Independent National Electoral Commission & Others V. Chief T.A. Orji & Ors (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal holding in Umuahia, Abia State (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”) and delivered on 25 February, 2008 in Petition No. ABS/GOV/EPT/4/2007.

The tribunal in its judgment nullified the election of the 1st and 2nd Respondents as the Governor and Deputy Governor respectively of Abia State. It declared and returned Onyema Ugochukwu and his running mate, Hon Chinwendu Nwanganga (the 4th and 5th Respondents in the Appeal hereof) as the duly elected Governor and Deputy Governor of Abia State. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Appellants have appealed against it on 14 Original Grounds and one Additional Ground of Appeal.

At the trial tribunal Onyema Ugochukwu and Hon. Chinwendu Nwanganga filed petition No.ABS/GOV/EPT/4/07 challenging the return of the 1st and 2nd Respondents hereof. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) filed Petition No. ABS/GOV/EPT/9/07 also challenging the return of the 1st and 2nd Respondents hereof.

The two Petitions were later consolidated. The Petitioners in ABS/GPV/EPT/4/07 were designated as “1st set of Petitioners” in the Tribunal. The Petitioners in ABS/GOV/EPT/9/07 WAS ALSO DESIGNATED as “2nd set of Petitioners”.

The judgment of the Tribunal was predicated on three issues and they are as follows:

(i) Whether the 1st and 2nd Petitioners in petition No. ABS/GOV/EPT/4/07 scored the majority of the lawful votes cast at the questioned election and not less than one quarter of all the votes cast in each of at least two thirds of all the Local Government Areas in Abia State?

(ii) Whether the election of the 1st Respondent is voided by substantial malpractices?

(iii) Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents were qualified to contest the questioned election?

The tribunal resolved ISSUES (i) AND (ii) against the Petitioners and in favour of the Appellants and the 1st – 3rd Respondents hereof.

The Tribunal equally resolved ISSUE (iii) against the Appellants and the 1st -3rd Respondents hereof and in favour of the Petitioners.

This appeal challenges the resolution of the aforesaid issue in favour of the Petitioners.

The tribunal made a finding that the 1st Respondent is a member of an alleged secret society. It equally found that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were “public Servants” and that they did not resign their appointments within “30 days” of the questioned election.

In so doing the tribunal relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW5.