Hon Abdul Ahmed Ningi & Anor. V. Salisu Zakari & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ALFRED P. EYEWUMI AWALA, J.C.A.

This appeal is founded on the General Election held nationwide on 21/4/07 for’ a seat at the Federal House of Representatives at Abuja. The 1st Appellant contested for the seat meant for Ningi/Warji Federal Constituency of Bauchi State under the platform of the 2nd Appellant whilst the 1st Respondent equally contested same under the auspices of the 2nd Respondent At the end of the collation of the election results, the 1st Appellant scored 43,828 votes whilest 1st Respondent scored 66,724 votes. The 1st Respondent was declared the winner by the 5th Respondent.

The Appellants dissatisfied with the declaration and the return of he 1st Respondent as the winner of the election petitioned the Governorship and Legislature House Election Petition Tribunal holden at Bauchi in petition No NAGLH/EPT/BA/19/07 on 19/5/07 (hereinafter called the lower tribunal).

In paragraph 7 of their petition the petitioners stated the grounds upon which they challenge the result of the election as follows:-

(i) “The 1st Respondent was indicted by a military panel (Regimental) of inquiry on the 6th day of January, 1992 by virtue of the Nigeria Army Act, Cap 294 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

(ii) That the 1st Respondent was a public servant in the service of the Bauchi state Government and had not retired, withdrawn or resigned from its employment thirty days before the date of the said election contrary to section 66(1)(f) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(iii) That by virtue of the provisions of section 34(1) of the Electoral Act, 2006 the 2nd Respondent was legally bound to inform the 3rd Respondent of any change of its candidate in the election not later than 60 days before the election date by 13/2/07 latest

(iv) That except in the event of death as provided for under Section 34(3) of the electoral Act, 2006 no substitution of candidate can be done outside the date referred to in paragraph (iii) above.

(v) That by March 2007 one Adamu Shehu Suleiman “was the candidate of the 2nd Respondent for the election and the 2nd Respondent did not inform the 3rd. Respondent of the change or substitution of its candidate within the time frame stipulated under Section 34 (1) of the electoral Act, 2006..

(vi) That the said Adamu Shehu Suleiman who was the candidate of the 2nd Respondent and ought to be the 2nd Respondent’s flag-bearer at the election.

(vii) That the alleged substitution of Adamu Shehu Suleiman with the 1st Respondent on 19/3/07 less than 60 days to the election in question contravened Section 34(1) and violated Section 35 both of the electoral Act, 2006.

(viii) That for ‘the reasons aforesaid, the 1st Respondent was not qualified to contest the election to his knowledge and that of the electorates.

(ix) That for the reasons aforesaid, the 2nd Respondent had no candidate for the election.

The reliefs sought by the petitioners, summarily are:-