Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Alahassan V. Ishaku (2016) CLR 2(L) (SC)

Judgement delivered on the 22nd of February, 2016

Brief

  • Locus standi
  • Defective Pleadings
  • Inadmissible evidence
  • Election petition – Non qualification of candidate
  • Election petition – Grounds for challenging an election
  • Candidate – Nomination and sponsorship of candidate
  • Party primaries – Jurisdiction for issues surrounding
  • Governor – Requirements and Qualification for election to office of
  • Party primaries – Who can complain about
  • Evidence at variance with pleadings
  • Pleadings – Effect of admission in
  • Locus standi – When party deemed to have
  • Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2010
  • Section 177(c) of the Constitution
  • Section 87 (4) of the Electoral Act, 2010
  • Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act Section
  • Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010
  • Section 138(1) (a) of the Electoral Act
  • Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act
  • Section 31(6) of the Electoral Act
  • Section 20 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 21 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 182 of the Constitution

Facts

On 11 February 2016, your lordships heard and dismissed this appeal for reasons to be given on 22 February 2016. These are the reasons that led me to that conclusion.

THE FACTS ARE THESE

On 11 and 25 April 2015 the 3rd Respondent, the regulatory body charged with the conduct of elections in Nigeria conducted election for the office of Governor of Taraba State. There were eleven candidates at that election. The 1st Appellant, sponsored by the 2nd Appellant, and the 1st Respondent sponsored by the 2nd Respondent were candidates at the election. The 1st Respondent was declared the winner of the election with a score of 369,318votes, while the 1st Appellant came in second with 275,984 votes. The 1st Appellant and her party, the 2nd Appellant, were not satisfied with the outcome of the election, and so they filed a petition. The other candidates were satisfied with the outcome of the election.

The Grounds of the Petition are:

  • a
    That the 1st Respondent was at the time of the election, not qualified to contest for the Office of Governor of Taraba State, having not been sponsored by a political party, a condition precedent prescribed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 (as amended)
  • b
    That the election and return of 1st Respondent was invalid by reason of substantial non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and Approved Guidelines and Regulations for the conduct of 2015 General Elections and Manual for Election Officials 2015 which non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election.
  • c
    That the election and return of 1st Respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices which vitiated the election.
  • d
    That contrary to result declared by 3rd Respondent, the 1st petitioner indeed won majority of lawful votes cast and satisfied the mandatory constitutional threshold and spread across the local government areas of Taraba State and ought to have been declared winner and returned as the duly elected Governor of Taraba State at the 11 April and 25 April 2015 election.

The Petitioners prayed for the following:

  • 1
    That it may be determined that the 1st Respondent was at the time of the election having failed to meet the constitutional requirement of being sponsored by a political party.
  • 2
    That it may be determined that the return of the 1st Respondent as the Governor of Taraba State in the election held on 11 and 25 April, 2015 is void for corrupt practices and substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
  • 3
    That it may be determined that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected or returned in the pulling units complained of in Ardo-Kola, Bali, Donga, Ibbi, Jalongo, KarimLamido, Kurme, Lau Takum, Ussa, Wukari, Yorro and Zing Local Governments of Taraba State by majority of lawful votes cast at the Governorship election held on 11 and 25 April, 2015.
  • 4
    That it may be determined that the 1st Petitioner scored the majority of lawful votes cast in the election held on 11 and 25 April, 2015 and satisfied the constitutional requirement and is entitled to be returned by the 3rd Respondent as having been duly elected Governor of Taraba State in the election held on 11 and 25 April, 2015.

    • The Petitioners ask for the following reliefs:

    • 1
      AN ORDER that the 1st Petitioner be issued forthwith with a certificate of return as the duly elected Governor of Taraba State, pursuant to the election held on 11 and 25 April 2015.
    • 2
      In the alternative to (3) and (4) above, that it may be determined that the elections in the polling units and wards in Ardo-Kola, Bali, Donga, Ibbi, Jalingo, Karim, Lamido, Kurme, Lau Takum, Ussa, Wukari, Yorro and Zing Local Governments of Taraba State characterised by electoral irregularities and non-compliance (i.e. over-voting) in the Governorship election held on 11 and 25 April, 2015 are invalid and that fresh elections be held in the said local Government Areas, amongst the contestant who participated in the original election, and that result of the fresh election in the affected Local Government Areas be added to the scores of the respective candidates to determine and declare the eventual winner of majority of lawful and valid votes cast amongst the same contestants who stood nominated and entitled to contest the said election on 11 and 25 April, 2015.

      • The Respondents responded with their replies urging the Court to dismiss the entire petition. At the hearing of the petition the Appellants' called seventy-nine witnesses while the 1st Respondent called fifty-one witnesses. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents called a witness each. On hundred and twenty three documents were admitted as exhibits. The 1st Appellant's case is that she scored the majority of lawful votes cast in the election and is entitled to be returned by the 3rd Respondent as the duly elected Governor of Taraba State. And that the 1st Respondent is not qualified to have contested the elected for the office of Governor of Taraba State since he was not sponsored by a Political Party (in this case the (PDP) as contemplated under Section 177 of the Constitution.

      On the election the Election Tribunal said:

      "...the Petitioners have failed to prove over voting and other malpractices allegedly founded on the non-use or improper use of the card reader by the 3rd Respondent..."

      And on the qualification of 1st Respondent to contest election for the office of Governor of Taraba State the Election Tribunal said:

      "... having found that the purported nomination of the 1st Respondent never took place, he was therefore in law not sponsored by the 2nd Respondent he never participated in the Taraba State Governorship election held on 11 and 25 April 2015. Accordingly all the votes purportedly cast for the 1st Respondent on the 11 and 25 April 2015 are wasted votes... Having found that the 1st Respondent was not duly sponsored by a Political Party as required by the Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2010 he could not have qualified to contest the election in question."

      On this reasoning the Election Tribunal declared the 1st Appellant the winner of the election. The 1st and 2nd Respondents lodged an appeal. It was heard by the Court of Appeal Abuja. That Court upset the judgment of the Election Tribunal when it said that:

      ".... we are of the view that the Appellants' appeal is meritorious and it is hereby allowed. The judgment of the Taraba State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal delivered on 7 December 2015 is hereby set aside in its entirety."

      The following consequential orders are hereby made:

      • 1
        The Election and return of the Appellant as the Governor of Taraba State in the elections of 11 and 25 April 2015 is hereby upheld and sustained.
      • 2
        The Certificate of Return issued to the Appellant by the 4th Respondent to this appeal remains valid.
      • 3
        The Petition of the 1st and 2nd Respondents is hereby dismissed in Toto.

        • This appeal is against that judgment.

Issues

Having regard to Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as...

Read More