not to vote for the opposition at the polling unit and turned round to say that the traditional rulers did not go to the polling unit to vote.
CROSS RIVER:
In Cross River State five witnesses testified for the petitioner namely PW 7, PW 11, PW 19, PW 39 and PW 46, PW 7 claimed that the results from the 18 Local Government Areas of Cross River State were never collated at the State Collation Centre since the Electoral Commissioner for the State merely asked the Electoral officers in charge of the Local Government Areas to read out the figures or scores which each Party secured. He claimed that Bassey Okon Asuquo who was the agent for the CPC signed the result under pressure. The said Bassey Okon Asuquo was not called to confirm signing the result under pressure. PW 11 who deposed to the fact that in Ugep Urban, Yakurr Local Government with a voting population of 42,000 the turn- out was less than 35% and gave a breakdown of some polling units where those who voted totalled 1411 nonetheless stated under cross-examination that less than 700 voted in the Central Senatorial District of cross River State which has 58 wards. PW39 deposed that in one of the wards in Cross River State the total number of registered voters was 6031 but a total number of 377,517 valid votes were returned in Form EC 8A. He neither produced the Form EC 8A where the outrageous figures were entered nor did he state the ward in question.
RIVERS:
The deposition of PW 8 as a supervisor/monitoring agent for the CPC in Rivers State in coming to the conclusion that the turnout for the presidential election ranged from 41-59% as against the 76.4% posted by the 1st respondent is at best whimsical since he did not state the basis on which he made the assessment.
JIGAWA:
PW31 deposition that the massive deployment by the President of armed security personnel who stopped voters from Sule Tankarkar and Gumel Local Government Areas from voting thereby reducing the votes of the petitioner and ensuring that 3rd respondent secured the mandatory 1/4 of the votes in Jigawa must be discountenanced since the soldiers and Police were not made parties to the petition. PW 32 alleged irregularities and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Electoral Act and cited non-accreditation of voters in 13 wards of Dutse Local Government which enabled 3rd and 4th respondents to gain the minimum 25% vote requirement in the State. And PW 33 deposed that traditional rulers in Madobi and Limawa Wards of Dutse Local Government Council intimidated voters against voting for the petitioner. The voters registers were not produced to prove non accreditation. In spite of the allegation of non -accreditation it was CPC that won in Jigawa State. Assuming the allegation that voting took place without accreditation of voters, the votes credited to the CPC and PDP ought to be cancelled.
NASSARAWA:
PW 41 adopted the deposition identified as NASS. What took place in Ebonyi is the same thing that was replicated in Nassarawa State. The Forms EC 8A on which the comparative analysis was done were not produced so the result posted for Nassarawa State cannot be impugned.
KATSINA:
In Katsina State, PW 25 and PW 47 testified for the petitioner. PW 25 said he participated in the collation of results from the Local Government Councils in the State which was recorded in Form EC 8A and the petitioner was declared the winner with 1,163,919 votes while the 5th respondent was credited with 282,477 votes and when he calculated the percentage score by 5th respondent, he found that the party won 22.87% but he was surprised when the 1st respondent published that the PDP won 25.53% of the total votes cast in the State.
Exhibit PEP 67 and 67A showing the summary of results from the Local Government Areas showed that the total number of votes consisting of both the valid and rejected votes was 1,715,924. The valid votes were 1,639,532 and out of this figure CPC scored 1,163,919 while the PDP secure d 428,392 votes. These figures were also posted in the summary of all the States and FCT which was admitted as exhibited PEP 21. The claim by the petitioner that PDP had 282,477 votes instead of 428,392 can only be sustained by the production of Forms EC 8A to prove that the votes scored by the 5th respondent were inflated which it failed to do.
TARABA:
PW14, PW 15, PW17 and PW 35 testified for the petitioner in respect of the scores from Taraba State. PW 14 was a roving agent of the CPC in charge of Marrabe Ward in Donga Local Government. He alleged that there was a low voter turn-out, short fall in the election materials supplied, vote buying by agents of the 3rd and 5th respondents, multiple thumb printing of ballot papers and filling of election Forms EC 8A with figures. When he reported the incidences to the Security Operatives they refused to take action to stop the corrupt practices. PW 15 and PW 17 repeated the same allegations in respect of Maihula and Takalafiya Wards of Bali Local Government respectively while the same story was repeated by PW 35 who was the roving agent of the CPC in Jibu Ward of Wukari Local Government. These allegations being criminal in nature were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There was argument over the existence of Marrabe Ward instead of Marraraba Ward. I am of the view that Marrabe is a spelling error for Marraraba. PW 14, PW 15 and PW 17 admitted that they were not polling agents in any of the polling units. RW 30 and RW 31 who testified for the respondents only visited the wards of Marraraba and Takatafiya respectively. Despite the paucity in the evidence presented by both the petitioner and respondents the party who stood to lose is the petitioner since there was no burden placed on the respondents to discharge.
ZAMFARA:
PW 12 gave evidence of the votes cast in Zamfara State where the CPC got 624,515 votes and the PDP had 238,980 votes. When he calculated the votes scored by the PDP he discovered that the Party won 24.45% of the total votes cast but he was surprised when he saw the publication by 1st respondent that PDP had 25.35%. He alleged that the staff of the 1st respondent altered the recorded figures on the Form EC 8D to the electoral advantage of the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents. The total number of votes which was cast in Zamfara State during the presidential election was 979,322. Out of this figure 942,679 were valid votes while 36,643 were rejected votes’ Exhibit PEP 83 showing summary of results from all the Local Government Areas of Zamfara State were signed by all the agents of the Political parties and the 25.35% score entered in favour of the 5th respondent is correct.
FCT, ABUJA
PW 18 whose deposition is contained at pages 73 – 74 and identified as EX in the witness depositions of the petitioner alleged that the incumbent President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ordered a ban or unlawful restriction of movement and deployment of armed and civilian security outfits who ordered the use of the police and army transport equipment for the deployment of sensitive electoral materials without the participation of the petitioner which led to the interference by agents of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents intermeddling with these sensitive materials that caused compromise of the presidential election. He also stated that the restriction on movement of Nigerians as ordered by the 3rd respondent was a ploy by the 3rd respondent to take umbrage under security to tamper with sensitive electoral materials in order to gain undue election advantage.
I do not think there was anything illegal in getting army and police to transport sensitive election materials which were used for the election. The burden of proving that agents of the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents had access to the said sensitive electoral materials rested with the petitioner who did not adduce any evidence in proof of the allegation. The restriction imposed on movement was to ensure orderly conduct of the election.
All the documents tendered including Forms EC8A for Anambra which are 138 in number and collectively marked Exh. PEP 86 were merely dumped on the court. PW47 stated in his deposition that he headed the team that examined all the forms EC8A of all the polling units in Anambra State but issued a report in respect of Enugu State. Even if it is conceded to the petitioner that the analysis carried out in respect of Anambra revealed mistakes or miscalculation which affected the results in that state this is insufficient to dent the outcome of the results in the 36 states. It is to be observed that all other teams which examined the results of Abia, Ebonyi and Imo States for which Forms EC8A were not produced also turned in reports in respect of Enugu State. This is reflected in the depositions of PW3 (KPW), PW 40 (KPX) and PW2 (KPY) at pages 144 – 146; 141 – 143 and 138 – 140 respectively of the witness depositions by petitioner’s witnesses.
The onus to establish non compliance is with the petitioner. In Buhari v. Obasanjo supra the Supreme Court per Ejiwunmi, J.S.C. held at page 222 as follows:
“….the onus lies on the appellants to establish first substantial non-compliance. Secondly that it did or could have affected the result of the election. It is after the appellants have established the foregoing that the onus would have shifted to the respondents to establish that the results was not affected.”
See Ibrahim v Shaqari (1983) 2 SCNLR 176.
This court stated in Chima v. Ezea (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt.1125) 163 that it is very important that a party seeking nullification of an election must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the Respondent’s case, so that failure of his adversary to call evidence would not relieve the part from satisfying the tribunal by cogent and reliable proof of evidence in support of his petition. In setting aside the decision of the tribunal which required the production of evidence of an election to proceed from the respondents, this court said at page 341:-
“During the trial before the lower tribunal, the petitioner/respondent dropped the other complaints and concentrated on the various acts of non compliance and irregularities “it is in the process of consideration of the complain on non election in most areas that the election tribunal has to consider the burden of proof on the parties. The reasoning of the tribunal is confusing and in my view amounts to contradiction in terms” I must add also that in the proof for non voting it has not deviated from what the courts pronounced in the cases of Ayogu v. Nnamani (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt.981) 160 at 187; Awuse v. Odili (2005) EPR 867; Remi v. Sundav (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt.618); Onoyom v. Egari (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 603) 416 at 425; Okoroji v. Ngwu (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 263) 113.”
The evidence of inflation of scores which affected states like Kwara, Delta, Bayelsa, Edo in favour of the 3rd respondent and the fake ballot papers said to have been printed by Tulip Press meant for Kebbi, Sokoto and Zamfara States or the excess ballot papers printed by Tulip press which were used to inflate the scores of the 3rd respondent in Cross River, Akwa Ibom, Rivers, Delta, Bayelsa, Edo, Enugu, Anambra, Imo, Abia and Ebonyi States amounted to hearsay evidence and all the allegations were contained in the witness depositions on pages 8-14 and 17-55 which have been expunged. So there is no iota of evidence whatsoever which the petitioner adduced in Kwara, Bayelsa, Edo, Kebbi, Sokoto and Zamfara that required any rebuttal by the 1st respondent.
Since the petitioner conceded that the petition was not based on the allegations of corrupt practices but on substantial non-compliance, for non-compliance to render the elections invalid or contrary to the Electoral Act, it must be so great and substantial and the Court or Tribunal must be satisfied that it affected or might have affected the majority of the votes or the result of the election. The Supreme Court restated the law on non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006 in Buhari v INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (pt.1120) 246 at 436 – 436:
246 at 435 – 436:
“…the law as it stands requires the petitioner after establishing the substantial non-compliance occasioned by breach of section 45(1) and (2) of the Act, to go ahead and prove that the non-compliance affected the result of the election. It is clear from the decided authorities that before a petition can succeed on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, the petitioners must prove not only that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act but that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the elections. In other words, the petitioner has two burdens to prove:-
i) That the non-compliance took place and
ii) That the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. See Akinfosile v. Ijose (1960) SCNLR 447; Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt.941) 1 and Awolowo v. Shagari (1979) 6 – 9 SC 51. The petitioner could only succeed in this instance if he was able to prove that the failure to comply with section 45(2):
i) Disenfranchised a particular number of his voters.
ii) The number of votes he would have secured but for this default
iii) How many voters were deceived by this omission and how they would have affected the eventual outcome of the result.”
From whichever angle this petition is looked at, it is clear that the burden of proof of the all allegations contained in the petition be they criminal or for substantial non-compliance rested with the petitioner. The petitioner did not discharge this burden to warrant rebuttal evidence to be adduced by the 1st set of respondents. Also since the petitioner did not allege that elections did not hold, the 1st set of respondents could not be saddled with any onus to prove that the election actually took place. The petitioner did not discharge the burden of proof even on the balance of probability. Upon a dispassionate scrutiny of the pleadings and the totality of the evidence adduced any reasonable tribunal will discern that the allegations of crime are inextricably connected or tied to the allegation of non compliance. Almost all the paragraphs of the petition are replete with allegations of corrupt practices such as rigging, inflation of votes which was done with the tacit connivance of the 1st respondent, sharing of money to Presiding Officers who assisted in multiple thumb printing and allocation of votes to the 5th respondent with a view to conferring undue advantage on the 3rd and 4th respondents.
As the result of the election was not successfully challenged, the 3rd respondent scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election and secured the mandatory one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two thirds of all the states in the Federation and in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Consequently, the 3rd and 4th respondents won the election conducted by the 1st respondent on 16th April, 2011 and were returned by the 2nd respondent as the duly elected President and Vice-President respectively of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The petition fails in its entirety and it is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.: I agree.
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.: I agree
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I agree
OBANDE OGBUINYA, J.C.A.: I agree.
Appearances
APPEARANCES FOR THE PETITIONER
Oladipo Okpeseyi, SAN, Abubakar Malami (SAN), Ademola Olowoyeye, A. B. Mahmud, Esq., Ismaila Alasa, Esq., S. O. Imhanobe, Esq., Chuks Nwana, O. O. Obono Obla, Esq., J. O. Obono-Obla (Mrs.), Tope Adebayo, Joshua Akor, Esq., Mary Ekpere (Miss), Daisy Anagende, Esq. For Appellant
AND
APPEARANCE FOR 1ST, 2ND, 6TH – 42ND DEFENDANTS.
Chief A. S. Awomolo, SAN; A. B. Mahmoud, SAN; Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN; H. M. Liman, SAN; I. K. Bawa; Ahmed Raji; Abdullahi Bello; V. O. Awomolo (Mrs.); Patience O. Ofeyi (Mrs.); Wale Balogun, Esq.; Eyitayo Fatogun, Esq.; Seun Alabi, Esq.; Hajara Baba-Ajanah (Mrs.); Onyinyechi Ezindu (Miss); Kehinde Ogunwumiju; Aminu Sadauki; Prisca Ozalesike (Miss); I. M. Dikko; Marcus Abu, Esq; Ebuka Nwaeze, Esq., Hadi Jazuli; Y. D. Dangana; Abdullahi Auta; I. Uwa; Chinedu Onyechi-Ikpeazu; Adeola Adedipe; Baraka Ali (Miss); Oluwasanmi Aiysmowa, Esq.; Fatima Buhar; D. E. Daniel; Feyisayo Folorunso (Mrs.); Ephraim Ajijola, Esq., Anulika Osigwe (Miss); Iheanyi Uwa; Lynda Otuoniyot (Miss); Aliyu Abdullahi; Lynda Chuba Ihpeazu; Mavis Ekwechi; Iloegbunam Oge. P.; Nwabueze Heyimna G.; Nweke Tobechukwu.
APPEARANCES FOR 3RD & 4TH RESPONDENTS
Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN; Dr. Alex A. Izinyon, SAN; D. D. Dodo, SAN; Mr. Ighodalo Imadegbelo, SAN; Mr. J. T. U. Nnodum’ SAN; Mr. O. A. Omonuwor SAN; Dr. Fabian Ajogwu SAN; F. F. Egele, Esq.; Chief (Sir) E. C. Nwanedo; Abimbola Kayode, Esq.; Uche Obi, Esq.; Gbenga Adeyemi, Esq., A. L. Yabidu, (Miss), Hannatu Abdurrahman (Mrs.), U. Egbon, Esq., Joshua E. Alobo, Esq., I. Okulaja (Mrs.), Barbara Omosun (Miss), Otonvwen Ibori, Oyin Koleosho, Esq., Okonache Ogor, Esq., Aisha Ali (Miss), Nnamdi Ekwem, Esq., Alex Izinyon (II), Esq., Ginika Ezeoke, Esq.
APPEARANCES FOR 5TH RESPONDENT PDP
Chief Joe Kyari- Gadzama, Dr. (Sir) Amaechi Nwaiwu, SAN; Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN, Adebayo Adenipekun, SAN, Chief Duro Adeyele, SAN, Chief Chukwuma Uchenna Ekomaru, SAN, Prof. Andrew Chukwmerie, SAN, Dr. Joe Nwobike, SAN, Arthur O. Okafor, SAN, Garba Pwul, SAN, M. A. Abubakar, Esq., J. N. Egwuonwu, Esq., Aruodo Uche (Miss), Sola Ephriam Oluwanuga, mni,, M. Monguno, Esq., Chief Olusola Oke, Rotimi Ojo, Esq., Abdul Ibrahim, Esq., J. O. Adesina (Mrs.), M, M. Bakari, Esq., Magai Vimtim Magai, Esq., E. S. Oluwabiyi, Esq., Oladele Gbadeyan, Esq., Ayodeji Olakunle Bobaderin, Esq., A. C. Ozioko, Esq., Afam Osigwe, Esq., Nneka Bon-Nwakanm (Mrs), Oludayo Famakin-Johnsons, Esq., C. P. Oli, Esq., Theophilus Okwute, Esq., N. N. Shaltha (Miss), Abimbola Arowosebe (Miss), Chinyere Onyedim (Miss), I. D. Odanwu, Esq., A. S. Akingbade, Esq., D. H. Bwala, Esq., U. M. Jawur, Esq., Babatunde Adewusi, Esq., Chijioke Uwandu, Esq., Funmilayo Oshunwusi (Miss), Ngozi Udokwu (Miss), Ifeanyi Okechukwu, Esq., Ewuwuni Onnoghen (Miss), I. H. Ngada, Esq., Ayo Babalola, Esq., J. M. Ugbeji (Miss), Odom Ifeanyi, Esq., C. T. Danjema, Esq., Adanaya Gaya, Esq., Dalatu Saleh, Esq., Alade A. Glory, (Miss), F. I. Nwodo, Esq., O. O. Ogunlade, Esq., B. S. Barau, Esq., Kukoyi Tinuola Adetoun (Miss) G. O. Diugwu, Esq. For Respondent
