Alhaji (Dr.) Aliyu Akwe Doma & Anor. V. Independent National Electoral Commission (Inec) & Ors (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Markurdi Division delivered on 7th January, 2012 in which the majority decision of the trial Tribunal handed out on 12th November, 2011 was in essence affirmed. The main appeal was dismissed which the cross appeal was allowed in part.

It is apt to assemble the facts leading to this appeal, albeit, briefly. On 26th April, 2011, the 1st respondent conducted election into the office of Governor of Nasarawa State. After the completion of the election the 4th respondent who was the candidate of Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) was declared as winner and returned as duly elected.

The 1st appellant who contested on the platform of the 2nd appellant – Peoples Democratic Party was not happy with the outcome of the election. The 1st appellant and his party jointly, filed a petition before the trial Tribunal in Lafia, Nasarawa State on 17th May, 2011. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents filed a joint reply. The 4th respondent, as well as, filed his own Reply.

The appellants in their petition before the trial Tribunal maintained that the election was conducted peacefully, freely and fairly in the nine (9) Polling Units of Laminga Electoral Ward and Oshugu Polling Unit of Loko Electoral Ward of Nasarawa Local Government Area and in Anna Town Polling unit of Alagye Ward of Doma Local Government Area during the stated election but the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents unjustly excluded and/or refused to include the results and discountenanced the results from the above stated units and wards. Another ground of note for the petition relates to multiple, thumb printing, ballot stuffing, over voting and inflation of results leading to non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

The respondents maintained that the exclusion of results in the stated polling units and wards was justified in that results of election in the affected polling units and wards were cancelled because thugs threatened violence on the respective presiding officers and other electoral officials during the election.

The 4th respondent at the trial Tribunal objected to some votes credited to the appellants by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in three Local Government Areas of Doma, Kokona and Obi in Nasarawa State.

The trial Tribunal considered the evidence placed before it and was duly addressed by all senior counsel for the parties after written addresses were duly filed. In its considered majority judgment of 12th November, 2011, the petition was dismissed. The 4th respondent’s objection to votes was also dismissed. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal of their petition. The 4th respondent cross-appealed against the part of the decision which overruled his objection to votes credited to the appellants in the above stated Local Governments. At the Court of Appeal, the appellants’ appeal was dismissed while the 4th respondent’s cross-appeal was allowed in part.

This is a further and final appeal by the appellants to this court.

In this court, briefs of argument were filed exchanged by senior counsel for the parties. On 27th February, 2012 when this appeal was heard, each learned senior counsel for the parties adopted and relied on the brief of argument filed on behalf of his client. Each senior counsel made submissions galore in a keenly contested petition which was based on a closely contested election with a near photo finish end result.

On behalf of the appellants the eight (8) issues formulated from the 21 grounds of appeal in their Notice of Appeal read as follows:-

“(1) Whether on a proper consideration of ground 8 of the appellants’ Ground of Appeal (in the Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal) and the dismissal of the 4th respondent’s preliminary objection against the appeal on the ground that the same was unfounded, the lower court was right in its decision striking out that ground 8.

Ground 1.

(2) Whether having regard to the different issues raised by the appellant’s appeal in the lower court relating to various errors of law committed by the Tribunal, the lower court properly reduced the issues to a matter of proof and standard of proof thereby leaving other issues unconsidered and unresolved and whether in all the circumstances of the appeal, it can be said that the lower court did justice to the appeal of the appellants Grounds, 2, 8, 20 and 21.