Godwin Koma Omamuli V. Mrs Stella Omu & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, J.C.A. 

In the National Assembly Election held on 20th of February, 1990, Petitioner/Cross-appellant and the 1st Respondent/Appellant were two of the three candidates in the Senatorial Election in Delta South Senatorial District. Petitioner/Cross-appellant contested under the platform of the All Peoples Party – APP while 1st Respondent/Appellant contested under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party – PDP. At the end of the election 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents returned 1st Respondent/Appellant as the winner on the basis that 1st Respondent/Appellant scored 167,225 votes as against Petitioner/Cross-Appellant’s score of 152,156 votes. The Petitioner/Cross-appellant was unhappy with the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent/appellant as the winner of the said election as a result, the Petitioner/Cross-appellant filed an election petition on 8/3/99, and questioned the election on two grounds set out in paragraph 5 of the petition as follows:-

“5. And your Petitioner states that the grounds and facts on which the Petitioner relies are as follows:

GROUND I

That the election in Isoko South L.G.A. was voided, by corrupt practices, offences or non-compliance with the provisions of Decree NO.5 of 1999.

PARTICULARS

(1) While total number of ballots papers released to Isoko South L.G.A. was 78,000 the Isoko South L.G.A. returned a total of 81,561 votes.

(ii) In Olomoro ward, the total votes cast for Petitioner is 2,999 as against 988 for the 1st Respondent. However, at the Ward collation Centre, 3,689 votes were falsely recorded in favour

of the 1st Respondent while that of the Petitioner was reduced to 965 votes.

(iii) In all the Wards of the Local Government Area, the Forms EC8A were removed by the Respondents and their agents and duplicate copies handed to the Supervising Presiding Officers. The first copies were later filed with false results in favour of the 1st Respondent by 1st Respondent’s agents.

(iv) That the result sheets Forms EC8A for the Wards were filled in by the same persons who are agents of first Respondent and therefore bear the same or similar handwriting.

GROUND 2

(1) The 1st Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes.

PARTICULARS