All Nigeria Peoples Party & Anor V. Umar Abubakar T. Argungu & Ors (2008)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, J. C. A.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the National Assembly and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal holden at Birnin Kebbi, Kebbi State delivered on the 15th day of October, 2007, in respect of petition No. KB/EPT/SEN/4/07 consolidated with petition No. KB/EPT/SEN/6/2007 in which judgment was delivered on the 15th day of October, 2007.
The election for the member representing Kebbi North Senatorial District in the National Assembly was conducted by INEC, the 3rd respondent on the 21st of April, 2007.
At the conclusion of the said election, the 3rd respondent, declared the 1st respondent, Umar Abubakar T. Argungu who scored the highest number of lawful votes, 203,986 the winner of the election. The 1st respondent was sponsored for the said election by the 2nd respondent, the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) while the 2nd appellant, Senator Sani A. Kamba, was sponsored by the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), the 1st appellant.
Unhappy, with the declaration and return of the 1st respondent, the 1st and 2nd appellants who were the petitioners challenged the declaration and return of the 1st respondent by a petition dated the 21st day of May, 2007, the said petition is at pages 1 – 96 of the record. On being served with the said petition, the 1st and 2nd respondents filed a memorandum of conditional appearance and subsequently filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the petition and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the petition.
On 11/6/2007, the 1st and 2nd respondents filed a joint reply contained at pages 101 – 110 of the record.
By agreement of the parties during the prehearing session, the preliminary objection was rolled over for hearing along with the petition.
On the 12th day of June, 2007, the Tribunal consolidated the two petitions as both petitioners were challenging the same return of the 1st respondent (see pages 347 – 348 of the record). At the end of the pre-hearing conference, a report was issued by the Tribunal which is at pages 161 – 164 of the record. The parties in the petitions mutually agreed to tender across the bar, documents which were admitted in evidence and adopted their respective witnesses’ statements without cross-examining the deponents. As a result, the entire trial was conducted by counsel to the parties by tendering documents across the bar and the adoption of their respective witnesses’ statements. The 1st and 2nd respondents formulated and adopted the following issues for determination by the Tribunal in the petition contained at pages 162 of the record as follows:
“(1) Whether or not having regard to the basis of and the facts in support of Grounds of the petition, or any of them, the Tribunal has jurisdiction or is competent to entertain this petition.
(2) Whether within the intendment of Section 145(1)(a) of the Electoral Act and Section 65(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, the 1st respondent was qualified to contest election into Kebbi North Senatorial District held on 21/4/07.
(3) Whether or not the infractions of the Electoral Act, 2006 as alleged, if established as required by law, constitutes substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2006.”
As argued at the pre-hearing conference, Exhibits ‘P6’ – ‘P11′ were tendered by counsel across the bar. Also, in petition No. KB/EPT/SEN/4/2007, exhibits “Pl”, “P2”, “P3”, “P4” and “P5” were tendered by the learned counsel for the appellants as petitioners across the bar. Parties filed their respective written address.
The Tribunal in its judgment in respect of the consolidated petitions at page 402 – 403, of the record, dismissed the consolidated petition when it held,
“We have carefully perused the witness statements on oath alongside exhibits “P6” – “P11”. We are unable to see the connection. The allegations of corrupt practices or electoral irregularities did not pinpoint the polling stations in which the malpractices took place. Most of the witnesses who gave evidence at the polling stations were those that related what they were told and even those that attended the polling units could not relate the result thereat to any of the exhibits tendered before us. See BUHARI V. OBASANJO (2005) 18 NWLR (PT.956) 96 and PROF. ERIC OPIA V. CHIEF FELIX IBRU & ORS. (1992) 3 NWLR (PT.231) 658.
Leave a Reply