Chief John Odigie Oyegun V. Lucky Nosa Igbinedion & Ors (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NASIR, P.C.A.

On the 14th day of December, 1991 elections were held throughout the Federation under the State Government (Basic Constitutional and Transition Provisions) Decree, 1991 (No. 50 of 1991) (hereinafter called Decree 50) to elect the Governors and Members of the various Houses of Assembly for all the States. In Edo State the contest for the Governorship election was between Mr. Lucky Nosa Igbinedion who contested on the platform of the National Republican Convention on the one hand and Chief John Odigie Oyegun who contested on the platform of the Social Democratic Party. At the end of the election Chief Oyegun was successful and was so declared by the National Electoral Commission through the Returning Officer of the State, Alhaji Isa Mohammed who was the Resident Electoral Commissioner for Edo State.

Mr. Lucky Nosa Igbinedion being dissatisfied with the result filed an Election Petition ,before the Edo State Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal). This Tribunal was established under section 88 of Decree 50 and consisted of a Chairman and four members. In his Petition Mr. Igbinedion claimed against the successful candidate, Chief Oyegun, the National Electoral Commission and the State Resident Electoral Commissioner, Alhaji Isa Mohammed. The petitioner claimed in his amended Petition the following reliefs:-

“1. The governorship election conducted at (a) Oredo (b) Uhunmwonde (c) Orhionmwon (d) Ovia North East and (e) Ovia South West Local Government Areas of Edo State was invalid, null and void.

2. That the election of the 1st Respondent as Governor of Edo State is invalid, null and void.
3. That the 1st Respondent did not win the majority of lawful votes cast at the said election in Edo State.
4. (a) That the Petitioner won the majority of lawful votes cast at the said election, was duly elected and ought to have been declared as duly elected and/or returned. Or

(b) That a bye governorship election be held in the whole of Edo State. Or

(c) That a bye governorship election be held only in (i) Oredo

(ii) Orhionmwon (iii) Uhunmwonde (iv) Ovia North East and (v) Ovia South West Local Government of Edo State.”

The petitioner, Mr. Igbinedion, relied in his paragraphs 6-9 of the Petition on the following grounds (shorn of all their particulars which may be referred to if and when necessary):

6 “(a) That the said election conducted in (i) Oredo (ii) Orhionmwon (iii) Uhunmwonde (iv) Ovia North East and (v) Ovia North West Local Government Areas of Edo State was invalid by reason of corrupt practices, illegal practices and offences perpetrated by the 1st Respondent by himself and/or through his agents contrary to the provisions of the State Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 50 of 1991 governing the conduct of the said election. And the aforesaid offences have substantially affected the result of the election.

(b) That the Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes at the said election.

7 . Your Petitioner avers that the practices mentioned in paragraph 6 above were duly brought to the attention of the 3rd Respondent, but that he unreasonably discountenanced the same and proceeded to declare the 1st Respondent as having been duly elected on 15/12/91. The Petitioner will found on the various petitions and eye witnesses written accounts made available to the 3rd Respondent in this respect.

8. The 2nd Respondent has also there after ratified the result of the said election despite the numerous petitions by and on behalf of the Petitioner which said Petitions will be found upon at the trial.
9. The Petitioner states that whilst (sic) the curse of the Oba of Benin still hangs in that air and taking into consideration his immense authority over his people, there cannot be a free and fair election in the aforesaid Local Government Areas as most of his supporters will still refrain from voting for fear of being afflicted by either temporal or spiritual injuries”.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents to the Petition joined issues with the Petitioner in their respective amended Replies (pages 56-60 and 65-69 of Record). These Replies may be referred to if necessary. At the trial of the petition the main contention relied upon rested on a radio broadcast (Exhibit 9) by one of the witnesses, Chief Nosakhare Isekhure (D.W.5) Even though the Petitioner gave a number of other acts of violation of the electoral rules the Tribunal found in his favour only on the ground of the offensive broadcast. The Tribunal in its judgment stated as follows:

“This certainly was too much. We believe that the Oba of Benin had nothing to do with it. We believe also the 1st Respondent had no knowledge of this broadcast. It was the affair of Chief Isekhure in his youthful exuberance, We absolve the 1st Respondent of any blame in this matter. Chief Isekhure was never his agent for any purpose in the election. But as a consequence of this offensive broadcast, we are unable to hold that the election was free and fair.

Perhaps we need to add that it is not necessary for the candidate himself to be guilty of corrupt practices in order to avoid an election, It is sufficient that the election be marred with corrupt practices or other recognised grounds (Section 98 of the Decree).