Hon. Jeffrey Moses Owor V. Hon. Bereware Christopher & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Port Harcourt, Rivers State, delivered on 25/2/2008 dismissing the Petitioner’s (now the Appellant) petition. The election was for the House of Representatives for OPOBO/NKORO and ANDONI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY of River State.

The Petitioner was the candidate for the DPP and the 1st Respondent was a candidate for the PDP. From the facts gathered in his 20-paragraphed petition, relevant to this case, the petitioner stated that on 23/4/2007 the Returning officer (4th Respondent) wrongly declared that the 1st Respondent had won the election by polling 119,828 votes and the petitioner polled only 5,303 votes. The Petitioner contended at the Tribunal that the 1st respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful and/or valid votes cast at the election. He pleaded that the votes credited to the two candidates were not the product of the votes cast at the election into the House of Representatives for the said OPOBO/NKORO and ANDONI Federal constituency at the election of 21/4/2007. The petitioner claimed that the 1st Respondent was not and could not have been validly elected as there were no designated polling units for OPOBO/NKORO Local Government Areas by the 2nd Respondent (INEC). It was contended that no votes were cast at the polling units in the Constituency and therefore no election could have taken place in the said Local Government Areas. The petitioner therefore prayed the Tribunal to declare that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected and that it be determined that the election was void on the ground that it was not conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions, of the Electoral Act 2006 and the 1999 Constitution.

The 1st Respondent filed a reply of 40 paragraphs in which he denied but admitted a number of paragraphs of the petition. The joint reply of the 2nd, 7th Respondents has 16 paragraphs. They admitted and denied also a number of paragraphs of the petition.

Both sets of respondents joined issues with the petitioner on the allegations pleaded by the petitioner.

Pleadings were exchanged, pretrial session held and the matter was set down for hearing. The petitioner called PW1 the lone witness.

The 1st Respondent called three witnesses (DW1, DW2 and DW3). The 2nd – 7th Respondents called 3 witnesses (DW4, DW5 and DW6).

After the final addresses, the Tribunal in its judgment of 25/2/08 dismissed the petition. Hence, the reason for this Notice of Appeal containing 13 grounds of appeal. The issues identified by the Appellant for the determination of this appeal are as follows:

“ISSUE 1

3.1 Whether all allegations of non-compliance with the provisions of Electoral Act are criminal in nature and therefore require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

(Issue 1 is distilled from ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal)

ISSUE 2

3.2 whether the Election Tribunal was right to review and set aside its earlier decision on the admissibility of Exhibit p1 (1-20).

(Issue 2 is distilled from ground II of the Notice of Appeal)