Congress For Progressive Change V. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (2011)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.S.C.

The 1st respondent in this appeal, the Independent National Electoral Commission in accordance with its constitutional role in the process of building a democratic society, conducted an election into the offices of the President and Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the 16th of April, 2011. Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), now the appellant was one of the twenty political parties which contested the election sponsoring General Muhammadu Buhari as its presidential candidate and Pastor Babatunde Bakare for the post of Vice President. The 5th respondent, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) also a candidate in the election had Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan as the flag bearer for the office of President and Architect Namadi Sambo as Vice President. At the conclusion of the voting exercise, PDP scored 22,471,370 votes and Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) had 12,211,670 votes. As a result of the foregoing votes, INEC declared PDP and its candidates as winners of the election. Thereupon Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan and Architect Namadi Sambo became the President and Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria having scored the highest number of votes cast at the election and the mandatory one quarter of the votes cast in each of at least two thirds of all the States in the Federation and in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in compliance with the constitutional provision. Vide Section 134 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Congress for Progressive change was aggrieved with the conduct of the election and the return of the 3rd and 4th respondents, challenged the validity of the entire election by presenting a petition before the Court of Appeal Abuja on 8/5/2011. In the petition it joined INEC with all the principal officers, like Chief Electoral Commissioner and the Chief Returning Officer in all the States of the Federation.

The reliefs sought before the trial court are at paragraph 40 Vol.1 of the Record pages 68-69 of the Record of Appeal. They read as follows:

Wherefore the petitioner prays that it may be determined as follows –

(i) That it may be declared that the election and the return of the 3rd and 4th respondents who were sponsored by the 5th respondent is voided by corrupt practices and substantial non-compliances with the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.

(ii) 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, Rivers State, Ebonyi, Bayelsa, Delta, Imo, Anambra, Benue, Lagos, Plateau States and Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

(iii) 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 third of all states in the Federation and in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja

(iv) 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.

(v) 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.

(vi) An order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to arrange another election between the petitioner and the 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.

The respondents filed their respective responses by way of their defence to the petition. Vide Vol.2 pages 469 – 703, Vol. 3 pages 848 – 1120, Vol. 3 pages 1121 to 1405.

The trial court struck out reliefs 4 and 6 in the Ruling delivered on the 14th of July 2011 (Vide vol. 3 pages 824 – 830 of the Records of Appeal). The petition went on trial on Reliefs 1, 2, 3, and 5 only. At the conclusion of trial, parties adopted the written addresses filed by them. In a lucid and well considered judgment of the court below delivered on the 1st of November, 2011, the learned justices of the lower court dismissed the appellant’s petition by making order as follows-