Sugun Maimele V. Alhaji Tijani Goni Mohammed & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.C.A. 

This appeal emanates from the decision of the Local Government Council Election Tribunal of Borno State sitting at Maiduguri in the election petition presented by Alhaji Tijjani Mohammed (as the petitioner) against the declaration of Sugun Mai Mele as the winner of the election for the chairmanship seat of Guzamala Local Government Council. At the Election Tribunal the 1st respondent in this appeal was the petitioner and contested the election as a candidate of the All People’s Party (APP) while the appellant herein (i.e, the 1st respondent before the tribunal) contested as a candidate under the platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

The main complaints of the petitioner as articulated in his amended petition were founded on firstly, non qualification of the 1st respondent to contest the election as he was still a senior staff of Mobbar Local Government Damasak and did not properly “withdraw or resign his appointment”, Secondly, on various acts of corrupt practices, irregularities, violence and electoral offences, and thirdly, on the inconclusiveness of the elections. For each of these grounds the petitioner set forth copious and prolix facts in support. Amongst other things, he particularly highlighted the lateness of the INEC staff at the Local Government Council Headquarters hence the election materials could not be distributed timely enough and voting had to protract to the next day being Sunday 6/12/98 at various centres including Ari Gambori, Kadure, Adduwa, Hassanti Noram and Kadiyyi, violence at most polling units; tampering with the ballot boxes, impersonation by presiding officers including one Baba Shehu as PDP agents at Mastaphari polling unit; rampant voting without accreditation at Wamri and Kiugarwa Wards; excess returns from Kadugre; Bossoma Guworam polling units.

As regards the inconclusiveness of the elections the petitioner relied on the failure to conduct elections at all at certain centres including Aduwa Ward.

The background of this petition would not be complete without setting forth the reliefs sought in the amended petition thus:

(a) a declaration that the 1st respondent is not a person qualified and ought to have been disqualified from contesting the said elections;

(b) a declaration that the 1st respondent was not duly elected with majority of lawful votes cast at the elections as his election is null and void and of no effect whatsoever:

(c) a declaration that the petitioner was duly elected and ought to have been returned as the votes cast in favour of the 1st respondent are wasted votes and the petitioner being the only qualified candidate who came second in terms of votes cast at the election;

(d) an order returning the petitioner as duly elected;

(e) in the alternative to all the above, an order of fresh and or bye elections in the whole local government area:

(f) any further relief the tribunal may deem fit to make in the circumstances;

(g) cost of the petition;

The 1st respondent filed his reply in which he traversed all the allegations of facts contained in the amended petition. It is particularly noteworthy that paragraph 7c of the amended petition regarding the proper withdrawal from service or resignation of appointment by the 1st respondent was specifically denied and put in issue. It was also averred that the election was conducted within the stipulated time and that there were no incidence of corrupt practices, violence, irregularities or electoral offences. As for the rest of the respondent’s i.e 2nd to 4th, they joined issues with the petitioner on the averments in the amended petition.

At the hearing, the petitioner called 15 witnesses and the 1st respondent 11 witnesses while 2nd and 4th respondents called 2 witnesses. Learned counsel on both sides submitted written addresses. And in a considered judgment, the tribunal upheld the reliefs (a and e) as per the amended petition and nullified the election