Alhaji Musa Dikko Kalgo V. Abdullahi Magaji Kalgo & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD J.C.A.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducted elections nationwide into the various State Legislative Houses on the 9th of January, 1999. The appellant herein, as petitioner at the lower tribunal, was fielded by the All Peoples Party (APP) to contest for the seat in the Kebbi State House of Assembly representing Kalgo Constituency. 1st respondent contested along with him under the banner of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). 1st respondent was returned elected with majority votes of 6,463 as against appellant’s 5,623. The appellant disputed the results and declaration of the 1st respondent as the winner of the said election. In his petition to the Gubernatorial and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal for Kebbi State (the tribunal), the appellant set out the following grounds:-

The 1st respondent is/was a person disqualified from contesting the Kebbi State House of Assembly election by reason of not having validly resigned his employment with Bunza Local Government Education Authority before his adventure into partisan politics.

(ii) The 1st respondent is/was a person not qualified or disqualified from contesting and being elected as a member of Kebbi State House of Assembly and has not paid his tax as at when due for the last 3 years preceding the date of the election.

(iii) The 1st respondent is/was a person not qualified or disqualified for election to Kebbi State House of Assembly as he knowingly presented a forged/false certificate of tax clearance to the 4th respondent in his bid to be cleared for contest.

(iv) And your petitioner states that the election was voided by corrupt practices, offences and non-compliance with the provisions of Decree 3 of 1999 – State Government/ Basic constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree 1999:

a. agent of the 1st respondent and some of the supporters of the PDP in some parts of the Kalgo Local Government Constituency committed acts of multiple voting and have by so doing distorted the true result of the election to the prejudice of the petitioner Evidence was taken by the tribunal and at the end, the tribunal dismissed the petition as appellant could not prove his allegations.

Dissatisfied with the tribunals declaration, appellant appealed to this Court. He filed a Notice of Appeal containing five grounds of appeal. Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. In his brief, learned counsel for the appellant formulated two issues for determination –

“(i) Whether on consideration of the weight of evidence before the decision of the tribunal below is not perverse.

(ii) Whether the tribunal below was right in not cancelling 848 votes scored for the 1st respondent on ballot papers which bore the stamp of ‘NECON’ on the ground that the appellant pleaded 1267 illegal votes.”

Learned counsel for the 1st respondent formulated the following issues:-.

“(a) Whether or not there was any admissible evidence sufficient probative value on which tribunal below could have found that the 1st respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

(b) Whether the tribunal below was right in not cancelling 848 votes scored by the 1st respondent on ballot papers which bore the stamp of NECON or were not signed on the reverse side.

2nd – 4th respondents adopted the issues formulated by the 1st respondent. On the hearing date, the parties each, adopted and relied on his brief of argument.