-
1
A Declaration that by reason of the arbitrary failure of the 3rd Respondent to display copies of Voters List, publish Supplementary Voters' Register and in the manner and form commanded by the Electoral Act 2006 the said Presidential Election is null and void for non-compliance with the minimal requirements of due process sine qua non and condition precedent for the conduct of democratic election prescribed by law.
-
2
A Declaration that failure to conduct the said election at all in any place (no matter how remote or few the number of voters) is inimical to the concept and basis of equality under the law and violates the rights of the affected voters (guaranteed by the Constitution) that they be not discriminated against.
-
3
A Declaration that by the arbitrary manner the said election was conducted without regard to due process of the law in all or any part of the Country, or at all, amounts to nullifying the franchise and sovereignty of the people of Nigeria as a whole.
-
4
A Declaration that the manner and form of the conduct of the said election was a usurpation of the franchise and sovereignty of the people.
-
5
A Declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were 1101 qualified for election to the office of President and Vice President respectively or at all.
-
6
An Order nullifying and invalidating the return of Musa Yar'adua and Goodluck Jonathan, the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein as President and Vice President, elect respectively.
-
7
An Order nullifying the said election and commanding the 3rd Defendant to conduct another election for the office of President of Nigeria in the manner and form prescribed by law but without the 4th Respondent as its Chairman.
-
8
An Order of injunction commanding the 4th Respondent to cease and desist from running the affairs of the 3rd Respondent.
-
9
A Declaration that the declaration of the 1st and 2nd Respondents as winners of the said election is invalid, unconstitutional null and void.
In keeping with the requirements of the Practice Directions the petition was accompanied by a written Statement on Oath of one Dr. Paul Dike.
By a motion dated 1st August, 2007 and filed on the 3rd of August 2007, the 1st and 2nd Respondents also prayed the Court below for an order dismissing and/or striking out the petition on the grounds inter alia:
-
i
That the petition is defective and in clear breach of the express provisions of the Electoral Act 2006.
-
ii
That some of the Petitioner's prayers do not flow from the petition.
-
iii
That the petition is not properly constituted as persons or institutions who are proper necessary or desirable parties and whose presence are required for just determination of the petition have not been made parties.
Also, by a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated and tiled on the 3rd August, 2007 the 3rd and 4th Respondents prayed the Court of an order dismissing the petition. The grounds for the objection are stated to be that:
-
1
The Petitioner has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the Respondents, the petition having failed woefully to disclose any constitutional disqualification against the 1st and 2nd Respondents who have not been shown to be disqualified to contest election into the office of President and Vice President respectively.
-
2
The petition has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the Respondents as the grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the petition and the particulars there under as constituted have not shown that the election was not conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act or that the non-compliance affected substantially the result of the election as envisaged under the provisions of Section 145(1) of the Electoral Act 2006.
-
3
The petition is a gross abuse of the process of the Court.
-
4
The Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction and or vires to entertain the petition as constituted.
Written addresses were submitted for and against the two applications. And with the consent of the parties both applications were consolidated and heard together.
By its ruling on the 3rd September, 2007 both applications were sustained and the petition struck out. As I said earlier, this appeal is against that ruling. The parties have through their Counsel filed and exchanged their briefs of argument. The Appellant's Brief of Argument was prepared by James C. Ezike and same was filed on the 5/11/07. He also prepared the Appellant's Reply Brief to the 3rd and 4th Respondents' Brief of Argument and it was dated and filed on the 18/12/07. Mr. James Ezike filed yet another Appellant's Reply Brief to the 1st and 2nd Respondents' Brief of Argument and it was filed on the 17/1/08. The 1st and 2nd Respondents' Brief of Argument was settled by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN and same was filed on the 17/12/07. The joint brief of the 3rd and 4th Respondent w as settled by Kanu G. Agabi, SAN and it was filed on the 28/11/07. J.K. Gadzama, SAN prepared the 5th Respondent's Brief of Argument. This was filed on the 13/5/08.
In the Appellant's Brief of Argument Mr. Ejike submitted four issues for determination. Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN submitted three issues for determination in the 1st and 2nd Respondents Brief of Argument. On behalf of the 3rd and 4th Respondents Kanu G. Agabi, SAN proposed five issues for determination. While Chief Gadzama, SAN submitted only a single issue for determination in the 5th Respondent's Brief.
