Musa Salihu Ankpa & Ors V. John Ibrahim Maikarfi & Anor (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Niger State Governorship and Legislative Houses election petition tribunal, Minna delivered on the 4th day of October, 2007.

The facts leading to this Appeal are that on the 14th April 2007 elections were held into the various States House of Assembly throughout Nigeria.

The 1st Appellant was returned by the 3rd Appellant as the winner of the Election in Paikoro Local Government Constituency.

The 1st Respondent as a Petitioner challenged the return of the 1st Appellant alleging that the results from three (3) polling units in two Wards were not counted because agents of the 2nd Appellant snatched the ballot boxes containing votes cast at those units and ran away with them.

On the 12th day of May 2007, the Respondents as Petitioners filed a petition before the Niger State Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Minna, praying for the following reliefs:

(a) That the snatching of three (3) ballot boxes by the agents of the 2nd Respondent were unlawful.

(b) That the ballot boxes then in the custody of the Police and 4th Respondent be produced and the votes therein counted.

(c) That the election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provision of the law

(d) That the 1st Respolldent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

(e) That the 1st petitioner be duly returned as the candidate with the highest number of votes.”

The Petitioners main complaints were as follows:

“1. That the results in paragraph 5 of the Petition were arrived at after the 3rd Respondent counted only the vote cast in nine (9) out of the eleven wards of the local Government (Constituency).

2. That result from the three (3) polling Units in two wards were not counted because agents of the 2nd Respondent snatched the ballot boxes (containing votes cast) from those Stations or Units and ran away with them. ”

The 1st and 2nd Respondents/Appellants filed a 16 paragraph reply before the Tribunal, wherein they contended as follows: