Boma Goodhead V. Mr. Otelemaba Amachree & Ors (2005)(2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal holden at Port Harcourt, Rivers State of Nigeria delivered on 7th May, 2004. The Petition of the Appellant herein, as Petitioner thereat, against the Respondents was, after a full hearing, dismissed.

It is necessary to recapitulate the background facts leading to these appeals so as to have a clear focus in considering the issues postulated in the appeals. Election to place adequate indigenes of Rivers State on the vacant seats at the River State House of Assembly was conducted on the 3rd of May, 2003. The Appellant herein and Petitioner at the Tribunal contested the election on the platform of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP for short) while the 1st Respondent contested under the banner of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP for short). The contest was in respect of Asari-Toru Local Government Constituency 1 (one) seat.

After the completion of polls, the 2nd and 5th Respondents declared the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election and returned him accordingly. The votes scored by the parties should be stated. The petitioner scored 559 votes while the 1st Respondent scored 19,627 votes.

The Appellant felt dissatisfied with the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the stated election. As petitioner, she challenged the return at the lower Tribunal. She prayed in paragraph 22 of her petition as follows:-

See also  Chief J. E. Ukusare & Ors. V. Chief Murphy Ejumudo & Ors. (2000) LLJR-CA

“(a) An order of the Tribunal that the election is invalid for reasons of non-compliance with substantial sections of the Electoral Act, 2002.

(b) An order of the Tribunal that the election is invalid for reasons of corrupt Practices.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE:

That the 1st Respondent (Mr. OTELEMABA DAN AMACHREE) was not validly and duly elected or returned by a majority of law votes cast in the election HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF May, 2003 for the Rivers State House of Assembly, Asari-Toru Local Government Constituency 1 (one) as required by law.”

Upon the completion of ‘pleadings’, the Petitioner called 28 witnesses including herself as P.W.28. She tendered 52 Exhibits. The 1st Respondent called 9 witnesses and tendered 16 Exhibits. The 2nd set of Respondents called two witnesses and tendered two Exhibits.

The case of the Petitioner as can be gathered from her pleadings and evidence is that in the morning of 3rd May, 2003 the Petitioner with some of her party agents went to INEC office at Buguma. There, they saw 15 vehicles loaded with election materials. Accompanied by INEC officials and Military personnel, the vehicles drove off the premises.

The materials were diverted to the house of PDP Chieftain for unlawful purpose. The materials were not supplied to the polling units of Asari-Toru Constituency 1 (one) by the Supervisory Presiding Officers. At all the 100 polling units, Presiding Officers, party agents, polling clerks and orderliness as well as the electorates waited to no avail as there was no election due to the absence of election materials. This version was put up by P.Ws. 1-3; 5-28.

See also  International Tobacco Company Plc. V. Nafdac (2007) LLJR-CA

on the other hand,P.W.4 gave evidence to the contrary.He said he supplied voting materials to Supervisory Presiding officers who distributed them to Presiding officers who used them for the election. P.W.4 said he distributed election forms to the wards collation officers. Elections were properly conducted with forms duly completed and collations were made at Wards and Constituency levels of Asari-Toru constituency 1. Results were duly announced on 3-5-03.

The Respondents denied the claim of the Petitioner and contended that prior to the election, ANPP, Petitioner’s Political party, withdrew from participating in the election. They felt that the Petitioner did not take part in the election. In this direction, Exhibits D17 and D18 were tendered. The Respondents maintained that the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of Part II of the Electoral Act, 2002.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *