Action Congress Of Nigeria V. Sule Lamido & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OBANDE OGBUINYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is an offshoot of the judgment of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal of Jigawa State, delivered on 24/10/2011, wherein the appellant’s petition was dismissed.

The facts leading the appeal are not complicated. The third respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), conducted an election into the office of the Governor of Jigawa State of Nigeria on 26/04/2011. The appellant, Action Congress of Nigeria, a registered political parry in Nigeria, fielded one Mohammed Badaru Abubakar as its flag bearer and both of them contested the election. The said gubernatorial, candidate of the appellant was not a party to the petition.

The second respondent, Peoples Democratic Party, also a registered political party, had the first respondent, Sule Lamido, as its standard bearer in that governorship election. Seven other political parties with their respective candidate partook in the election. After the electoral exercise, the INEC declared and returned the first respondent as the winner with the majority votes of 676,307 as against those of the appellant score of 343,177 votes.

The appellant was irked by the declaration and return of the first respondent and it challenged the validity of the election in a petition presented on 17/05/2011 before the tribunal. In a swift reaction to the appellant’s petition, the first and second respondents filed a 20 – paragraph joint reply on 03/06/2011. In the same view, the third – fifth respondents filed their 10 – paragraph joint reply on 25/05/2011 after they had entered appearance on 19/05/2011. The grounds upon which the petition was based were:

(a) That the 1st Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election.

(b) That the election is invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010.

(c) That the 3rd – 5th Respondents wrongly computed majority of lawful votes cast at the election by accepting as valid unlawful votes counted as cast for the 1st Respondent even though the said figures were altered and inflated and are products of artificial polling units.

(d) The election is invalid by reasons of corrupt practices multiple thumb printing and vote rigging.”

Consequently, the appellant prayed the tribunal as follows:

a) That the 1st respondent at the time of the election is not qualified to contest the election.

b) That the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010.

c) That the 1st Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

d) That the election of the 1st respondent be nullified on the ground that he was not qualified to contest election and declare the petitioner’s candidate as the duly elected having satisfied the requirements of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and the Election Act 2010.