Hon. (Barr) Iquo Nyong of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) V. Elder (Dr) Ini Akpan of Action Congress Party (AC) & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

K. B. Akaahs, J. C. A.

The petitioner/Appellant and the 1st Respondent were among other candidates who contested election on the 28th of April, 2007 into the House of Representatives for ikono/ini Federal constituency of Akwa iborn State. The petitioner contested under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) while the 1st Respondent was sponsor by the Action Congress Party (AC). The contestant was vied for the election on the ticket of the Progressive Peoples party (PPA) was Honorable Ukata Sam Akpan. The result of the election as released by the 4th Respondent, independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were

Elder Dr. Ini Akapn Udoka (AC) 19,232;

Chief Ukata Akpan (PPA) 13, 786

Hon. Barr. Iquo Nyong Inyang (PDP) 13, 0444

Elder Dr. ini Akpan Udoka who scored the highest number of votes cast at the election was decleared winner and returned as the Member of the House of Representatives for the Ikono/lni Federal Constituency seal of Akwa Ibom State.

Dissatisfied with the result of the said election, the Petitioner filed a Petition on the 24th of May, 2007 before the National Assembly Election Tribunal of Akwa Ibom State sitting in Uyo claiming the following reliefs:

1. That it may be determined that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected and that his election was merely purported and void as the 1st Respondent was at the time not qualified to contest the election.
2. That the Petitioner was validly ejected and ought to be returned having scored the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election. Alternatively
3. That it be determined that arising from paragraph 20(1) herein she scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election and ought to be returned duly elected, the votes credited to the 1st respondent being null and void or that the said election was null and void.

The Petitioner called ’18 witnesses and she testified as PW 19 while the 1st Respondent called 29 witnesses and testified as RW 30. The 2nd – 12th Respondents called two witnesses who testified on their behalf. At the close of evidence the Tribunal ordered the parties to file written addresses and thereafter adopted same. Judgment was delivered on 28th November; 2007 dismissing the Petition.

The Petitioner appealed against the decision on 6 grounds of appeal. The records do not contain the date the Original Notice was filed but learned Senior Counsel for the appellant said the Notice was filed on 12/12/2007. 8 additional grounds of appeal were filed with leave on 11th March, 2008 thus bringing the total number of grounds contained in the Amended Notice to 14 from which a sale issue was formulated in the amended Appellant’s brief as follows:-

1, Whether 1st Respondent was qualified to contest the elections in the terms of Section 66(1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution to wit- whether he had lawfully determined his employment with the University of Uyo as an Associate Professor, 30 days before the Election date and if he did not and was therefore not qualified to contest the elections, what orders should this Honourable Court make in the circumstances?

The 1st respondent adopted the lone issue formulated by the appellant in her amended brief of argument.

The appeal falls to be decided on a very narrow compass. The main thrust of Mr. Paul Usoro, learned Seniors Counsel for the appellant argument is this: to determine if the appellant properly determine his employment, regard must be had to the conditions of employment which must be done to coincide with the end of the academic session so that the students academic programmme will not be disrupted by such resignation.

In paragraph 8 of the Petition it was averred as follows:

“8(1′) The 1st Respondent was at all material time a person employed in the public service of the Federal Government in the capacity of Associate Professor and Head of Department of History and International Studies, at the University of Uyo. The 1st Respondent had not resigned, withdrawn or retired from his employment with the University of Uyo thirty days before the date of the said election. ‘The Petitioner will rely on the letter from the 1st Respondent to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Uyo dated 2nd February, 2007; his salary pay advice for the months of January, February and March, 2007 and the 1st Respondent’s bank statement from Platinum Habib Bank Plc for the relevant period to show that the 1st Respondent received salary up to and including the month of March, 2007. The Petitioner also pleads the condition of service of the University of Uyo to show that the 1st Respondent did not comply with the stipulations for resignation. The petitioner further pleads notice of meeting dated 26th March, 2007, invitation to the President, Historical Society of Nigeria dated 27th March, 2007 and letter to the Dean, Faculty of Arts dated 2nd April, 2007 all signed by the 1st Respondent and a letter from Platinum Habib Bank Plc addressed to the Bursar, University of Uyo dated 11th April, 2007.