Chief Okechukwu Ambrose Ahiwe & Ors v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & Ors (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

On 18/3/2023, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the 1st respondent, conducted an election for the Governorship seat of Abia State. On 22/3/2023, it declared the 2nd respondent, who was sponsored by the 3rd respondent, as the winner of the election.

The 1st appellant, sponsored by the 2nd appellant came second. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the election, the appellants on 11/4/2023 presented a petition challenging the return of the 2nd respondent on the three grounds, to wit:

(1). The non-qualification of the 2nd respondent,

(2). Lack of majority of lawful votes cast,

(3). Corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

Hearing commenced on 26/7/2023. The petitioners called 22 witnesses and tendered exhibits P1 to P191. The 1st and 2nd respondents called one witness each.

The 2nd respondent tendered exhibits D1 to D16. The 3rd respondent did not lead evidence. On 6/10/2023, the honourable tribunal delivered a judgment dismissing the petition of the appellants. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the lower court on 2/12/2023 dismissed the appeal. Miffed, the appellants have filed this appeal before the apex court.

After exchange of briefs by parties, the appellants through their lead counsel, Alade Agbabiaka, SAN, nominated these issues for determination in the brief filed on 23/12/2023:

1. Whether the lower court was right when it affirmed the honourable tribunal’s decision that the appellants failed to prove that the 2nd respondent was not qualified to contest the Elections?
2. Whether the lower court was right when it affirmed the striking out by the honourable tribunal of paragraphs 30-44 of the petition on the ground that they are pre-election complaints?
3. Whether the decision of the lower court on the matters of pleadings, evidence and formulation of issues for determination in an appeal are correct in law and not perverse?
4. Whether, in the particular circumstances of this case, the appellants can be rightly said to have had a fair hearing and/or a fair trial at the honourable tribunal.

J. T. U. Nnodum, SAN, the lead counsel to the 1st respondent formulated these issues for determination in their brief of argument filed on 30/12/2023:

(a) Whether the lower court was right when it affirmed the tribunal’s decision that paragraphs 30 to 44 of the petition were incompetent being concerned with pre-election matters and, in the alternative, that the appellants did not prove non-qualification of the 2nd respondent.

(b) Whether the lower court was right, when it affirmed, the tribunal’s decision that PW4, PW16, PW’17, PW18 and PW22 were incompetent witnesses and that the appellants did not prove the second and third grounds of their petition.

(c) Whether the lower court infringed on the appellants’ right to fair hearing in the determination of their appeal.

A. J. Owonikoko, SAN, with his team representing the 2nd respondent, filed their brief of argument on 6/1/2024 and distilled these issues: