Ahmed Tambaya Dawanau V. Sale Shehu Kuidawa (1998)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.
Ahmed Tambaya Dawanau the petitioner herein contested the Local Government Election under the banner of the National Centre Party of Nigeria (NCPN) along with Sale Shehu Kuidawa, the respondent and his opponent of the Democratic Party of Nigeria (DPN). After collation of results none of the two contestants for the Chairmanship of Dawakin Tafa Local Government Council could secure of the votes cast in each of at least 2/3 of the wards in the local Government Area. As a result, the National Electoral Commission of Nigeria (NECON) declared a run-off. Before the run-off could be held, (NECON) later presented the respondent to the Government as the Chairman of D/Tofa Local Government Area and he was accordingly sworn in.
Aggrieved by the action of NECON, the petitioner filed his petition before the Kano state Election Tribunal. After hearing the parties, the Election Tribunal delivered its decision which favoured the petitioner and that NECON should conduct a run-off between the (NCPN) and the (CPN). The respondent felt aggrieved by the Election Tribunal decision and he appealed to the Kano state Election Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the run-off order and affirmed the election of the respondent as the duly elected Chairman of D/Tofa Local Government Council hence the petition of the present petitioner to Government for a review.
Two issues were formulated by the Hon. Attorney General of the Federation in the brief filed by his office. These issues are:
“1. Whether Appellant/Respondent was qualified to be elected as the Chairman of Dawakin Tofa Local Government Area or to be returned as the winner of the election.
- Whether the judgment of the Appeal Tribunal was influenced in favour of Appellant.”
It was submitted that the D/Tofa Local Government Area of Kano state has eleven wards for the purposes of the elections. The petitioner admitted scoring the highest votes in only four wards. The respondent admitted scoring the highest votes in six of the wards. For a candidate to get the 1/4 of votes cast in each of at least 2/3 of the wards, would mean that the candidate had to win in seven wards of the 11 wards of the Local Government Area. It was confirmed by NECON that the petitioner scored in four wards and the respondent scored in five wards. So both contestants failed to secure the 1/4 of the votes cast in each of at least 2/3 of all the wards in the Local Government Area.
On the 2nd issue, it was submitted that NECON’s declaration of the respondent as duly elected Chairman of the Local Government Area, after the run-off declaration was a suggestion that NECON was influenced to discountenance its earlier run-off declaration.
I think the procedure for election, where only two candidates, emerge to contest for the Chairmanship of a Local Government has been made quite clear by the provisions of section 11(1) of schedule 4 of the Local Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree No.7 of 1997. The section states:
“11(1) A candidate for an election to the office of the Chairman shall be deemed to have been elected where, there being only two candidates for the election
(a) he has a majority of the votes cast at the election, and
(b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two thirds of all the wards in the Local Government Area or Area council, as the case may be.”(Underlining for emphasis).
This provision needs no other rule of interpretation apart from the golden rule. After the collation of results of all the wards it was found that none of the aspirants fulfilled the requirement of this provision. It therefore became obvious on NECON to conduct a run-off election. NECON, through its notification letter No.NECON/PT/ADM/09/Vol.11.939 of March 16th 1997 addressed to parties Chairmen of the Local Government notified the Chairmen that there would be a run-off election between the petitioner and the respondent. One would ask at this juncture: what made NECON to change its mind thereafter to declare the respondent as the Chairman elect of the Local Government. Whatever be the reason for the change of mind, I think NECON had somersaulted at that point in time. It will certainly be difficult to escape the accusation of high-handedness. With regard to the decision of the Appeal Tribunal’s decision, I am not satisfied with their reasoning process. They left the ghost and followed its shadow. In fact they had no cogent reason to tamper with the decision of the Election Tribunal which, in my view is unassailable.
In the final result, I hereby sustain the petition. I set aside the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. I restore hereby and affirm the decision of the Election Tribunal which directed NECON to conduct a run-off election between the petitioner and the respondent.
Other Citations: (1998)LCN/0453(CA)
