Ezenwo Nyesom Wike V. Samuel Rogers Icheonwo & Anor (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NSOFOR, J.C.A.

This is an appeal from the decision, on the 20/2/99 of the Local Government Election Tribunal for Rivers State of Nigeria, (hereinafter to be referred to as the tribunal, simply, for short) holden in Port Harcourt.

In the Obio/Akpo Local Government Council Chairmanship election held on the 12/12/98 the contestants in the election included (a) Ezenwo Nyesom Wike contesting on the platform of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP); Cyprian Chukwu for the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and Cyprian Tasie Wike. He contested on the platform of All Peoples Party (APP). At the conclusion of the election exercise, the votes as scored and as recorded for the political parties respectively were as follows:-

(1) 40,370 votes for PDP

(2) 11,441 votes for AD and

(3) 6,833 votes for APP.

But in making a return of the candidate who won the election by scoring the majority of lawful votes, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) (the body statutorily responsible for conducting the elections and the 2nd respondent herein) declared Samuel Rogers Ichenwo (the 1st respondent) the winner. The 1st respondent was or is himself of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Dissatisfied with the return made by the INEC – (2nd respondent), the petitioner challenged the return by filing an election petition.

The petition is copied at pages 1 to 9 of the record. The 1st respondent filed a reply. It is copied in pages 11 to 14 of the record. The 2nd respondent’s reply is contained in pages 21 to 22 of the record. There was also filed a rejoinder (i.e. reply to the 2nd respondent’s reply to the petition) by the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged the return of the 1st respondent on the grounds that:-

“(1) the 1st respondent Samuel Rogers Ichenwo was not a candidate at the election having not been sponsored by any political party and was at the time of the election not qualified or disqualified from being elected.

(ii) the 1st respondent was not duly elected by a majority of valid votes cast at the election, the 1st respondent not being a candidate sponsored by any political party instead it was the petitioner who was duly elected by a majority after valid votes cast at the said election.

Alternatively:-

The petitioner was validly nominated but was unlawfully excluded from the election”.

The petitioner, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs:-