Isah Ogrima Amoka V. Bello Alhaji Abdullahi & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PER RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

The appellant herein was the 1st respondent in a petition presented jointly by one Bello Alhaji Abdullahi and the Peoples Democratic Party before the State House of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Lokoja, Kogi State the petitioners prayed for the following reliefs:-

“1. The 1st respondent was not duly and validly elected or returned as the winner of the election in Okene Central I Constituency of Kogi State owing to the fundamental vice that vitiated the election, that is, the unlawful exclusion of the 1st petitioner who was validly nominated but was unlawfully excluded from the election.

2. that the election and return of the 1st respondent is null and void.
3. that your 1st Petitioner was validly nominated by your 2nd petitioner but was unlawfully excluded from the election by the 2nd – 5th respondents.
4. that the whole exercise in Okene Central I Constituency of Kogi State on 14th April, 2007 is null and void and should not have taken place due to the omission committed by the respondents which adversely affected your 1st petitioner.
5. that a fresh election be conducted by the 5th respondent for Okene Central I Constituency of the Kogi State House of Assembly election using a ballot paper containing your 2nd petitioners logo or that your petitioners be treated equally and similarly as other candidates and parties at the fresh election. ”

After the respondents were served with copies of the petition, the respondents entered conditional memorandum of appearance. The respondents also filed preliminary objections. The grounds on which the objections were founded were:-

“1. An order striking out the petition for non-compliance with Sections 141, 144 (1) (a) and 145 of the Electoral Act, respectively.

2. An order that the Petitioners have no locus standi to bring the petition as they are not Persons referred to under Sections 144 (1) and 145(2) of the Electoral Act to present a petition.
3. An order that this Honourable Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.”

Arguments in respect of the preliminary objections and the substantive petition were taken together. In respect of the preliminary objections, the tribunal ruled among other things that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

With regards to the Petitioners locus standi to bring the petition this is what the Tribunal said:-

”Based on the authority of OKONKWO Vs INEC (Supra) IFEANYI CHUKWU VS INEC (Supra) and ADEBUSUYI Vs ODUYOYE (Supra). We have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the 1st Petitioner was not a candidate at the election of 14th April, 2007. The 1st Petitioner not being a candidate in the election, he lacks the locus standi to bring this petition by virtue of Section 144 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act, 2006, See IBRAHIM Vs INEC and ORS (Supra). Based on the above, the 1st Petitioners name is hereby struck out of this case.

The second Petitioner is PDP. By virtue of Section 144 (1) (b) of the Electoral Act, a political party which participated in election may present a petition in respect of that election. ”

After disposing of the preliminary objections the Tribunal then considered the petition as a whole and came to the following conclusion:-

“Having (sic) taking into consideration the entire evidence before us and the provisions of the Electoral Act, we hereby hold that the election into the Kogi State House of Assembly conducted on 14th April, 2007 was not conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act. Therefore the 1st Respondent was not validly elected. In accordance with the provisions of Section 147(2) of the Electoral Act, 2006 the election is hereby nullified.

The 5th respondent is hereby ordered to conduct a fresh election using a ballot paper which must include the name and logo of the 2nd Petitioner whose candidate again was validly nominated but unlawfully excluded from the election of 14th April, 2007.”

The 1st respondent was not satisfied with this decision, he therefore appealed to this Court. His Notice of Appeal contains twelve grounds of appeal.

The 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th respondents were also aggrieved by this decision. They too appealed to this court. They filed six grounds of appeal. The two appeals were later consolidated by the order of this court. Briefs were filed and exchanged.