Ignatius Onyenekwu V. Casmir Amasiatu & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.

The Petitioner and the 1st Respondent contested the Election into the Imo State House of Assembly for Oru-East Local Government Constituency which held on 9/1/99. The election was organised by INEC, the 4th Respondent. The petitioner contested on the platform of All Peoples Party (APP), while the 1st Respondent contested under the platform of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). No candidate was fielded by Alliance for Democracy (A.D). At the close of the polls, the 3rd Respondent declared the PDP candidate the winner having scored 11,304 votes to the petitioners 11,587 votes. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the declaration made and filed his petition before the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal holden at Owerri and in paragraph 6 of the Petition he stated the grounds and facts upon which he relied as follows:-

“(a) Some election result sheets for polling booths in Omuma Ward (which the 2nd Respondent collected from the Presiding Officers) I were falsified and mutilated by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents at Owerri and the scores of the 1st Respondent jacked up. The 1st Respondent was not elected by a majority of lawful votes.

(b) The results contained in these result sheets are different from the ones given to the Agents of the Petitioner.

(c) The figures in the original result sheets in the space of the 1st Respondents score were cancelled and higher figures inserted therein by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents aimed at rigging the said election”.

The Petitioner then prayed the honourable Tribunal to:-

(a) Nullify the election of the 1st Respondent as the elected member of the Imo State House of Assembly for Oru-East Local Government Constituency as he was not elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

(b) Hold that the Petitioner scored the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and ought to have been returned as the elected member of the Imo State House of Assembly for Oru-East Local Government Constituency.

(c) Hold that the Petitioner is the elected member of the Imo State House of Assembly for Oru-East Local Government Constituency.”

The 1st Respondent filed his reply to the petition while the 2nd – 4th Respondents filed a joint reply. Except for the admissions made in paragraph 2, 3, 4, 7, 7(a) and 12 of the petition, the Respondents denied all other allegations made in the petition. In paragraph 12 of the reply the 1st Respondent urged the tribunal to:

“1. Hold that the election held on the 9th January 1999 for the House of Assembly in Oru East was conducted substantially in accordance with the Decree.

2. Held that the 1st Respondent was validly elected and returned by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
3. Dismiss the petition.”

2nd-4th Respondents denied falsifying the results in favour of the 1st Respondent and urged the Tribunal to:

1. Hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs he is seeking.
2. That there were no fraudulent and electoral malpractices during the last House of Assembly Election in Oru-East Local Government Area.
3. That the 1st Respondent was duly elected through the majority of lawful votes cast at the said election.”

At the hearing, the petitioner gave evidence on his behalf and called PW2 an INEC official who tendered the results of the election. The 1st Respondent also testified and called 2nd Respondent as RW2 while the 2nd – 4th Respondents rested their case on that of 1st Respondent. In its judgment, the Tribunal made findings of fact and held that falsification was proved in booths J13, J3, J12 and J4 and proceeded to deduct the inflated votes of the 1st Respondent leaving him with 10,884 votes while the petitioner’s votes remained at 11,587. Instead of declaring the petitioner the winner of the said election having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election, it held that the petitioner did not score the majority of lawful vote because of the falsification. It nullified the entire election and ordered for a Bye-election in the constituency between the petitioner and 1st Respondent. Both the petitioner and 1st Respondent are dissatisfied with the nullification of the entire results and consequently have appealed and cross-appealed against the nullification and the other for Bye-Election.

The petitioner in the main appeal will be referred to simply as Appellant while the 1st Respondent/Cross-Appellant will retain the appellation of 1st Respondent.