Chief Ojo Maduekwe V. Prince Onyeka Amadi Okoroafor & Ors (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUKHTAR, J.C.A. 

The case for the petitioner/appellant in the National Assembly Election Tribunal of Abia State were as follows: The petitioner was a candidate under the platform of the Social Democratic Party at the Aba Central Senatorial District Election held on 4/7/92, whilst the 1st respondent was a candidate of the National Republican Convention in same.

The 2nd – 7th respondents were officials involved in the election exercise.

The 1st respondent won by a slim majority of 1530 votes, his total votes being 63,808, and that of the petitioner 62,278.

The figures were arrived at after a reconstruction or recollection of the Arochukwu Local Government Area results four days after the election following allegation of rigging in the wards. The 2nd respondent constituted a committee for the purpose of the above, for which a report was written, but the recommendation for another election in that Local Government in that report was rejected, as the result of the 4/7/92 was announced and the 1st respondent was declared the winner, Amongst the complaints of the petitioner was that his agents were arrested and detained by the police on the order of an N.R.C. party stalwart, namely Chief Kalu Nkochi and that just before the start of the poll, some N.R.C. members snatched forms EC8s from the Supervisor for Ovukwu, and because of that and some other acts by them the election there was not fair and free. The petitioner made allegations of impropriety of various nature in respect of Ohafor Abam II Ward, and Ohaeke Abam Ward etc, mainly of intimidation and harassment of his agents, which resulted in latent irregularities and no results in some wards.

Another very serious allegation was that of undue influence by the 1st respondent and the Governor of Abia State, Dr. Ogbonnaya Onu; which was in main a purported address by the Governor a few days to the election at a gathering in Ohafia. A record video tape of the address was sought to be tendered as evidence to prove the allegation of undue influence, but it was rejected for lack of proper foundation.

On the other hand the 1st respondent asserted that the 2nd respondent’s declaration of his victory was lawful as he was directly elected to the Senate by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election. He admitted that there was delay in announcing the result but the 2nd respondent took necessary steps to satisfy himself of the correctness and genuineness of the votes. The 1st respondent denied that the results from Arochukwu Local Government were reconstructed or recollected from copies presented by the N.R.C. agents or that they were torn to pieces at the collation centre by angry protesters. He also denied all allegations levied against Chief Kalu Nkochi or that he (the 1st respondent) was privy or party to the allegations. As regards the allegations of malpractice in Ohafia and Ovukwu the 1st respondent denied them and further added that the petitioners agents signed the Ovukwu result for them. Consequently, the election of 4/7/92 was fair and free as well as peaceful. The allegation of undue influence was also denied. On their parts the 2nd – 7th respondents also denied most of the allegations of the petitioner, and in fact revealed that it was the petitioner’s agent and colleague, Chief Uche Okoroji who attempted to seize and destroy all the results and other N.E.C. documents at the collation centre. Conflicting reports were received by the 2nd respondent, hence the delay, as he wanted to consider all the reports before arriving at any decision. They denied that there was any report of malpractices, corrupt practices or undue influence from any of the polling stations.

Seven witnesses altogether gave evidence for both sides, and documentary evidence were also in the course of their evidence admitted. The tribunal after its evaluation and appraisal found that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it.

Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to this court first on seven grounds of appeal as contained in the notice of appeal that was properly filed within the time stipulated by paragraph (2) of the Practice Direction, No.2 of 1992. I say first, because on the 28/10/92, learned S.A.N. for the appellant filed a document headed “Notice of additional grounds of appeal”, which he sought to bring in and argue by way of oral application, but the application was refused on the ground that it was not properly before the court. That thus leaves us with only the grounds in the notice of appeal, which are as follows (but without their particulars):-

Ground One

1. Error in Law

The Tribunal erred in law when it held that the 7th respondent I.M. Amaocha, Electoral Officer, Arochukwu Local Government area was not a competent witness to testify on behalf of the petitioner/appellant.

Ground Two

i. Error in Law

The Tribunal erred in law when it rejected a tape recording tendered by the petitioner in proof of matters duly pleaded on the ground that “the witness did not tell the tribunal the maker of the tape of the time it was recorded and also the fact that no proper foundation was laid before the witness sought to tender the tape.